Talk:Somerset Coal Canal

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

• Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

• If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

• Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Review for GA

This is definitely a good article, but ity still needs lots of work. 25 references is okay, but it could be better. I want to see some improvement! Good job! ~Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 20:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

• the site of caisson house is incorrect the co-ordinate should be 51.20.12 n - 2.20.13 w - ST 744 604 (O.S. sheet 172)this is the correct position as shown on the HM Ordnance surevey of Somerset 1900 which shows precisely the original path of the canal to caisoon house through engine wood locks, and shows the re-routed path of the canal in front of and below caisson house where the additional locks were constructed.

P.S. Google satellite imagery shows caisoon house location as 50.20.30.81 n - 2.22.26.28 w this could explain some of the error.

P.P.S Latest UK.Gov O.S. map shows caisoon house as 51.34 n - 2.37 w grid ST 740 603 374094 160 360 (which one is correct?) Francis E Williams (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There are three different locations suggested for the Caison lock coordinates, here. Please pick one and resubmit. BrainMarble (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Photographs

I have spent two days this week on the Combe Hay section of the Canal, I have a series of some 40 photgraphs of all that remains of the structures in the woods. Including the 249ft a.s.l. pump house, the stream feed into locks 10 -11 pool, pump adit connections, locks 9 to 19 from both ends. The raiway bridge (lock 16) and the re-routed public road around the caisoon sites. I am due soon to proceed toward Midford and the plateway basin and rail head and photgraph the bridges, aquaduct and rail structures there. I have uncovered a section leading to Hallatrow from the Timsbury basin (which although a canal width sized structure with tow path leading to futher basins west of Gooseyard) is not listed as currently as being attached to Timsbury Basins apart from a brief mention one article found so far. I am working my way throught the Bath Herald (now Chronicle) from 1794 to 1805 to glean futher inforation for the article. I do not want to just copy what is already published by the Somerset.C.C. Society. ( The number of photographs required to be comprehensive will be large, any suggestions as to how to proceed with including them (photo gallery)into the article (if they are required)? Francis E Williams (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting trip. It would be too many photographs for the article, however you could place them on Commons (assuming you are happy with the licencing requirements that they can be shared) and create a category on commons ? called "Somerset Coal Canal". There is then a template which enables a wkipedia article to link to a commons category.— Rod ^talk 07:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

How about replacing the current Dunkerton Aqueduct photograph with this one? The current photograph is more dominated by the caravan than the aquaduct! Spoonfrog (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Dunkerton aqueduct (disused) - geograph.org.uk - 773699

Headings

I think that the headings in this article could be arranged more helpfully. Currently, the headings are:

1. History
   1. The Radstock branch
2. Engineers and surveyors
3. Combe Hay
4. Paulton basin
5. Coming of the railway
6. Today
7. Grant to study history of the canal
8. Route and points of interest
9. See also
10. References
11. Bibliography
12. External links

I would suggest that 1.1 - 5 could all be put under the heading History, since they all relate to the history of the canal. Also, 7 (Grant to study history of the canal) could go under the heading Today. --Spoonfrog (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody objected in the past 12 months, I have re-structured the headings. --Spoonfrog (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Reproducing C18 newspaper reports

This is not useful to the article, being too detailed and dense for this general account, and is deprecated in WP:NPS; the correct method is to place the material on Wikisource, with just a link here. I'm intending to remove it all, subject to other editor's views.--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix.--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

“No original research” doesn’t apply to images

The restriction on own work doesn’t apply to self-made images: see “user-created images”. File:SCC Upper Midford Object1 front.JPG and File:SCC Upper Midford Object1 internal.JPG from Francis E Williams were valuable enhancements to the page. May we have them back, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"Twinkle, twinkle little star". Francis E Williams (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

History—William Smith

Could the paragraph dealing with Smith's nation-wide geological studies be trimmed? According to his article the local connection was very important, but his initial discoveries were in the coalpits, rather than the canal excavation. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable but his role as one of the surveyors should be left in.— Rod ^talk 10:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Not William Smith's house

House at Tucking Mill, next to the canal, reputedly lived in by William Smith, though this is disputed

The other house at Tucking Mill which is more likely to be the house he lived in.

It is established by documentary evidence that this image is the wrong house, even though there is a sign in front of it identifying it as such. The house pictured in the William Smith (geologist) article is the house he owned. See the talk page for that article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This is why I went and took a photo (on the left) of the house which is actually thought to be the one he lived in. This can be put into the article with a suitable explanation.— Rod ^talk 06:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I tried to work out which was the real one while looking for refs for WS's career (see above), but couldn't find anything definitive: was it the mill or the mill house? Having two pictures, in the actual article, because we can't make up our minds would just emphasise our failure. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The article Tucking Mill contains several references exploring the evidence for the 2 buildings.— Rod ^talk 07:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This one seems definitive and seems to satisfy the question. Please disregard my earlier reservations. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Eleazer Pickwick

I read that Eleazer Pickwick was an important backer of this canal. Should he be mentioned? Victuallers (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Restoration work

There have been some good edits to this article recently to reflect the restoration work; however I am worried about the sentence "In September 2014 restoration work began on the section from Paulton to Radford, with the aim of restoring the entire Canal to navigation in the near future." If this is to be achieved then I suspect it will take many years, particularly the Combe Hay locks (or inclined plane). Are there any sources suggesting it will be navigable in the near future, or can I remove that claim?— Rod ^talk 09:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It would also be good to have some better photographs of the restoration. I have added one, but it was taken on a mobile phone, so not good quality. The Upper Midford image is now a bit out of date, since more dramatic restoration is now in progress... Spoonfrog (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I fear that far too much of the canal route has been destroyed beyond any possible repair, the best that can be hoped is for "token" sections between points be restored to reflect it's original construction. The reference "the entire canal" should be removed as it is certainly most misleading to the reader.Billy from Bath (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

There are different opinions about the feasibility of restoration. The society are clearly hoping and planning full restoration, others see the difficulties. The article should probably report both the aims of the society and the difficulties with their plan. However I find your edit about the lock structures being "over filled to a great height with building waste" confusing - many of the locks are still visible (see the photograph in the infobox), so how can this be true? Do you have a reference for it? Spoonfrog (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I also note that the "Paulton Basin" and the "Timsbury basin" seem to be two different locations. The "Engine Works at Paulton to the west of Timsbury basin and the "Gooseard Bridge" was a boat yard for canal boat construction. Is this the lock pictured in the article ?. If so it would explain why "timsbury Basin" and the 249ft spillway at lock 1 Combe Hay flight are at different heights. It was alway the norm to have branches into the main canal level to be raised to prevent water loss. Could this solve the anomoly? Billy from Bath (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Timsbury Basin is the terminus of the canal and Paulton Basin is a short distance (1/2 mile?) to the east. The dry dock adjoins Paulton Basin. There are some good maps here [[1]] if you are struggling to get your bearings. The top lock is the one pictured, which is some distance east of the terminus [[2]]. The water level must have been at the same height because there were no locks between the terminus and the top lock, hence the "anomoly". However any discussion of the anomoly is probably original research, since we don't appear to have any references... Spoonfrog (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the map. Paulton has always benn to the west of Timsbury but obviosly not so when the basins were named. Havimg lived in the area for 47 years and studied the canal during that period I feel the extensive damage done at Combe Hay will make it extremely diffidult and prohibitvely expensive to restore. lock 16 alone is buied under a good 30ft of railway embankment the lower pound being one side of the embakment the lock itself is in the embankment and the lock exit stones are visible if you know where to look. The bridge abutment stones at lock 16 / 17 are still there but buried. The locks 17,18,19 are now under concrete and level soil from lock 16 to the meadow. Some 20 ft or so deep. The three lower locks in the meadow are still recoverable, but the 40ft embankment at Accomodation bridge will be the biggest problem to overcome as the trackbed is now used for accces by Bob Honey and others. Having surveyed the canal I still can't get my had round the difference in heights quoted. You obviosly have access to equipment and information to verify this. If it is correct , how did the canal work originally with these height differences ? There may be something missed along the way. You will find photographic evidence on the Society's Facebook page. This is original work in the form of photographs. [3] [User:Billy from Bath|Billy from Bath]] (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification on the locks. Someone must have measured the 293mm, I have no idea how! Whoever added it to the article didn't give a reference. I think the point they were trying to make is that it is a mystery, since the level should be exactly the same all the way from the terminus to the top lock at Combe Hay. The naming of Paulton and Timsbury basins was based on where the tramways led, not on the closest town, which is confusing. Perhaps it needs to be clarified in the article. 146.90.102.241 (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC) - sorry that was me, but I forgot to log in. Spoonfrog (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of adding two links showimg phootgraphs of the blockage of the canal at Upper Midford. I have rewritten the section relating to the affected locks at Combe Hay (16 -19) and hopefully this may allow a clearer picture of the problems that might be encountered. I have a theory about the "anomoly": if an extremely accurate barometric device was used to accurately measure heights (after being suitably calibrated for air temperature variation), there should be no difference between Paulton Basin and Combe Hay lock 1 entry water levels. If, on the other hand GPS satellite data is involved there will be a small angular diffence in the received signal path(s) to the different locations on the surface of the Earth. This factor may account for the very small (relatively) variation recorded. Alternatively settlement of the extremely large stones at lock 1 (each over 5 tons in weight) might account for it.We may never find out until the project is complete. Billy from Bath (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks great, well done! I agree with you theory, 293mm is not a lot for a 200 year old structure being measured by a potentially inaccurate instrument... Spoonfrog (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Uncited Radford Restoration section

I have removed the section on restoration at Radford, as it is completely uncited, and possibly gives more detail than would be included in any Reliable Source. I'm pasting it below in case someone wants to add sections back as references can be found.— Rod ^talk 14:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Radford

The canal from Withy Mills stop-point to Dunford Bridge had been levelled for about 480 metres (1,570 ft). and filled with water. Excavation started in September 2014 and was largely completed by the end of November 2014. Considerable work remains to be carried out on the embankments. The stop-point was discovered at the western end of this section. It offset to the northern side of the canal and the top courses of stonework were scheduled to be rebuilt. This stop-point has vertical 4 inches (100 mm) side-grooves and a wood cill protected on either side by stone abutments in the canal floor. An unusual feature near the canal bottom on the southwest abutment is a recess carved in the wall, possibly to act as support for a lower hinge for a lifting or rotating of the footbridge.

Withy Mills loading wharf was discovered largely intact on the northern embankment of this stretch of canal. Beginning about 30 metres (98 ft) east of the stop-point and continuing eastward for 54 metres. Located due south of the of Withy Mills colliery and Batch and was built circa 1820. An old shed stands well back above the northern embankment. A stone culvert crosses under the canal about 157 metres (515 ft) east of the stop-point. About 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) under the bottom of the canal it carries permanent discharge water to the nearby river. It appears to be an old mineshaft drain. In line with this culvert is a circular stone well 25 metres (82 ft) to the north of the canal .

30 metres (98 ft) further east is a drainage pipe which has been laid after the canal was filled in. It carries a small amount of water during the winter months. A large iron basin is set into the ground above the northern embankment as a livestock drinking point. A mile-marker stone is located on the northern embankment 270 metres (890 ft) east of Withy Mills stop-point together with another broken mile-marker stone. A further drainage pipe crosses the canal 290 metres (950 ft) east of this stop-point, it is positioned about half a metre above the canal floor, (obviously laid after the canal was abandoned and filled in), and carries considerable continuous water to the nearby river.

Two stop-point narrows were discovered in this canal section, the first is about 223 metres (732 ft) east of the Withy Mills stop-point, and the second is 37 metres (121 ft) further east. Both are in poor condition and are offset from the centre line to the northern side of the canal. These are now referred to as Dunford stop-points, the easternmost one has an 8 inches (200 mm) groove for stop-boards whereas it is normal for them to be 4 inches (100 mm). It is unusual to find two canal stop-points so close together.

Cattle drinking troughs had been installed on both sides of the canal embankment. 88 metres (289 ft) further east, the northern embankment is cut away for 5 metres (16 ft) this might have been a winding hole, but is not marked as such on the old maps of the area. Radford loading wharf begins another 32 metres (105 ft) east of this point on the southern embankment and is in poor condition. It is 54 metres (177 ft) long with a 15 degree angle bend at the middle. An embankment extends southwards to bridge abutments either side of the river. This bridge carried a tramway line from pits at Upper Radford. The wharf continues onward to Dunford bridge over which is the access driveway to Radford Mill Farm.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Somerset Coal Canal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114001751/http://www.brlsi.org/proceed03/transport200201.htm to http://www.brlsi.org/proceed03/transport200201.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011094639/http://rtjhomepages.users.btopenworld.com/caishist.html to http://rtjhomepages.users.btopenworld.com/caishist.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502032008/http://www.somerset.gov.uk/archives/ASH/Canals.htm to http://www.somerset.gov.uk/archives/ASH/Canals.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120720145425/http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/media/news/2006/October/Pages/grantunlockscanalssecrethistory.aspx to http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/media/news/2006/October/Pages/grantunlockscanalssecrethistory.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate points of interest

Am I missing something, or are these PoIs really inaccurate?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_Coal_Canal#Route_and_points_of_interest

For example, this is meant to the the location of the Paulton basin.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=51.304&mlon=-2.494&zoom=18#map=14/51.3020/-2.4973

--Dave F63 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)