 It
may be damp, cold and have short days but the winter offers a number of
bonuses to the canal explorer.
With the leaves off the trees and the ground
vegetation at its lowest it is far easier to see the bare bones of canal
engineering in the winter. I’m not talking here about the architectural
bits -- bridges and locks and stuff -- but the other 98%, the channel
itself, the embankments and cuttings. With the help of low raking winter
sunshine and grass kept short by hungry sheep the sculpture of the canal
becomes more obvious, the artificiality of its structure which is
disguised in the summer by two hundred years worth of vegetation. Here
suddenly we can see more clearly the big problems of getting a level
water channel from one useful place to another, getting a channel big
enough for boats round a hill or across the valley. And just to make it
interesting it had to be done economically with just a gang of men with
shovels.
In the earliest days the first principal was to follow
the contour of the hillside as far as possible before being forced up or
down hill with an expensive lock. The earth dug from the hillside need
only be moved a few yards to form a slight embankment on the downward
slope and the job was done. It certainly led to very winding waterways
but that was not initially seen as a big problem. The canal could then
service a bigger area, more manure could be delivered to a bigger
acreage to benefit a wider locality. Only later did it become obvious
that through trade was where the profit was to be made, and that speed
and directness were to be of prime importance. Later canals like the
Shropshire Union main line hurry directly though the landscape in deep
cuttings and over vast embankments. Today their slopes have generally
been allowed to become well wooded, the tree roots offering some extra
stability to the soil of the embankments but a hard winter and bare
trees allows one to see just how impressive this pre-railway engineering
had become. At Shelmore embankment you can still see the problems too.
Between 1833 and 1835 when the canal finally opened this embankment
caused enormous problems as it sagged and collapsed under its own
weight, and the extent of the slippage can still be seen, squidged out
like a failed blancmange.
In Shropshire we have again a short chance to
experience something of the misgivings that must have beset landowners
and landscape lovers throughout the country as the new canals cut their
muddy way through the fields in the eighteenth century. Between Gronwen
wharf and Redwith bridge on the Montgomery Canal we have what is
effectively a brand new piece of canal to experience, albeit on the line
of the old one. The shovels were mechanical this time and the puddled
clay is backed by steel piling and an artificial plastic membrane but
the mud looks the same. So too does the stark nakedness of the structure
of the channel and its neatly graded supporting embankments, for much of
the old hedging has had to be cut right down or removed altogether.
Militant lines of fenceposts protect its boundaries in straight lines
and it is difficult to believe that it will soften and blend into the
surrounding landscape in a couple of years. But it will.
Most surprising of all is the new bridge halfway along
the length. Since the official closure back in 1944 the farmer had
acquired land on both side of the canal and bull-dozed an access track
through from one to the other, so it was agreed to build him a new
accommodation bridge as part of the restoration package. It is very
impressive indeed, an old style Shropshire Union lift bridge built in
timber to what looks to my amateur eye to be a very high standard of
historical accuracy. It is fitted with hydraulic lifting gear rather
than a bit of chain which I suppose is forgivable, and it has mooring
bollards and wharves on the offside in both directions which will be a
godsend to single handed boaters. So it is an impressive structure and a
fine chunk of craftsmanship but a philosophical niggle still gnaws at
the back of my mind. Historically there was no bridge there so this is
in no way part of the canal’s proper restoration. Therefore, why build a
replica, however good? It cannot have been a cheap option. Could not the
same amount have been invested in high quality modern architecture and
engineering so that we hand down a piece of real history, hopefully a
beautiful piece of state-of-the-art twenty-first century history instead
of a pastiche pretence? Stop throwing things at me, I’m only asking…
©Tony
Lewery,
The Brow,
Ellesmere,
28th December 2007 |
 |
