Tag Archives: canal

Work begins at Sallins

New moorings: Waterways Ireland press statement here and marine notice here.

Edenderry ducks …

… in the Irish Times [article will become inaccessible at some stage].

Newry and Narrow Water

I wrote a few days ago about the proposed bridge across Carlingford Lough at Narrowwater (or Narrow Water). I was reminded of that today on reading a debate, held in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 30 September 2013, about a proposed Newry Southern Relief Road [thanks to theyworkforyou.com].

Apart from an admittedly minor mistake made by a Sinn Féin MLA about the Newry Canal (first summit-level canal, not “oldest inland waterway” in These Islands), the debate was remarkable for its demonstration of cross-party agreement: not so much on the desirability of public works (a desideratum of Irish politicians since the eighteenth century) as on the irrelevance of the Narrowwater bridge. Jim Wells [DUP] said:

There has also been some progress on the Narrow Water bridge project, although we do not know exactly where we stand. First, that bridge is far from certain, and, secondly, even if it were built, it would not relieve much of the traffic that we are dealing with. It would certainly not relieve the large number of juggernauts coming through from Warrenpoint harbour.

Sean Rogers [SDLP] said:

Narrow Water bridge is merely a tourist bridge, but the relief road would take heavy goods vehicles off the streets of Newry, reduce traffic congestion and attract even more shoppers to the city. Heavy goods vehicles would also have a direct route to Warrenpoint port, increasing trade in the port area.

And the other contributors to the debate did not mention it, which suggests to me that it is seen as irrelevant to the traffic problems of Warrenpoint and of Newry.

The Minister for Regional Development, Danny Kennedy [UUP], gave a lengthy response to the debate, including this point:

A more detailed technical investigation of the specific options for crossing the Newry canal was also recommended, given the sensitive nature of this important heritage feature. It is expected to require at least the provision of a bascule, or lifting bridge, to allow the passage of tall ships on the canal. The width of the Victoria lock already limits the size of ship that can enter the canal and it is expected that any bridge would maintain a navigation channel that matches the width of the sea lock. My Department will continue to consult with NIEA on how the impact of the proposal on the canal might be mitigated and an appropriate design developed.

And it seems that one of the areas being considered for the road is Fathom, which is where the Victoria Lock is. It is a short distance north (and upstream) of the border.

It must surely be unlikely that there will be two crossings of Carlingford or the Newry River [and canal] within a few miles of each other. But if one option, the Newry Southern Relief Road, helps to relieve Newry and Warrenpoint traffic and the other, the Narrowwater bridge, doesn’t do so, then the first option would seem to be the rational choice.

Although I wouldn’t bother providing for “tall ships”.

 

 

Permits

Access, mooring and passage-making on the Grand & Royal Canals and Barrow Navigation are controlled by means of permits. Bye-law amendments are currently with Waterways Ireland sponsor departments which will enable the organisation to bring in further types of permits and differentiate fees for services provided along the canals.

There are three type of permits in place all with different requirements which enable the boater to suit their own style of boating while remaining within the Bye-laws.

From WI’s website.

Hands across the water

Another bit of northsouthery seems to be crumbling around its proponents’ ears, according to a report in today’s Irish Times [which will disappear behind a paywall at some stage]. It seems that, in July, TPTB approved the spending of €18.3 million on a bridge at Narrowwater [or Narrow Water], upstream of Warrenpoint and downstream of Newry (and of Victoria Lock). However,

The leading bid has costed the bridge at over €30 million […].

I presume that inflation does not account for the 66% increase but I am surprised that the proponents’ estimate was so far off. Perhaps omitting the opening span (intended to cater for the small number of tall vessels that use the Ship Canal to visit Newry) would save a few quid.

There is a discussion of the bridge project here and some useful information here; there isn’t here, although you might expect it.

It is certainly true that anyone wanting to drive from, say, Greenore or Carlingford to, say, Kilkeel or even Warrenpoint faces a long drive around Carlingford Lough. What is not clear to me is whether very many people want to do that: I haven’t investigated the matter, so I don’t know, but the main north/south traffic passes to the west and there are crossings at Newry.

A ferry service might be cheaper; it might also allow the real strength of demand to be gauged. Ferry terminals might be constructed by the local authorities and leased to an operating company.

And the service would probably be more useful than the Clones Sheugh: I see that yet another member of Sinn Féin got to ask about that in the Dáil recently, as did a Fianna Fáil chap from the area; they elicited the standard answer. The minister may be hoping that the cost estimates for the sheugh are more robust than those for the Narrowwater bridge.

Shannon passage times 1838

Estuary

Kilrush to Limerick 4 hours

Tarbert to Limerick 3 hours

Clare[castle] to Limerick 3.5 hours

Limerick Navigation

Limerick to Killaloe:

  • iron passenger boat 2.5 hours
  • timber passenger boat 3.5 hours
  • trade boat 6 hours.

Shannon

Killaloe to Portumna:

  • passenger steamer 6 hours
  • steamer towing lumber boats 8 hours.

Portumna to Shannon Harbour:

  • 6 hours.

Shannon Harbour to Athlone:

  • 8 hours.

Source: Railway Commissioners second report Appendix B No 6.

Keeping Dublin tidy

Fertilising the countryside

Fertilising the countryside

Erie warning: stuck with a sheugh

New York is a place in the Americas. There is a town of that name and there is also a state, whose economic development in the nineteenth century was assisted by the development of a canal, about which you can learn more on this excellent site. There is a trail along the canal that can be walked or cycled.

The canal is run by the New York State Canal Corporation, which is a subsidiary of the New York State Thruway Authority [a thruway is, it seems, a sort of road]. The canal loses money (naturally). The Thruway Authority sought to increase tolls; the State Controller said it should save money and improve management instead. Inter alia, it should

Commission an independent analysis of the Canal System to examine ways to streamline operations, seek new funding streams, and develop a realistically attainable vision for its future role in the upstate economy.

In his full report [Assessment of the Thruway Authority’s  Finances and Proposed Toll Increase [PDF] Office of the New York State Controller August 2012], the Controller said that

[…] the New York State Constitution forbids the Legislature to sell, abandon or otherwise dispose of the canals […]

but that

[…] choices regarding operational control and financial support for the Canal System are policy matters to be determined by the Governor and the Legislature.

His summary said that

Additional factors in the Thruway Authority‟s current weakened condition include the Authority‟s responsibility for financing and operating the State‟s Canal System as a result of legislation enacted two decades ago. The Canal System has consumed more than $1.1 billion of Thruway resources in the ensuing period. Contrary to the original legislative intent, responsibility for supporting the canals has diminished the Authority‟s ability to pursue its core mission. Moving the Canal System into the Thruway Authority was intended, in part, to stimulate tourism and economic development along the historic
canal corridors. This goal, too, has been elusive; boating activity on the canal has  declined substantially under Thruway control.

Later in the report he said

Second, the Authority‟s financial resources and organizational expertise, along with the then-newly created Canal Recreationway Commission, would position the underused Canal System to improve its facilities and marketing such that new users would be attracted from around the country, and even around the world.

Neither of these hoped-for outcomes has occurred. The Thruway Authority has invested more than $1.1 billion in the Canal System, and this drain of toll resources has also contributed to the deterioration of the Authority’s financial condition over the past decade. Meanwhile, despite major investments and new amenities, pleasure-craft activity on the Canal System in recent years is down by nearly one-third since the period immediately before the Thruway Authority assumed control.

The local media seem to take a somewhat more informed interest in their sheugh than do those in these parts:

Ireland and the United Kingdon could avoid finding themselves in these difficulties by refusing to recreate any more sheughs.

 

Who saved Clonmacnoise?

It seems possible that, at some stage in the late eighteenth century, there was a plan that would probably have destroyed Clonmacnoise.

There exists A Map of the River Shannon from Athlone to Killaloe, Surveyed by John Killaly 1795, which contains much of interest. I do not have permission to reproduce it here, but here is the section around Clonmacnoise from the ~1840 OSI 6″ map.

Clonmacnoise OSI ~1840

Clonmacnoise OSI ~1840

I have marked on the map some of the placenames used by Killaly.

The legend reads:

[…]

B. Ford least water 4F 6J [which I take to mean 4′ 6″]

[…]

From Q to P the proposed Canal is ¾ Mile shorter than the River.

From Q to R [the proposed Canal] is ¾ Mile shorter than the River.

It seems therefore that, in 1795, someone was considering shortening the Shannon by digging one of two possible canals to cut off peninsulas along the east bank. Given the narrowness of the stretch between the esker and the river, I suspect it would have been impossible to dig either of them without destroying Clonmacnoise.

I would like to know more about the proposal and about why it was abandoned.

Incidentally, some folk prefer the spelling Clonmacnois but the Placenames Database of Ireland uses Clonmacnoise.

My OSI logo and permit number for website

Chambers, pots

Folk knowledgeable about canal engineering and artefacts might be able to contribute to a current discussion, over at the Helpful Engineer’s website, of the Four Pots overflow and the side chambers at Lock 16 (Digby Bridge) on the Grand Canal.