Category Archives: People

Canal carrying 1846: the Royal Canal

Isaac Slater’s Directory[i] of 1846 lists those carrying goods on inland waterways. There is a long list for Dublin; entries for other towns list those providing local services [there are some conflicts between the lists: see below]. However, the Dublin list shows only two carriers on the Royal Canal:

  • the Royal Canal Company [RCC] itself (Samuel Draper, Secretary) at the Broadstone in Dublin
  • John M’Cann & Sons, Liffey lock, North Wall, where the Royal Canal joins the River Liffey.

I noted here that two published histories of the Royal Canal, and a history of the Midland Great Western Railway [MGWR], suggested that the RCC/MGWR did not commence carrying goods themselves, on their own canal, until the 1870s. However, I had come across an MGWR ad, from 1853, beginning

The Directors will receive Proposals for the Haulage of their Trade Boats to and from Dublin and Longford and the River Shannon […].

The material in Slater’s Directory strengthens the notion that the RCC/MGWR did engage in carrying well before the 1870s, although the nature of the contractual relationships is not clear. Note also that Peter Clarke’s Appendix C[ii] lists “Boat Owners operating on the Royal Canal 1826 to 1847” including four RCC boats as well as four MGWR boats.

Destinations

M’Cann and RCC both provide long lists of the destinations they serve:

  • RCC: Athlone, Ballinafad, Ballymahon, Balnacarig, Balnalack, Boyle, Boyne aqueduct, Carrick on Shannon, Castlerea, Colooney, Coolnahay, Downs Bridge, Dromod, Drumsna, Ferns, Glasson, Hill of Down, Junction [which may be the junction between the main line and the Longford Branch], Kenagh, Kilcock, Lanesborough, Leixlip, Longford, Maynooth, Moyvalley, Mullingar, Newcastle, Newtownforbes, Rathowen, Roscommon, Ruskey, Rye aqueduct, Sligo, Terlicken, Thomastown, Toome Bridge
  • M’Cann: Arvagh, Athlone, Ballaghaderin, Ballina, Ballinamore, Ballyfarnon, Ballymahon, Ballymore, Ballymote, Boyle, Carrick on Shannon, Castlerea, Dromod, Drumkerrin [Drumkeeran?], Drumlish, Drumshambo, Drumsna, Dunmore, Edgeworthstown, Elphin, Fenagh, Granard, Lanesborough, Longford, Mohill, Roscommon, Ruskey, Strokestown, Tenelick Mills, Tulsk.

I thought it might be interesting to show these destinations on a map. Note that the map is from the 25″ Ordnance Survey map of around 1900 rather than the 6″ of around 1840: I used it because it was clearer, but it shows features (eg railway lines) that were not present in 1846.

Click on the map to get a slightly larger version.

Royal Canal carriers M'Cann and RCC 1846 (OSI)

Royal Canal carriers M’Cann and RCC 1846 (OSI)

I can’t stand over every location marked on the map (as it were). Spellings of place-names were sometimes not those in use today; some place-names (Ballinamore, Ballymore, Newcastle) are used of two or more places that might have been those intended; I could not identify two places, Dunmore and Junction, although I suspect the latter may be the junction between the main line and the Longford Branch of the canal.

What is interesting, though, is the different emphases in the two firms’ marketing. The Royal Canal Company lists almost every location along its canal; M’Cann offers a wide range of destinations beyond the canal, presumably linked by cars on the roads, into Counties Longford, Cavan, Roscommon, Westmeath, Mayo and Sligo. The RCC serves some such destinations, but a smaller number of them.

Some of the locations listed are small places; my presumption — which I have not yet checked, but for which I have found some supporting examples — is that such places have mills, quarries or other industries that provide cargoes for the canal.

The Shannon and the roads

Both operators offer to serve destinations on the River Shannon, to which the Royal Canal is joined at Clondra/Richmond Harbour:

  • RCC: Athlone, Carrick on Shannon, Dromod, Drumsna, Glasson, Lanesborough, Ruskey
  • M’Cann: Athlone, Carrick on Shannon, Dromod, Drumshambo, Drumsna, Lanesborough, Ruskey.

It is possible that goods to those places were carried by water, although (if steam tugs were not available) that would have been slow and uncertain; given that there were good roads leading from the west to the Shannon and throughout the region, it is, I think, likely that these destinations were served by road. I have no evidence on the matter save that the directory entries for Carrick-on-Shannon, Drumsna and Jamestown do not mention the availability of water transport.

Some of those destinations were served by direct road services from Dublin:

  • Athlone, Ballina, Castlerea, Dunmore, Longford, Roscommon, Sligo, Thomastown.

Competition presumably kept charges down.

Other carriers

Slater’s Directory lists six corn merchants in Longford, all with addresses at Market Square. One, John Delany, also had an address in Sligo and presumably exported via that port, carrying by road; the other five all had Dublin as well as Longford addresses.

One was John McCann, whose operations are shown in red on the map; he was the only one listed as a Dublin-based carrier, but three of the other four firms also carried goods regularly towards Dublin: Francis & John Pilsworth’s boats left Longford on Mondays and Thursdays, as did Thomas & Edward Duffy’s boats; Farrelly & Killard’s boats left once a week. Only Nicholas Butler did not offer transport. The Duffy and Pilsworth boats also carried goods in both directions from Mullingar. My guess is that carrying goods from others helped these merchants to cover the costs of their own fleets.

Peter Clarke’s Appendix C suggests that M’Cann’s fleet was the smallest of those based in Longford. The list is of “Boat Owners operating on the Royal Canal 1826 to 1847” but I am not entirely clear what the list shows. It seems unlikely, for instance, that the Midland Great Western Railway owned four boats throughout the period, as the company did not exist for most of it. Is the number of boats the largest that an owner had, or used, in a peak year, or an average over several years?

I don’t, therefore, know how to interpret the list but, assuming that the same methods were applied to all owners, it seems that the fleet sizes were these:

  • Duffy Bros 12
  • Pilsworths 9
  • M’Cann 5
  • Royal Canal Company 4.

Neither Farrelly nor Killard is listed, but there are many others: Dunne 8, Kelly 6, Murtagh 6, Murphy 5, MGWR 4, Williamson 4, and many others with 1, 2 or 3 boats each. Again, it is not clear in which years those owners had those numbers of boats.

More

As far as I know, little has been written about the carrying companies, especially those of the nineteenth century. I would be glad to hear from anyone who can correct, supplement or comment on this information.


[i] I Slater’s National Commercial Directory of Ireland: including, in addition to the trades’ lists, alphabetical directories of Dublin, Belfast, Cork and Limerick. To which are added, classified directories of the important English towns of Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds and Bristol; and, in Scotland, those of Glasgow and Paisley. Embellished with a large new map of Ireland, faithfully depicting the lines of railways in operation or in progress, engraved on steel. I Slater, Manchester, 1846

[ii] Peter Clarke The Royal Canal: the complete story ELO Publications, Dublin 1992

My OSI logo and permit number for website

Canal carrying 1846: Dublin to Waterford

Lowtown is at the western end of the summit level of the Grand Canal; it thus has some claim to be the highest point on the canal. It is close to the village of Robertstown in County Kildare.

Lowtown is also the site of the junction between the main (Dublin to Shannon) line of the Grand Canal and its most important branch, the Barrow Line.

Lowtown (OSI ~1840)

Lowtown (OSI ~1840)

The main line from Dublin comes in from near the bottom right and exits near the top left. The two cuts leaving near the bottom left are the Old and New Barrow Lines, which join together just off the map. The Barrow Line runs to Athy, in south County Kildare, from which the Barrow [river] Navigation runs to the tidal lock at St Mullins, downstream of Graiguenamanagh.

The River Nore joins the Barrow a litle further downstream; the Nore is navigable on the tide upstream to Inistiogue. The combined rivers flow south through the port of New Ross and eventually join the estuary of the River Suir. Turning right at that point takes you up the Suir to Waterford, Carrick-on-Suir and Clonmel. Thus the Barrow Line, from Lowtown, forms an inland waterway link between Dublin and some towns along the Barrow, Nore and Suir.

Isaac Slater’s Directory[i] of 1846 lists those carrying goods on inland waterways. There is a long list for Dublin; entries for other towns list those providing local services. There are some conflicts between the lists (see below).

The map below shows those carrying on the Barrow Line of the Grand Canal and on the rivers Barrow, Nore and Suir. Each carrier is assigned a colour, which is used to frame the name of each place served by that carrier. Some towns (Mountmellick, Carrick-on-Suir, Clonmel) are off the map, further to the west. Note that the map is from the 25″ Ordnance Survey map of around 1900 rather than the 6″ of around 1840: I used it because it was clearer, but it shows features (eg railway lines) that were not present in 1846.

Click on the map to get a slightly larger version.

Dublin to Waterford: inland waterway traders 1846 (OSI)

Dublin to Waterford: inland waterway carriers 1846 (OSI)

Notes

All but one of the carriers are shown as having Dublin premises at Grand Canal Harbour, James Street. The exception is Gaven & Co, which is mentioned only in the Mountmellick entry.

I have not included the Grand Canal Company’s passenger-carrying boats, which carried parcels but not goods.

The City of Dublin Steam Packet Company entry for Dublin does not include Portarlington and Mountmellick amongst the towns served but the entry for Mountmellick says that the company’s boats leave for Dublin every Tuesday and Friday (its agent being John White) while that for Portarlington says they leave weekly. Boats from Mountmellick had to pass through Portarlington as well as Monastereven and other towns en route to Dublin.

Similarly, the entry for Mountmellick says that the Hylands boats leave there every other day while that for Portarlington says that they pass through weekly.

There is a page missing from the electronic copy of the directory that I consulted so the entry for Monastereven is incomplete.

The entry for Carlow says

To DUBLIN, and also to [New] ROSS, Boats depart, at uncertain periods, from the Wharfs of Lawrence and James Kelly, the Quay.

It does not say whether Lawrence and James Kelly owned any boats. They may have had boats but used them only for their own goods.

The entry for Mountmellick says “Bryan Hyland” rather than “B Hylands”.

The entry for Mountmellick includes the only mention I have found of Gaven & Co’s boats (James Waldron, agent).

The entry for Rathangan says

There are Boats for the conveyance of Goods, but no fixed period of departure.

Thomas Berry & Co, the most important carrier on the Grand Canal, did not venture south of Lowtown.

More

As far as I know, little has been written about the carrying companies, especially those of the nineteenth century. I would be glad to hear from anyone who can correct, supplement or comment on this information.


[i] I Slater’s National Commercial Directory of Ireland: including, in addition to the trades’ lists, alphabetical directories of Dublin, Belfast, Cork and Limerick. To which are added, classified directories of the important English towns of Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds and Bristol; and, in Scotland, those of Glasgow and Paisley. Embellished with a large new map of Ireland, faithfully depicting the lines of railways in operation or in progress, engraved on steel. I Slater, Manchester, 1846

My OSI logo and permit number for website

Sinn Féin sheughs again

Sinn Féin demonstrates its continuing commitment to the unification of Ireland reconstruction of the Clones Sheugh. KildareStreet tells us that Sandra McLellan, TD for Cork East, no doubt motivated by the wealth of waterways in her own area, asked a written question on 18 July 2013:

To ask the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the position regarding the Ulster Canal restoration project; the remaining steps that must be taken to complete the project; if he will provide an indicative timeline for the completion of the project; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

She got a more or less standard answer from the minister, Jimmy Deenihan [FG, Kerry North/West Limerick]:

As the Deputy will be aware, in July 2007, the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) agreed to proceed with the restoration of the section of the Ulster Canal between Clones and Upper Lough Erne. The then Government agreed to cover the full capital costs of the project, which were estimated at that time to be of the order of €35m.

It was always the intention that the Ulster Canal project would be funded from the Waterways Ireland annual allocations, as agreed through the annual estimates processes in this jurisdiction, as well as the deliberations of NSMC in relation to annual budgets. It was a key consideration throughout the process that the Ulster Canal project would be supported by a significant level of projected income from the commercialisation of certain Waterways Ireland assets. However, as the Deputy will be aware, the economic downturn has had a negative impact on those plans.

In the meantime, the Ulster Canal project is progressing on an incremental basis. Planning approvals have recently been secured for the project in both jurisdictions. I welcome these developments, which, I am sure the Deputy will agree, are a significant milestone for the project.

I am continuing to explore all possible options to advance this project within the current fiscal constraints. In this regard, an Inter-Agency Group on the Ulster Canal has been established to explore and examine ways to advance the project and to examine possible funding options for it, including existing funding streams and the leveraging of funding from other sources, including EU funding options.

Isn’t it funny? Every so often the shinners ask a question to remind the minister that they, er, haven’t gone away, you know. They don’t get really aggressive about it and they don’t seem to be organising mass rallies in Clones to demand a sheugh. And the minister is equally polite, saying in effect “we haven’t shot your horse”.

This project is not very important: it’s a waste of money and will be of no benefit to the national economy, and a government seeking savings could easily kill it off. Yet it has refused, over several years, to take that obvious step. Instead, it’s devoting departmental time, and that of other public servants, to (admittedly low-cost) measures that seem to be intended to show that the project will be maintained on life support, even if it never rises from its bed.

Is there something in the St Andrew’s Agreement, or some other bit of northsouthery, that promises a sheugh to Sinn Féin, to enable them to claim credit for some high-profile but non-threatening all-Irelandism? Is the Clones Sheugh the price of SF support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland? I don’t know, but there must be some explanation for the failure to kill off the sheugh.

 

The uses of regulation

One of the things about being an Enemy of the Working People is that you start thinking about stuff like regulation. It tends to be supported by well-meaning liberal folk, who think that it will tame the wilder excesses of entrepreneurs, but its effects may not be those that were intended.

Consider, to take an example well away from Irish waterways matters, the study discussed here by Aaron Carroll of the effects of telling folk about the numbers of calories in their meals. The regulators’ idea was that, if fast-food eateries told consumers how many calories were in their food, fat folk would eat less (and the social and economic costs would be lower, I suppose). Some researchers decided to check. To quote Aaron Carroll:

Researchers approached 1121 McDonald’s customers both before and after calorie posting began in New York City. Each had a random chance of being handed (1) information that described the recommended calories a man and woman should eat each day, (2) information that described the recommended calories a man or woman should eat each meal, or (3) nothing. The hypothesis was that giving people information about recommended intake would help them to make better choices about how much to order. After all, the whole menu labeling thing is based on the idea that giving people calorie information will reduce obesity.

The result?

Giving people calorie recommendations didn’t change what people offered.

I think “offered” should be “ordered”. But the point is that the regulation, requiring that menus show calories, doesn’t seem to have had the effects that the regulators desired.

In a sense, though, that’s a fairly neutral outcome. At worst, as Carroll says,

[…] although the result was not statistically significant (p=0.07), people who were given more calorie information ordered more calories.

But there are outcomes than can be much worse than that, especially in regulatory capture, a topic that should be of interest in Ireland. One way of looking at the state is to see it as a tool or machine that can be used by powerful gangs to advance their own interests. In Ireland it is used by gangs of insiders (especially operatives in the state-protected industries: moneylenders, legal operatives, teaching operatives, body plumbers, enforcers and so on) to protect both their earnings and their status. The Troika has, alas, struggled in vain against them.

But I digress. Another way of using the power of the state might tempt folk who have commercial competitors (AKA “the enemy”). You could find a regulation or two that your opponent has broken: the more regulations there are, the more certain it becomes that your enemy has broken something or other. You can then use that breach to attack him or her.

Suppose, for example — and I realise I am in the wilder realms of the imagination here — you ran a business in the marine leisure sector which, if the decline in Shannon traffic is any guide, may be suffering from declining demand. And suppose you had several competitors in the same geographical area, and offering roughly the same services, as yourself. You could compete in the standard ways, perhaps using Jerome McCarthy’s Four Ps [Product, Promotion, Price, Place] in your marketing mix. But if your product and place were more or less the same, and if promotion were of little use in a declining market, you might be left competing on price, which might have its own drawbacks.

But there might be other weapons available to you: weapons that the innocent Mr McCarthy did not dream of. Suppose, for instance, that you found that one or more of your competitors had breached one or more of a body of regulations — there are lots of such regulations, mostly incomprehensible to the layman. You could cause or encourage the state (or one or other of its arms) to investigate your competitor. And, even if you didn’t have your competitor’s business shut down, you would have increased the costs to that business and forced its management to spend hours, nay days, as well as large fees, on trying to escape from the net. And perhaps a sympathetic politician might take up the matter, questioning ministers about it.

Given the general saintliness of the Irish people, and the high moral and ethical standards that have always prevailed, I am quite sure that nothing of the kind has ever happened, or could ever happen, but it does make me wonder whether regulation should be regulated.

Pumping algae

Do algae pass through pumps? I don’t know, but I ask because boating, bathing and animals have been banned in Lough Ennell where blue-green algae have been found. Lough Ennell is to supply water to the Royal Canal, although I presume it will take some time before it begins to do so. But perhaps, even if algae made it through the pumps, they would die in the Royal. If you know, Gentle Reader, do please leave a Comment below.

Waterproof wireless telegraphy

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about wireless telegraphy, concluding that:

At present, the rational decision for a boat-owner is to buy a cheap VHF without bothering to get either a certificate for the operator or a licence for the vessel. This is the rational decision because the official channels for getting certificates and licences are slow, expensive and cumbersome. It may therefore be — who knows? — that the populace has already decided to ignore the regulations.

For leisure boating within some sensible distance of the shore, I suggest that the current regulations be either drastically simplified or, perhaps better, scrapped altogether. That might mean giving the International Telecommunication Union a kick up the transom, but the present system is counterproductive: it seems to limit the use of handheld VHFs in cases where they could be very useful, if only to allow search and rescue volunteers to stand down earlier.

Two reports published today by the Marine Casualty Investigation Board have caused me to reconsider that conclusion.

In the Brownstown Head case [Report no MCIB/229; no 11 of 2013] [PDF], two occupants of a 16′ punt were thrown into the water when the boat capsized. They had a handheld VHF in the boat, but it sank when the boat capsized; one occupant put his mobile phone in his mouth to keep it above the water but it was knocked out. As a result, they were unable to summon assisstance. They eventually tried to swim to the shore, but only one made it; the other was drowned.

In the MacDara’s Island Currach case [Report no MCIB/215; no 10 of 2013] [PDF], a fisherman seems to have fallen overboard from a 6.15m open boat, in which he was alone. It was equipped with flares and a VHF in a watertight container, but as the report says:

5.6. There are unique problems with fishing operations from small open boats by lone fishermen. Once they become separated from their vessel their means of communicating their distress are on board their boat and not accessible to them.

In neither of these cases was the possession of a handheld VHF of any use. The VHF sets would have had to be (a) waterproof and (b) securely attached to the boaters’ lifejackets. The report on the MacDara’s Island Currach case recommends:

6.5. That the “Code of Practice for Fishing Vessels under 15 LOA” section 9.5 Radio Equipment should be amended by the addition of a requirement for undecked vessels where there is a lone occupant that an appropriate beacon should be of the type worn on the person.

In fact, the same recommendation could be applied to cases like Brownstown Head, where there were two people in the boat. That is broadly in line with the actions announced by two ministers on 8 July; note Simon Coveney also said:

I am also establishing a new high level working group on safety in the fishing industry, to look at all aspects of safety on fishing vessels and to report to Minister Varadkar and myself with recommendations before the end of the year. The new working group will be chaired by Mr John Leech current CEO of Irish Water Safety. Because a common thread of comment in recent times has been the need to pay particular attention on issues surrounding the number of small inshore boats that get into difficulty, I have charged the group with focussing to a large degree on this aspect.

So the wider use of handheld VHFs won’t solve every problem. I still think, though, that such wider use should be encouraged by the removal of unnecessary barriers.

Inland lifeboats to be exempt from VAT

Irish Water Safety has issued a press release [PDF] saying that the government is to introduce (or launch or make or pass or something) the Value-added tax (refund of tax) (rescue boats and related equipment) order 2013 which will allow inland community rescue boats to reclaim VAT on their purchases. Under the Value-Added Tax (Refund of Tax) (No 18) Order 1985, coastal community rescue boats have been able to reclaim VAT [PDF] but inland boats have not.

Portumna Water Rescue Service

Portumna Water Rescue Service

Irish Water Safety has a defined role in assessing the eligibility of community rescue boats for VAT exemptions; indeed its checklist and guidelines for community rescue services [PDF] are rather surprisingly headed Inspection for VAT Refund Certificate. The background is explained in another document Inshore Rescue Guidelines [PDF], which will presumably now be amended to include provision for inland boats. The “Declared Facility” boats [those approved and able to claim the VAT exemption] are listed here; there is also a list of other known rescue boats, some of which, being on inland waters, will now presumably apply to IWS for approval. Thus what is already a large rescue service will become even larger and more important.

I have photos of some of these boats on this page. I have none of the Corrib & Mask Rescue service, which I regret as today’s announcement was made on their turf and with their assistance. IWS says:

They will be the first Community Rescue Boat Ireland Lifeboat to be in a position to avail of this financial incentive.

Incidentally, I do not know whether the existing inland lifeboats operated by the Coast Guard and RNLI are affected by this or whether they could already reclaim VAT. If anyone can tell me, I’ll be glad to add the information here.

Ardnacrusha drowning

Killaloe Coast Guard report.

Shannon Navigation Guide 1963

Messrs abebooks.co.uk have drawn my attention to the fact that Sharston Books of Manchester (which is a town or city within Her current Majesty’s Realm) have a copy of this 1963 Shell/BP guide for sale. John Weaving was Navigation Editor. I already have it, so I mention it here in case anyone else is interested.

I have no connection, commercial or otherwise, to the seller.

Bock goes boating …

… on the Shannon Estuary, the second most interesting coast of Clare (the inland coast is the most interesting, the north-west coast the least). Includes nice pics of the Scattery battery.