presta
Legendary Member
a compromise between keeping the canal heritage and modernising the crossing is being sought
Something along the lines of a clapper bridge would be quite in keeping with the surroundings.
a compromise between keeping the canal heritage and modernising the crossing is being sought
Because it's ridiculous! Flawed in several ways when originally built and even more now, unless you're comfortable with discrimination like a poster above.They are indeed a Rochdale Canal thing. I’ve either boated or cycled most canals in Britain and the idea of a bywash that empties over, not under, the towpath is generally not something you find anywhere else.
comfortable with discrimination like a poster above.
They are indeed a Rochdale Canal thing. I’ve either boated or cycled most canals in Britain and the idea of a bywash that empties over, not under, the towpath is generally not something you find anywhere else.
I love the Rochdale - so much so that I wrote an article for Waterways World about it called “Your New Favourite Canal”. It has lots of idiosyncrasies like this. Enjoy them!
The towpaths weren't built for inclusivity, they were built for horses.Because it's ridiculous! Flawed in several ways when originally built and even more now, unless you're comfortable with discrimination like a poster above.
Having horses walk through spillways also wasn't good.The towpaths weren't built for inclusivity, they were built for horses.
Who's talking about being comfortable with discrimination?
I can't see why you would infer that from anything I wrote. I even went as far as saying:You seemed to be one, arguing against improving "suitability for a certain group of user" right after the planks had been described as only usable by the abled
I was merely pointing out that there are different groups with different ideas about the correct way to maintain the canals. The canal in question is very special and maybe it is the right decision to keep it the way it is. Or maybe not! I'm out of that world now so I will keep my thoughts to myself.I'm not commenting on what I think, because frankly who cares!
However, I am now interested in finding out more about the history of canals and why certain kinds of bridges etc. were used in different areas...
Those cobbled sections (when under water) are not suitable for people or even horses - a horse slipping over on slippery cobbles could suffer a life-threatening injury.Saying that, I don't believe that cyclists should assume that a resource is appropriate for them just because said resource is car-free. You see that kind of entitlement with motorists all the time. The attitude that you're displaying in your post doesn't feel different to a motorist arguing that 20mph zones are a bad idea because they make their journey times longer. We all belong to tribes, and woebetide the other lot!
In fact, I might write to them both to suggest that since they seem to be taking an awfully long time to come up with a solution themselves!
Okay, I have done some research... It looks like horses walking the cobbles can probably join the able-bodied walking the planks!I'm not a horse-boater and I suspect you aren't either - if so what you've said is merely speculation. Any reply I give would also be speculation, I'm not knowledgeable about horses. I don't imagine when the canal was built hundreds of years ago the designers would have designed it in a way that would routinely maim the working horses. Life was very cheap back then but a horse was an expensive asset.
But the rest of us still have a £2.1 million spend which was supposed to give us better access to the towpath.