That’s a lock on the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal, constructed in the 1780s. First, the canal was designed by John Smeaton, so I hope it’s fair to say that looking at that canal is paying tribute to greatness. Second, my immediate reaction, before I thought about it, was “it’s so small and cute.”
Railroads were the second transportation network based on new technology; canals were the first. In the UK, the canal system was largely built in the 1700s and the rail system followed in the early 1800s; in the US the canal system was largely built following the success of the Erie Canal (completed in 1825) and the rail system boomed starting in the 1840s and 50s. The success of railroads in the US was more effective at killing off canals than in the UK, where they remained in use, at a reduced level, for far longer. But, apparently, many of them were never enlarged, with locks standardized on boats no more than 7 feet wide, with a draft no deeper than 4 feet, and a length of 57 to 72 feet. A boat that size – a traditional UK narrowboat – would fit in the lock in my picture. Interestingly, the original locks on the Erie Canal were just about the same size.
But, how small is that really? A boat 60 feet long, 7 feet wide, and with a 4 foot draft, if it were a rectangular prism rather than streamlined, would displace about 52 tons of water; assuming that the boat is streamlined rather a block would reduce that displacement to something closer to 40 tons. Subtract the weight of the boat itself, and you can carry some 30 tons of cargo. That’s an enormous amount compared to what could be readily transported on the roads of that era and compares well to the railroads of the time as well. In other words, even small canal boats have a large cargo capacity relative to the other options that existed at the time.
But enough deep thinking. Here’s the canal going through a tunnel:
You must be logged in to post a comment.