CANAL BUILT HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

1 HISTORY THROUGH BUILDINGS

The history of the Montgomeryshire had profound effects on its development canal shows the detailed local evolution and buildings. of broader national trends. This report is a chronological history of the canal in terms of its buildings, set against their THE BACKGROUND TO historical and environmental CONSTRUCTION: background. CANAL BUILDING IN THE 1790S.

The originated not From the mid C18, agricultural as a self-contained project, but as a expansion and industrial development branch to the much larger Ellesmere had shown the limitations of the existing Canal system. It was extended in two roads and water transport systems. The phases, reaching Newtown by 1821, yet shortcomings were most obvious in the remained ancillary to a larger system. It transport of heavy bulk goods such as was to serve three different purposes – stone and coal. From the 1770s, canals as a branch to feed limestone into the had been built and natural waterways rest of the Ellesmere system; as an improved, so that by the 1790s, the agricultural canal to distribute limestone, building and operating of canals was grain and raw materials; and as a well understood. There was no transport link to a potential industrial alternative to private funding for such town. infrastructure improvements, and the Because of this, the waterway was not procedure of establishing a company, conceived as a unit, but was instead selling shares, and, hopefully, paying managed in two branches by separate dividends, was well established. In the companies. These never amalgamated, early 1790s, the hopes of speculators for and only in 1850 did the canal come impressive profits led to a frenzy of under unified management by the canal promotions. The Ellesmere canal Shropshire Union Railway and Canal was one such speculative scheme. Company, itself a dependent of the London & North Western Railway. With a brief interlude during World War I, THE ELLESMERE CANAL this continued till 1922, when railway grouping placed the canal under the Proposed in 1792, the Ellesmere canal control of the London North Eastern attracted an exceptional rush of Railway. There it remained till formal speculators. The majority proved to be abandonment in 1944. So for most of its significant local landowners, and it was existence, the waterway was under the their agricultural and industrial interests control of railway companies. These the canal was intended to serve. The origins, and subsequent management, original intention was to link Shrewsbury with Chester and Liverpool,

1 carrying coal, limestone, iron and demanded great amounts of lime to agricultural produce, interchanging with improve and maintain their condition – imports via Liverpool. about 3 tons per acre every eight years. A canal was ideal for carrying limestone, A defining feature of the Montgomery and it could also be used to carry coal, Canal is that it was intended only to grain, building stone and timber. carry a one-way traffic in limestone. It was never planned as a through route, nor to serve industries along its route, for LIMESTONE there were none of significance in 1792. The great limestone outcrop at Llanymynech was crucial to the Ellesmere company’s plans. Exploited since the C16, the quarries there had THE AGRICULTURAL MOTIVE reached an impressive size by the mid C18. A canal was ideal for distributing The Montgomeryshire/Shropshire border this inexhaustible resource, which would was a prosperous agricultural area in the be a firm base for the company’s late C18, and for many years afterwards. profitability. Quicklime was far too There were many large estates, and dangerous to be carried by boat, so the landowners took an active interest in pattern was set by which the canal agricultural development, in response to carried limestone to numerous canalside a rising demand for wheat, with little kilns, whence quicklime was distributed interruption till 1815. The area under by road. So important was the limestone cultivation was increased by the draining traffic that the Llanymynech branch, and improvement of moorlands and planned by Jessop and Telford, opened heath, and by parliamentary enclosure of in 1796 – well before the main line existing farmland. Along the canal, this section northwards to Pont Cysyllte extended from the enclosure of Baggy opened in 1802. Limestone was the basis Moor in 1777 up to the enclosure of of the Ellesmere canal’s prosperity till at Llanymynech in 1845. By 1801, least 1815. Montgomeryshire had more enclosed land than anywhere else in . A further motive for the enclosure of THE EASTERN BRANCH waste land and commons was to evict a sizable population of squatters and so The Llanymynech branch in fact suppress any disaffection or extended as afar as , where it revolutionary sympathies. Landowners was joined by a water feeder from the wanted above all a docile and Tanat. As early as 1792, proposals were controllable workforce, and this in part made to extend the waterway beyond explains the numerous estate cottages Carreghofa via , in the which offered comfortable direction of Newtown. This proposal accommodation to the more biddable. was again put forward by prominent For the waterway, the importance of local landowners, who became major agriculture was that the soils of the area shareholders, and their interest was

2 agricultural development. Engineered by THE SHROPSHIRE UNION the Dadford brothers, the extension opened as far as Garthmyl in 1797. It The speculative enthusiasm for canals in included a further branch from the 1790s was never equalled again. towards , ending in a basin at Later speculative manias in the 1830s Tyddyn. This was intended for the and 1840s focused on railways. More export of timber. High quality timber difficult economic circumstances after for naval construction had been 1815 affected industry, agriculture and produced in the canal hinterland for transport. Thomas Telford many years, and had previously been disingenuously claimed that railways transported via the Severn from Pool were being promoted in the 1830s Quay. Timber and tanbark remained mainly to increase the demand for iron. significant products from the area till at Railways were devised for carrying coal, least the early C20. and by the mid 1820s they had developed to carry both coal and passengers by steam power, at much THE WESTERN BRANCH greater speeds than canals could achieve. In response to this, the Shropshire Union The Montgomery canal was completed Railway and Canal Company was by a further extension to Newtown. The established, with a foot in both camps. proposal was contentious, partly because One of its proposals was that the entire it was made as late as 1815, when the Ellesmere canal system should be trade in limestone was at its peak and converted to railway, including the full poised to fall. The extension was length of the Montgomery Canal. Plans promoted mainly by the entrepreneur for this were drawn up in 1845 by no William Pugh of Newtown, who raised less an engineer than Robert Stephenson, much of the finance for it himself. The which suggests the proposal was branch’s finances proved precarious: no perfectly serious. By 1850, both dividend was ever paid, and Pugh branches of the Montgomery Canal were became bankrupt. The intention was part of the SURCC, which determined apparently to promote the growth of their character thereafter. Newtown, which was beginning to develop a significant flannel industry at this time. Planned by Josias Jessop, and LANDSCAPE AND WATER carried out by John Williams, the extension was completed in 1819-21. In Landscape is a major influence on the the event, there was an almost wholly character and viability of canals. It is one-way trade in limestone and coal to the major influence in determining the Newtown, and although by the 1830s a route, and this in turn establishes what substantial flannel industry and market engineering works will be required. had developed, it is not clear that the Engineering works – locks, cuttings, canal played any significant part in this. embankments, aqueducts - are of course a major element of the waterway’s buildings. Water is the other major determinant. Its supply and control – by weirs, feeders and sluices - was essential

3 to the canal’s success. Unlike most canals, the Montgomery line had a surplus of water, which had a major impact on waterside activities. However, a surplus of water also implied heavy rainfall and a number of watercourses, hence the canal’s most important engineering structures are aqueducts, most of them notoriously troublesome.

PHASES AND BUILDINGS

The canal’s history can be divided into coherent phases of construction and management. In each case, most of the buildings date from the time of construction, simply because without a watertight channel, locks, aqueducts, weirs and bridges, the canal could neither exist nor function. Warehouses, lock houses, lobbies, cranes, weighbridges, even boundary marks, are secondary. Limekilns, though the canal existed to serve them, were not actually part of it, nor run by the canal companies. Like malthouses and factories, they were potential customers. Several vernacular buildings alongside the waterway predate it and now complement it, but they are ancillaries.

4 2 THE CONSTRUCTIONAL PHASE

THE CHANNEL

Much of the original channel survives from each of the three phases. It retains its original character best where it is South of Freestone Lock/ least used, and the dry sections allow it to be easily examined. It is clear from surviving stretches, as well as from archaeological investigation and documentary record, that the form and material of the channel were standard for their day. There is no evidence of a real variation between the stretches built in the 1790s and those from 1815-21.The stretch from Frankton Locks to Carreghofa was the first to be constructed. The route survives with few alterations; not so the channel. This is most obvious in the rebuilt stretch across the Perry Valley. Archaeological South of Freestone Lock assessment at the time of reconstruction revealed the marginal standards of the original construction here, the channel being little more than parallel embankments channelling water. Reconstructed, with its new lock, geotextile liner and strongly engineered banks, it is undoubtedly more efficient, but its character has changed. The landscape of the Perry Valley and its flanking moorlands made possible the long straights between the Perry Aqueduct and Queen’s Head. These are distinctive route features, found nowhere else on the canal. Dry sections near Pant show the original material and profile of the 1790s. The character of the channel as built in the 1790s is shown in the Guilsfield branch Guilsfield branch, and as built in the early C19 south of Freestone Lock.

5 These sections demonstrate the character of the channel for most of its length, and make the important point that like most rural waterways of its period, the canal had soft edges except at specific points. The function of the channel is to contain water, so substantial lengths have been piled. Near Lockgate Bridge and in Welshpool wharf, for example, concrete coping has been added. This is essential to the channel’s functioning, but is a substantial change from the original Welshpool wharf character. This building feature is a major element of the canal’s character, and has important implications for its role as habitat. Every effort should be made to respect and retain the soft-edged character over most of the route.

6 TOWPATH, PITCHING AND WHARVES

Historic photographs as well site inspection make clear that the towpath has normally been pitched with crushed stone. The scene at Belan (opposite) shows the towpath exceptionally clear and well-maintained, and may have been taken after repairs. This photograph, and site inspections, confirm that the towpath surfacing was soft-edged, the stone being spread but not defined by edge- Crickheath wharf boards or similar devices. This follows the soft-edged character of the original channel itself, and it is important that this feature should be retained in restoration.

The waterway was given a harder edging only at points of wear. This was obviously a sensible economy when even the swiftest horse-boats made too little wash to erode the banks. Pitching was essential at wharves, not only to withstand wear, but to allow water deep enough for boats to come alongside. Rednal Crickheath Wharf and Tyddyn Basin are well preserved examples amongst many. The hard-edged channel at Rednal, though dating from the earliest phase of construction, has been substantially altered, and is exceptional. It is also obvious that bridge openings and lock entrances were not only pitched but coped. The coping was very simple, the rather soft sandstone blocks merely being rounded on the exposed arris. This simple finish, clearly shown in C19 photographs of Welshpool wharf and surviving today, was used throughout, Coping at Welshpool wharf and is a characteristic detail of the

7 waterway. It is important to the canal’s character that this detail is maintained, and not replaced with an inauthentic substitute.

BRIDGES

Bridges are by far the most numerous of the canal’s historic buildings. Of these, the brick elliptical arch was most common, exemplified by Lockgate bridge near Frankton. Allowing for minor variations in the form of the abutments and parapet walls, according to whether the approaches are level with the channel or not, there is great consistency in the original form and Lockgate bridge materials of these bridges. This is to be expected. The engineering of the waterway at all periods was conservative – which is why Buck’s contribution is outstanding – and the elliptical brick arch was a standard form which could be adapted for roads or accommodation bridges. These bridges were part of the first phase of construction, and there is no evidence that any were constructed later. They are a key feature of the canal’s character, and later alterations (see below) have not yet obscured this. The severe deterioration caused by plant invasion at Dolfor Lock bridge, amongst Dolfor Lock bridge others, threatens the existence of these irreplaceable historic buildings. The importance of these bridges not only to the canal’s character, but to its continuing to function, is so great that all efforts to preserve and maintain them are justified.

8 LOCKS

Without locks the canal could not function, and locks are essential items in every phase of construction. More obviously than buildings, locks are working mechanisms, and their form presents special constructional problems. The result is that locks are subject to deterioration and wear, calling for repeated repairs and rebuilding. The same applies even more strongly to lock Freestone Lock gates and paddle gear. There is no evidence that any of the locks is unaltered, and their historical interest lies mainly in the gates and paddlegear. These belong to the later phases of the canal’s history, and are considered below.

Like bridges, abandoned locks are Freestone Lock subject to plant invasion and consequent damage, as illustrated at Freestone Lock, Freestone Lock which has been almost obliterated by plant growth since 1993.

Locks are particularly important because they so often form part of a complex of canal buildings including houses, bridges, wharves, cranes and limekilns. Carreghofa Carreghofa and Belan are outstanding examples.

9 AQUEDUCTS

Aqueducts are the final class of buildings without which the canal could not function. In line with the conservative engineering of the whole waterway, the original aqueducts were all of masonry with a clay puddle lining, and all gave trouble. This was exceptional, even though aqueducts of similar construction gave trouble elsewhere. The Perry aqueduct survives only in the form of masonry fragments Vyrnwy after rebuilding in the late C20. Troublesome or not, the Vyrnwy, and aqueducts are the canal’s outstanding engineering features, dating from its second and third phases. Because of their structural problems, they have undergone extensive repair: Vyrnwy externally braced, Berriew refaced and its channel perhaps narrowed, Aberbechan rebuilt in 1859 behind its original facing. Like the Berriew repaired bridges, this constitutes part of their historical interest.

10 3 COMPLETION AND CONSOLIDATION

By 1821, the canal’s route with all its engineering works, was complete. The essentials having been created, there followed a phase of completion and consolidation, continuing into the mid- 1830s. It was during this period that the canal’s most distinctive and attractive historic buildings appeared. It was also the last time that the canal’s mamnagement attempted to keep pace with technical and commercial Burgedin innovation.

LOCK HOUSES

Although locks were essential, it appears resident lock keepers were not. There is Aston no certainty that lock houses existed on the eastern branch before 1819, and even then, only half the lock sites were Aston covered. Aston lock house retains most of its original features and character, the hipped roof and bay window being Frankton typical of the very early C19. The lock keeper at Frankton, with four locks to look after would seem to have merited a larger house than that provided. This house was a design used elsewhere on the Ellesemere system such as Marton, before it was enlarged in the later C19. Even by the mid C19, not all the locks had “lock offices” and even these may not have been houses, but rather shelters for non-resident lock keepers. Of course, boatmen could operate locks themselves, and often did so, but on a busy waterway, or at bottlenecks, a lock keeper could keep traffic moving more Frankton efficiently. The company’s agent gave the opinion in 1819 that the locks certainly needed men

11 on hand to take care of them. Lock houses continued to be built, usually equipped with privy, pigsty, stable and sometimes other outbuildings, indicating a comfortable standard of living for those fortunate enough to occupy them. One of the management innovations of this period was the decision to keep locks open at night from 1837, which entailed extra work, with extra pay, for the lock keepers. It seems unlikely that this was Burgedin necessary to cope with heavy trade, as this actually peaked around 1815. It seems more likely that in the face of more difficult conditions and the threat of railway competition, the idea was to allow unhindered access the waterway.

Lock houses continued to be built and altered throughout the C19. They are a very significant element in the canal’s character, and it is important that their historic character and features should be retained, as has been achieved at Burgedin. Many lock houses have been sold by British waterways in the late C20/early C21, and when these are not listed buildings, detrimental alterations Dolfor can take place. Lock houses at Dolfor, Byles Lock and Frankton have all had alterations to windows and doors, which reduce their historic interest.

WAREHOUSES

Although warehouses are a typical sort of canal building, they were not essential, and costs could be saved by not providing them. The aim of the Montgomery Canal was primarily to carry limestone, coal and timber. All these could safely be piled on wharves, where they would suffer no damage

Pentreheylin

12 from the weather, and the only risk was pilferage. Warehouses had to be provided where there were sufficient amounts of vulnerable goods. These could be as simple as salt, but as Hughes suggests, will soon have come to include more exotic foodstuffs, materials and furniture demanded by the relatively comfortable population in the canal’s hinterland. Pentreheylin, built c1824-31, and restored late C20, was alongside a timber wharf. Here as elsewhere, timber wharves seem to have had no handling facilities, though the warehouse crane may have contributed. This warehouse, as might be expected from its position on the Pentreheylin estate, is of a particularly high architectural standard, a Clafton Bridge rare example of a showpiece building on the canal. Richard Goolden’s warehouse at Clafton Bridge, and that at Welshpool Aqueduct, each formerly with its crane, are also good examples of essentially vernacular design and construction. By their scale, style and materials they tie the canal as closely to its landscape setting as their function ties it to the area’s economic life. Welshpool aqueduct warehouse GEORGE BUCK’S CONTRIBUTION

Appointed engineer of the Eastern Branch in 1819 and engineer and clerk to the Western Branch in 1832, George Buck made an outstanding contribution to the canal’s built heritage. He was responsible for the canal’s unique paddlegear, and for distinctive cast-iron lock gates, aqueducts and bridges. Between them, these features are the most important elements of the canal’s character. This is all the more surprising because Buck was not the originator of

13 any stretch of the canal, and held office only for a fraction of its existence, yet he stamped his personality upon it. Despite his failure to cure the defects of the Vyrnwy aqueduct in 1823, Buck was not only a skilful engineer, but an effective communicator and self-publicist. His works have attracted attention ever since his time, and the Montgomery Canal owes him a substantial debt.

Paddlegear: Buck’s paddlegear, seen here at Burgedin, survives widely on the canal, Burgedin lower lock with two working examples at Carreghofa. This ingenious mechanism, made Coalbrookdale and elsewhere, demonstrates Buck’s strengths and weaknesses. Using the innovatory material, cast iron, the mechanism shows new thinking on the issue of sluice operation, and works exceptionally fast when all is well. However, it is an exceedingly complex means towards a simple end, presents maintenance problems, and was said to be liable to jamming by debris. Installing it must have entailed considerable engineering works and new culverts at each lock. This when canal mania was long over, and the canal’s traffic past its peak. That Buck could persuade his employers to go to this expense and all the interruption to Paddlegear traffic that would be required, suggests that he was an extremely plausible salesman.

Lockgates Jessop, Telford, the Stephensons, and many other distinguished engineers committed themselves heavily to the use of cast iron in the early C19. Telford advocated cast iron lock gates and they were used on the Ellesmere system, perhaps before Buck was appointed. On

Iron lock gates 14 the Montgomery line, Buck installed many sets of cast iron gates, including difficult locations like Frankton. The distinctive curved recesses in lock chambers show their former positions, and the historic photograph of Welshpool shows them in position. Unlike the paddlegear, the cast iron gates did not survive on the Montgomery canal or elsewhere. The likelihood is they were difficult to keep watertight, as they could not be adjusted or patched like wooden gates, and they were susceptible to damage by boats. The last surviving example was removed from Welshpool to the Stoke Bruerne museum in the early 1970s, along with the stone sill bearing Buck’s name. These surviving gates have short, tubular cast- iron beams, which diminish in section away from the gate. This is the exact opposite of normal practice, the weight Iron gate of the beam serving to balance that of beam the gate. This, and their short length, suggest the cast iron gates were difficult to operate. Functionality apart, the cast iron gates are a distinctive feature of this canal, and it is most important that the surviving pair should at least be returned Inscribed to Welshpool, even if they are beyond lock sill use. Steps towards this are being taken at the time of writing. A further reason for this relocation is that the inscribed sill has been severely damaged by weathering at Stoke Bruerne, to the extent that Buck’s name is now barely legible. Like other historic buildings, once destroyed, it is irreplaceable.

Aqueducts: Soon after his appointment in 1819, Buck rebuilt the Brithdir aqueduct in cast iron. Considering the trouble encountered with the canal’s masonry aqueducts, this was a predictable choice

15 for an engineer enthused by the possibilities of cast iron. Surprisingly, the structure is very conservative; the practical techniques of building cast-iron aqueducts had been explored since the 1790s, and the example of Pontcysyllte was not far to seek. However, the theoretical underpinning was not at all well understood, and even Buck’s modest effort had to be remodelled in the 1890s. The importance of Brithdir is that it is one of only 20 or so cast iron aqueducts built on British canals before the 1830s and the end of major canal Brithdir construction. This gives it some importance on a national scale. The aqueduct includes an attractive iron railing, entirely in keeping with its period, which shows telltale rope grooves in the stanchion at the south end. Following Buck’s example, his successor, JA Sword, rebuilt the Lledan Brook aqueduct at Welshpool in a similar style in 1836. His very modest step forward resulted in a more stable structure, and he utilized the adjoining weir to Domen Mill to break the force of flood water and reduce the strain on the aqueduct foundations. These modest structures are interesting steps on the Lledan way to the mastery of cast iron structures Brook in the early C19. The Carreghofa aqueduct of 1866, though made of iron, shows little advance in terms of structural engineering.

Bridges: Before 1850, the most notable iron bridges on the canal were the small accommodation bridges dating from Buck’s period of office. These little bridges use T-section cast iron girders with a cambered upper rib, and incorporate sockets for wooden fenceposts. Their survival shows the Pentreheylin

16 suitability and lasting qualities of cast iron when properly applied. They are a distinctive minor feature of the canal’s most innovatory period, and it is important that the survivors should be retained. Many have had their deck material (originally slate) renewed, and the abutments of others show structural problems.

17 RAILWAYS: CHALLENGE AND RESPONSE

Ellesmere canal system and its adjuncts, The canal’s infrastructure and buildings including the Montgomery Canal, into were mostly in place by the early 1820s. railways. Almost at once, locomotive railways The Deposited Plans are signed by no began to challenge their position as bulk less an authority then Robert carriers. Horse tramways, of course, had Stephenson. This makes clear that a long existed; the line north from considerable amount of money had been Pontcysllte was continued by a tramway spent and some fairly serious thinking to Acrefair, and later to Ruabon, in 1805. undertaken. They show the proposed Tramways like the extensive system at line sweeping along the canal’s route in Llanymynech and that around the suspiciously easy curves, usually maintenanace yard at Welshpool served following the canal closely, as through the canal, but did not threaten it as Welshpool (opposite) cutting railways did. George Buck went off to dramatically across its twists and turns at inspect the Stockton & Darlington difficult spots like Llanymynech and railway in 1828, and the Liverpool & Berriew, and entirely dismissing the Manchester line in 1829. What he saw steep climb that would be needed at convinced him to leave the canal and Frankton. Of course, this was not a enter railway employment in 1833. detailed survey, but it shows the Though limited and inflexible by today’s direction of thought. standards, railways offered bulk The railway conversion is an intriguing transport at much higher speeds than might-have-been. Would the line to canals. More importantly, they offered Newtown have been a success? Would greater availability. Though inhibited by the Price Jones flannel business have fog and snow, railways escaped the come into existence forty years earlier, canal’s problems of water supply, and continued the growth of Newtown’s freezing, and the impossibility of quickly main industry? Would the fall in area’s providing alternative routes. The population revealed in the 1861 census engineering they required to pass hills or have been halted? Probably not; but cross rivers was no worse than that of a railways did have marked effects on the canal, and could be much simpler. canal’s business and buildings from the Following the success of the Liverpool 1840s onwards. & Manchester Railway and its successors, furious railway speculation The SURCC broke out in the 1830s and even more in In 1847 and 1850, the Eastern and the 1840s. Western Branches amalgamated with the Shropshire and the borders were not in SURCC, which thereafter controlled the forefront of railway speculation and them till 1922. The SURCC balanced its development. However, at the height of canal and railway interests in such a way enthusiasm for railways, many schemes that the Montgomery Canal survived as a were proposed whose chances of success working waterway into the second were minimal. One proposed in 1845 quarter of the C20, receiving the final was to convert the whole of the

18 additions – not the least important - to its buildings and character.

THE FLY BOAT SERVICE

A colourful commercial enterprise of this period was the shortlived flyboat passenger service from Newtown to Rednal. This offered connections with the Shrewsbury & Birmingham/Great Western Railway onwards to Shrewsbury and Liverpool. In line with the railway politics of the mid C19, the cooperation between railway and canal was somewhat grudging, the canal company implying that the rival railway was unreliable. Flyboat services had operated on the Chester Canal and several others earlier in the C19, and offered much greater comfort than road or rail, then or for long afterwards. The problem was that by the 1850s, the whole idea of passenger transport by horse drawn boat was archaic, and the service ceased in a couple of years. It is possible that the flyboat service was the reason behind the bevelling-off of the towpath side bridge arches, which clearly took place after construction. The low arches were problem enough for a walking man, let alone one riding a trotting horse. The fact that the bridges were limewashed may have helped make them visible in the dim light of early morning. Rednal It is claimed that the unique brick and timber warehouse at Rednal was made use of for this service, but there is no proof of this. It is an example of a vernacular type of construction found usually in the late C18, and it is possible that the warehouse predates the canal, like Heath House on the opposite bank. Associated with the canal’s only turnover bridge, and the nearby C19 railway bridge, this building forms the Heath House

Heath House 19 centre of a particularly noteworthy waterside settlement, showing continuity with an earlier period.

Rednal was important as an interchange point for goods between railway and canal. A basin and sidings were opened there in 1848. A surviving invoice (in document file) from 1854 throws light on the trade: it refers to large amounts of ale consigned via Rednal to WG Clarke of Welshpool. Mr Clarke, described as a Porter Merchant, was receiving supplies of this nourishing brew from Dublin as early as 1843. It was cargoes of this kind that needed warehouses to protect them from theft. The interchange facility lasted only a short time but the basin was the site of one of several bone-works (another was at Maesbury) established along the canal during the C19. These works produced crushed bone and later, superphosphate fertilizer. These, plus imported guano and nitrates challenged the position of lime as a soil conditioner from the mid 1840s, and had virtually displaced it by 1900. This had obvious implications for Rednal swing bridge the canal’s basic trade, which were obvious from the 1850s. The cast iron swing bridge over the basin arm at Rednal was one of several installed around 1850, though this example may have been resited. It retains one of its original wrought iron handrails.

20 4 THE FINAL YEARS

The mid-C19 railway bridge at Rednal is a reminder that railway influence on the canal was only beginning in the 1840s. The canal was kept in being by its railway managers partly because it allowed the LNWR to operate in GWR territory, and block the promotion of rival railways: no one would have proposed a rival canal by this time. The most significant railway development to Rednal railway bridge take place was the establishment of the Cambrian Railways, largest of the Welsh systems, in 1864. Welshpool had had a rail connection from 1860, but lines now extended from the company’s base in Oswestry to Newtown, , Ellesmere, Whitchurch, and many other points offering nationwide connections. But the new company was in financial difficulties by 1868, and these were not resolved till the mid 1880s. This in turn reflected the economic fortunes of the area. Populations in the canalside settlements at Garthmyl and were falling by the early 1860s, as was the population of Welshpool itself. By 1895, the number of flannel manufacturers in Newtown had fallen to one-eighth of what it had been in 1858, although the rise of the massive Price Jones factories offset this. From the mid C19, the picture is of a diminishing rural population - that of Llanfair Caerinion halved between 1850 and 1950 – and of small towns where significant industries failed to develop. Malting, tanning and brickmaking were said to be the principal industries in the canal corridor in 1868. Newtown had 12 maltsters in 1858, and Welshpool had 13. By 1895, they each had one. The Powysland Flannel and Tweed Mills had been

21 established in 1834, only to fail within a few years. Run by the Price Jones family, they operated from 1883 to 1900, before being converted to a tannery. This became an ordnance works in 1914- 1918, then a light industrial operation, before closing in 1930. With this background, it is surprising that the canal survived as well as it did, and it is equally predictable that though repair and maintenance continued, there was little expansion or new development.

Warehouses: The competitive position of British agriculture worsened from the 1840s, Queen’s Head though the canal’s hinterland was slow to reflect this. Till the 1870s, local agricultural estates were able to maintain their incomes by intensive, high-input practices, which produced high yields at high prices. This meant the import of fertilizers, some of them artificial, and an increasing amount of animal fodder, including grain and cattle cake. During the last quarter of the century, there seems to have been a swing to animal husbandry and dairying. Imported grain made production in Britain unprofitable. The canal’s management responded to this by providing new warehouses suitable for what were usually powders Queen’s Head and grains in sacks. The impressive warehouse at Queen’s Head was the largest of these, with facilities for storing a variety of goods, and a basement tunnel linking it with a nearby sandpit. This warehouse, along with that at Brynderwen and a smaller example at Tyddyn, have corrugated roofs and cladding above a blue-brick basement. This construction echoes a local vernacular style, with slate-hung upper floors over brick or stone basements. Brynderwen Blue brick is typical of later C19 work carried out by railway companies, and it

22 at Wern and used for construction and repair. Corrugated iron, invented in south Wales the 1850s, but produced in Wolverhampton and the west midlands, was a most significant building material. It was a versatile building component, which could be used for walls, roofs, partitions, and many other purposes. Cheap and durable, it was complemented by machine-sawn softwood frames, Brithdir produced by firms such as Boys & Boden of Welshpool. Even the grandest industrial buildings are normally built of expedient materials. Previously, these had been timber, brick and stone. In the late C19, they included corrugated iron, a classic product of late C19 industry.

Some warehouses, like the recently restored example at Brithdir, were simply sheds. They were built of wood and corrugated iron, in a typically railway style. That near Dragon Bridge (104) is well sited for transshipment between canal and road, with large doors onto the towpath, and a loading platform on the road side. It contains a large enamel sign advertising cattle feeds. These humble buildings are quite as much part of the canal’s history and Dragon Bridge character as their earlier and grander equivalents. Being less durable, they should be given more understanding treatment. They represent an advanced stage in the evolution of industrial and agricultural buildings.

Aqueducts and bridges The only aqueduct on this waterway which seems never to have given trouble is that at Carreghofa. This was built in 1866-1870, and was inserted to accommodate a railway line. Its construction, with a slope-sided trough in wrought iron supported on cast iron columns and bracing struts, was different

23 from all the other aqueducts, and proved successful. This, and its inconspicuous position, may be why it has attracted little attention, although it is one of the most advanced engineering structures on the canal. The existing masonry aqueducts underwent extensive repair and even rebuilding, Aberbechan c1859, Berriew in 1889, Vyrnwy in 1890 and 1892, Brithdir at about the same time. The result was usually a drastic change in their appearance, seen most clearly at Berriew and the Vyrnwy flood arches, where much of the structure was Vyrnwy reconstructed in blue engineering brick. This harsh and unyielding industrial material contrasted sharply with the earlier stone construction and local brick. While it was typical of railway and canal engineering of its period, it was an imported material whose use changed the character of the structures and waterway. Unlike corrugated iron, it has proved impossible to assimilate, and the detrimental effect on the canal’s Price’s Bridge character is irreversible. Engineering brick has had the same detrimental effect on many of the canal’s minor bridges. The local brick used in the original construction apparently proved vulnerable to weathering, particularly in bridge parapets. It is possible that bridges were limewashed with the idea of protecting them. Much Old Hall Bridge patching and wholesale replacement took place in the late C19 and early C20, always with damaging effects on the appearance and character of the structure. It is very regrettable that the use of red engineering brick has continued into the period of restoration, as this material is not only inappropriate, but may threaten

24 the long-term integrity of the structure. Crowther Hall The late C19 also saw the construction or rebuilding of lock lobbies. Again, blue brick was used, and the contrast between it and the local brick is painful. The lobby at Crowther Hall Lock blends well with its surroundings. That at Bank Lock would not look out of place on the Birmingham canal systems. This disregard for local character exemplifies the centralized management and unified style to which the canal was increasingly Bank subject in its later years.

Blue brick was also used in a further project of the canal’s later years, the alteration and enlargement of canal houses. The original canal house at Carreghofa was obviously enlarged in two stages, first in red brick, then with a large blue brick rear addition. This has been colourwashed. The logical conclusion was reached when the Brithdir lock house was rebuilt in the 1890s, entirely in blue brick Carreghofa

Brithdir

Carreghofa

25 5 WELSHPOOL WHARF AND YARD

As the only town on the canal between Frankton and Newtown, Welshpool became the canal’s principal trading centre. The early C19 Aqueduct warehouse was the principal building, and this and its crane were photographed in the late C19/early C20, suggesting it was then still a site of particular interest. A survey of 1854 (opposite) shows the stage that development had then reached. Hollybush Wharf has a weighbridge at its entrance, suggesting a similar trade, and a timber yard opposite strongly suggests timber was loaded there, as usual apparently without a crane or any other handling devices. The town wharf, below Severn Street, was mainly concerned with bulk cargoes – it is described as a coal wharf in 1854 – and only a small building stood on the wharf itself. By 1884, this had been greatly enlarged in two stages, to form the building which now dominates the scene. The rebuilding evidently aimed to be a showpiece, with high quality brickwork and mullioned windows unknown on the rest of the canal, and surprising in a warehouse of any date. This is the largest and most prestigious warehouse surviving on the canal, and it is appropriate to remember that it is a very modest structure compared with canal warehouses found, for instance, in Sheffield. Although its architecture has little of local character about it, its scale, form and materials at least bear some relation to local traditions. It is fortunate that this important building with its distinctive canopy formerly sheltering a crane, still exists. The lock mill, buildings on Hollybush Wharf, and many others survived till at

26 Hughes as late as 1981 have now been lost, changing the character of the canal wharf and making its history difficult to follow. It is fortunate that many of the small buildings, including the canal office and warehouses at the rear of the wharf, still survive.

By contrast the towpath side of the Cottages canal shows very little development in 1854. Opposite the lock were cottages, the now-demolished Sergeants’ Row, the surviving Dolanog Cottages, and a group of sheds parallel with the canal.

A major change is shown on the OS map of 1884 (see document file), with the appearance of the new canal maintenance yard, now Travis Perkins. Prior to this, canal maintenance had been Wharf cottages carried out from a yard and sheds opposite the Aqueduct warehouse. This was built over, and its historical significance lost, in the late C20. The maintenance yard is a substantial complex, whose construction implies substantial investment by the canal’s management. The buildings along the towpath can be identified in a photograph of c1900, and the OS map of 1902 (opposite) confirms their existence. There were several buildings in the yard Maintenance yard to the rear that have now been demolished, but the majority remain. These have several points of interest. Many are of corrugated iron which confirms how widely this material was Sawpit used for industrial buildings by this time. It is noticeable that the most specialized building, the sawpit and workshop range, is of conventional brick and slate, but so are some of the single storey workshops.

27 The yard was equipped with a waterside crane (now lost), tramway and wagon turntable to ease the movement of heavy items about the site. These were familiar devices in the area, being used in factories and in the SURCC yard at Ellesmere. By the late C19, they were found in model farms, country houses and industrial sites. A curious feature of the yard is that there is no evidence of powered machinery; no boilerhouse or chimney can be identified, no water power was employed, and the date of construction makes it unlikely that a gas engine could Tramway have been used, at least at first. It is hard to believe that the canal itself relied on the labour of men in a sawpit, when less than a mile away was the estate sawmill, with powered machinery Corrugated iron buildings driven by canal water since the 1820s. The maintenance yard is a particularly noteworthy survival, in view of its date and its completeness, and further study would be justifiable.

28