Tag Archives: Lough Neagh

Northern Ireland seeks cutting-edge technology … of the 18th century

IndustrialHeritageIreland reports on two recent outbreaks of cargo cultism in Norn Iron. Folk in Tyrone want the whole of the Ulster Canal to be restored to its, er, former glory, which presumably means without any water west of Monaghan, while a Sinn Féin MLA wants to lumber Waterways Ireland with responsibility for the useless Strabane Canal on which £1.3 million has already been wasted.

What is it with Sinn Féin and canals? I realise that Irish republicanism is by definition a backward-looking creed, with little contact with reality, but why not look to (say) early nineteenth century technology, like the steam railway, rather than that of the eighteenth century?

Part of the problem, I suspect, is that Sinn Féin folk, especially those who are subjects of Her current Majesty, adopt a British conception of inland waterways. In Britain, canals dominate and boats must travel slowly, no faster than the horse-drawn vessels of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But Irish waterways are dominated by lakes, whereon modern folk like to zoom around in fast boats: jetskis, speedboats and skiboats, fast cruisers. Such boats are entirely unsuitable for canals: they damage the banks and the pace bores their owners.

As it happens, we have lots of lakes where owners can zoom. [I’d prefer if they didn’t, but that’s the way it is.] And with reductions in the amount of boating activity, we don’t need any additional waterways. Sinn Féin, though, doesn’t seem to have grasped this. Stuck in the eighteenth century, it wants canals. I suppose we should be grateful it isn’t proposing to have the taxpayer stump up for coal-mines as well.

Sinn Féin and the Clones Sheugh

Northern Ireland Assembly debate 6 November 2012, via TheyWorkForYou.com:

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin): […] Will the Minister provide an update on the restoration of the Ulster canal from Clones to Upper Lough Erne?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin): As I said, there was a presentation on the issue at the North/South interparliamentary forum, and the planning processes are up and running. I understand that, on the Cavan side of the border, it has been successfully concluded. There is still some work to do on this side. Everyone realises, from a tourism point of view, that this is filled with all sorts of potential for us, particularly in the context not only of whatever construction jobs will be created by the project but of the prospects for utilising our waterways in a way that can bring employment to local communities.

For “everyone” read “everyone except irishwaterwayshistory.com and a few other sane people”.

Portadown Foundry Ltd

I am grateful for a copy of Portadown Foundry Ltd: a history of the foundry 1844–1983, by Cardwell McClure and Wilson Steen, published by the authors in October 2012. It is available from five shops in the Edenderry (Portadown) area; the Edenderry Cultural and Historical Society may be able to assist.

The book’s breadth of coverage is very impressive. It may be thought of as having three main sections. The first provides five chapters covering the five main eras of control of the foundry. The second has four chapters covering employees, surviving artefacts, sporting history and Foundry Street, where many employees lived. The final section has six chapters providing the essential contest that is often omitted in local history books. These six chapters cover:

  • Portadown and the economy of Ulster
  • Foundry-built barges and lighters (of particular interest on this site)
  • The evolution of flax and linen processing in Ulster
  • The evolution of engineering in Ulster
  • The evolution of power plant in Ulster
  • The evolution of transport in Ulster.

It is richly illustrated throughout and is well worth a fiver (sterling) of anyone’s money.

 

All sheugh up

Thinking about the exciting news from the North South Ministerial Council plenary session about the Clones Sheugh, I was reminded of the even more exciting news of the first meeting of the North/South Inter-parliamentary Association.

Strangely, its meeting received little publicity in the great world. I asked Messrs Google to search for it but to omit links from the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as those from politicus.org and flickr.com. It found only 42 hits, of which the first seven were links to the site of a Labour senator called Mary Moran. (I won’t provide a link to her site as she’s obviously perfectly capable of generating all the links she wants.)

Anyway, the first meeting of the North/South Inter-parliamentary Association seems to have passed almost unnoticed. You can read about it on InsideIreland.ie, which seems to be a news site run by an advertising agency.

From Ciarán Hanna’s account, I deduce that the North/South Inter-parliamentary Association is an entirely pointless body. I note that it won’t meet again until April 2013. And perhaps the Irish government’s support for the Clones Sheugh is because it gives this pointless body something to discuss, thus keeping it from commenting on anything important.

Northsouthery and the Clones Sheugh

The minutes of the latest North South Ministerial Council plenary meeting, held on 2 November 2012, are now on the NSMC website. Of the Clones Sheugh:

The Council also welcomed the following key developments: […]

the restoration of the Ulster Canal from Clones to Upper Lough Erne is progressing through the planning application process in both jurisdictions. An inter-agency group has been set up to examine all possible options to advance the project.

Perhaps Mr Noonan will have an early christmas present for the promoters.

Political parties: update

I said that I had asked many political parties whether they had asked the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs [now the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht] for costings for the Clones Sheugh (aka the Ulster Canal). Those I asked were:

Christian Solidarity Party
Fianna Fáil
Fine Gael
Fís Nua
Green Party
Labour
People before Profit
Sinn Féin
Socialist Party
South Kerry Independent
Workers and Unemployed Action Group [WUAG]
Workers’ Party

I have so far had responses from Fís Nua, the Green Party and Labour; it seems that none of them made the request. I have emailed a reminder to the others and I await their responses.

Political parties

Regular readers will know that I sent and FOI request to the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs [now the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht] looking for files on the Clones Sheugh (aka the Ulster Canal). One of the grounds on which I was refused access was that certain files related to “the costing, assessment or consideration or any proposal of a political party carried out for or on behalf of that party”.

While my appeal against that refusal continues on its course, I thought I might as well ask the political parties directly for the information that might be in those files — in the process, of course, establishing which of them had Clones Sheugh proposals in mind.

Party time

As far as I can see, the parties that contested, or were eligible to contest, the 2011 general election were:

Christian Solidarity Party
Fianna Fáil
Fine Gael
Fís Nua
Green Party
Labour
People before Profit
Sinn Féin
Socialist Party
South Kerry Independent
Workers and Unemployed Action Group [WUAG]
Workers’ Party.

Accordingly, I decided to email them all, enquiring whether they had asked the [then] Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs for information “relating to the costing, assessment or consideration of the restoration of some or all of the abandoned Ulster Canal”. I added that, if they had done so, I would be grateful for a copy of the query they put to the department and of the response they received. I told them that I was sending my query to all political parties that contested the 2011 general election (or at least to all those for which I could find an email address).

That was not quite true: I omitted the South Kerry Independent Alliance, on the grounds that its interest in the Clones Sheugh was likely to be limited (I am of course open to correction on this). Furthermore, I was unable to find any website or email address for WUAG so I did not send my request to them.

Fianna Fáil logic

All of the other parties had websites and email addresses — except one: Fianna Fáil. Now, strictly speaking it falls outside the range of parties in which I might have been interested: not just for the obvious reasons but because it was in government at the time and would automatically have had full access to the civil service costings (such as they were). But I was interested to note that Fianna Fáil did not provide an email address on its website: interested enough to ring it and ask for an email address for its press office. The polite receptionist asked someone and told me that the address to be used was pressoffice@fiannafail.ie.

So I sent my query to that address. And I got back an autoresponse saying

This email is not monitored. For urgent queries you can contact the FF Press Office on 087 955 5600.

Well I never. What was the point of that?

Labour gains

Anyway, the results so far put Labour in the lead: I got an almost immediate informal response from Dermot Lacey, saying that he didn’t think Labour had contacted the department; I also got a more formal response next day, from Mags Murphy, Director of Councillor Services and Training, saying:

Labour did not include a specific commitment to the development of the Ulster Canal in our manifesto in the 2011 Election.

However, Labour is keen that all practical possibilities for cooperation, reconciliation and mutual benefit, including maximising tourism potential from a development of the Ulster Canal would be considered seriously as part of our deep commitment to the Good Friday agreement.

To this end, the Labour members of the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement committee visited the Ulster Canal, Enniskillen and Clones with their cross-party colleagues for a range of meetings on 27 September 2012 with Waterways Ireland officials, local councillors and community groups.

Oh dear. Still, brownie points for responding.

What is the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement committee?

Where are the others?

I am still awaiting responses from the other political parties.

Declaration of non-interest

I did not vote for any of those parties.

 

Da new kidz in da hood

A couple of canally sites I hadn’t come across:

  • da corpo’s canal (h/t IndustrialHeritageIreland)
  • Dublin canal walks. I don’t know who is behind this site, which looks like a work in the early stages of progress, but I’m all in favour of folks’ walking along Dublin canals; my own effort at encouragement is here.

Industrial Heritage Ireland, by the way, has been watching the Clones Canal campaign. This suggests that the campaign is being cranked up, although I don’t know what the poor buggers from the NI Strategic Investment Board are doing in the group: pouring money into holes in the ground is not (pace Keynes) usually seen as an investment.

It is reported, nonetheless, that IWAI folk are confident that public money will be wasted on the ghastly project, thus subsidising their hobby. And it seems that a gang of Irish parliamentarians, following the tradition established in Grattan’s Parliament, are keen to distribute pork: there is nothing in the press release to suggest that any of the poor dears have any interest in assessing the costs and benefits of the Clones Canal proposal. In the unlikely event that any of them is interested, the pages starting here might be useful. And interested parliamentarians might like to check on any cost-benefit analyses done (or revised) since it was found that the canal would cost €45m, not €35m.

 

The Lagan and Lough Neagh in 1830

Philip Dixon Hardy wrote in The Northern Tourist, or Stranger’s Guide to the north and north west of Ireland: including a particular description of Belfast, the Giant’s Causeway, and every object of picturesque interest in the district referred to William Curry, Jun and Co, Dublin 1830:

The river Lagan, although of very considerable breadth in the immediate vicinity of Belfast, and running nearly thirty miles, is yet by far too inconsiderable to be of any great advantage to the town in the way of trade or commerce. By its means, however, a regular communication is kept up between Belfast, Lisburn, and Lough Neagh. Since the year 1755, upwards of £100,000 have been expended in forming a canal, by the assistance of cuts in various places along the line of the river, where it was found too shallow for lighters to pass.

The Lagan Navigation Company have now the direction of the entire line, and have made such judicious improvements, as materially to promote the desired object — a speedy transit of goods and merchandise. This, however, can, after all, be only partially accomplished, as, from the circumstance of the Company not being able to have a horse-track-way along the entire line, nor to introduce steam power, the journey can be performed in a much shorter space of time by waggons and drays going direct. On Lough Neagh there is a small steam-vessel, by which the goods taken up in the lighters are rapidly conveyed to the different towns which lie in various directions round that extensive sheet of water.

W A McCutcheon, in The Canals of the North of Ireland David and Charles, Dawlish 1965, confirms the point about the trackway:

As a result [of various improvements in the early 1800s] traffic greatly increased, though water supply problems remained, and there was a horse-towing path for only part of the length of the navigation.

He gives no details, though, so I don’t know why the trackway was incomplete, how lighters travelled on those stretches that had no trackway or when and how the deficiency was remedied. My guess is that those stretches were along the river rather than the artificial cuts and that the riparian landowners were unhelpful, but I would welcome further information.

McCutcheon does not mention the steamer on Lough Neagh. However, D B McNeill mentions it in Coastal Passenger Steamers and Inland Navigations in the North of Ireland Belfast Museum and Art Gallery Transport Handbook No 3 1960:

The first steamer on the lough was the Lagan Navigation Company’s Marchioness of Donegall. She was built by Ritchie and MacLaine of Belfast, her engines were obtained from David Napier of Glasgow and she was launched at Ellis Gut in November, 1821. She was the first inland navigation steamer in Ireland and was used for towing the Lagan canal boats across the lough. When new, she was reputed to have had a speed of two knots. She was uneconomical and her owners tried to sell her in 1824, but there were no buyers. It is believed the Marquess of Donegall used her occasionally as a yacht. She was broken up sometime about 1840 and her engines were stored in Belfast.

In his Irish Passenger Steamship Services Volume 1: North of IrelandAugustus M Kelley Publishers, New York 1969 he says that the Marchioness was a wooden paddle steamer, built in 1821 and broken up in 1843, 73′ long with a beam of 16′, with a simple single-cylinder engine. He says that the engine cost £1,400, provided 30hp and gave her a speed of 6 knots. A passenger service was considered but never provided, but picnic parties could charter the boat for five guineas a day.

 

Barges, cots and subaltern waterways studies

I am to speak at Jamestown, near Carrick-on-Shannon in Co Leitrim, on Saturday 4 August 2012. Jamestown is having its heritage festival, and large numbers of old (converted) barges will be there. I will be giving one of four talks; mine is entitled

Down with barges: why cots were the really important vessels on Irish inland waterways.

I will be citing His Late Majesty Henry VIII, Fid Def, in support of my contention.

Here is some of the background to my thinking. If you would like to hear more, do come along on the day: the talks are open to all.