Langham's Leaks: Mountmill

The last of three articles by Dave Goodwin reprinted (slightly edited) with permission from the Old Union Canal Society Magazine

Christmas 1998

Mountmill Leaks

The recent interest in the technology first used above Tythorn Lock on the 'Leicester Line' caused me to dig out my records of Millner's correspondence regarding the famous leaks on the Buckingham Arm. Photographs in Alan Faulkner's 'Grand Junction Canal' (old book, page 122), and David Blagrove's "Waterways of Northamptonshire" (p.29, photo 36) clearly show that the Bucks. structure followed the 'Langham' pattern closely. When William Yates was installed as GJ Engineer, Milner sent a detailed report to him, dated 15th June 1917.

Past History

In Sep 1893 Millner had surveyed the Bucks Arm as part of a survey of all GJ waters. He reported a 'very bad leak in the rock bottom at Mountmill' (about halfway up the ten mile canal). This caused the then manager B.W. Cook to have a stoppage to re-puddle the bed. In Nov 1902 - with Millner himself now in charge - the leak had grown to 46 locks per week. A week's stoppage for further re-puddling cost just over 29. By Oct 1913, when the Arm was closed 'for cleansing', a 'big gang' was sent to Mountmill, they opened up the holes, filled the worst with concrete, and again re-puddled over the top. The cost this time was estimated at 75. As before however, though the leak was initially stopped, it soon broke out afresh. 'Since then the District Labourer has spent the greater part of his time in searching for the holes and puddling them with the water in'. (This would have meant probing the bed with a bar, and dropping clay over the affected area from a boat - a rather haphazard process.)

Recommendations

Millner's June 1917 report noted that he had put two gauges in the canal bank to monitor the major leaks. One of these was 2 ft. wide - and had a constant flow over it of some three and three quarters inches! The other was 1ft wide, with one and three quarters inches running. His calculations concluded a loss of 95 locks of water per week - 4,940 locks per year! 'Today the gauges register slightly more' he said. Plans, sections, and photographs were included and sent to London H.Q. Normally the Bucks Arm acted as a feeder to the Stoke Bruerne/Cosgrove pound, but because of the massive leak, they were being allowed to take water from the River Tove (at Stoke bottom lock) at the rate of 70 locks per day. 'In humble opinion the Bucks Arm should be made watertight, and even navigable' he wrote. 'This leakage can be permanently stopped by adopting the "Langham Pound" system of concreting on a smaller scale' (the Bucks Arm was narrow, as opposed to the wide gauge of Leicester Section). 'I have shown the proposed section at a top width of 18ft., and if cost is to be a consideration, I would reduce the width to 16ft.' (The Langham Leak trough was planned at 25ft between copings). Costs had risen to ' 6 per yard forward' ( 4 per yard had obviously proved to be an optimistic assessment on 'our' canal?).

Work Methods

I hesitate to question the accepted date of the Mountmill word, but the 1917 date of Millner's report coincides nicely with the following quote (dated 28th Nov 1917), 'To Messrs. English Bros., Wisbech. My Co. will shortly require some rough portable shelters for about 100 men, in sections, please supply at short notice. New or second hand will answer our purpose. I think three or four 20 ft. x 8-10 ft. wide would give accommodation, fitted up with a rough table and benches for seats. Please state lowest price and date same could be put on rail for Buckingham'.

The photo in 'Grand Junction Canal' falls rather short of the above description, since only ONE wooden hut appears in the picture, smaller than indicated. 1917 would mean wartime of course, but SURELY those monstrous leaks could not have continued for two years? The dozen or so men pictured seem to be clearing up, the contract almost complete. They are dressed for winter, indeed there seems to be a light dressing of snow, the planked barrow-runs very necessary to prevent the ground being churned up. A winter scene then, but a question - which winter? 1917 or 1919?

Brick, Stone and Concrete

As mentioned in the previous article, one can follow the gradual tapering down in the use of stone as a building material along the canal, and its replacement (as with the use of all-brick structures) by reinforced concrete. GJCCo Engineer Gordon Thomas (Millner's boss) had used mass concrete (i.e. no reinforcing bars) at Foxton for the Incline work, but by 1911 was saying - 'I do not intend using but very little granite coping in the future on the canal, but propose substituting in place thereof reinforced concrete coping, cast in situ, and this will be the best method of coping the wall at Buckby. For this purpose you should requisition a freight of crushed shingle, as to the composition of the coping I will see you.' He also recommended that Millner pay a visit to the Building Trade Exhibition at Olympia, there being 'many matters of great interest to you, especially in reinforced concrete work'.

Trough Technology

As with other constructions, one can follow the changes in trough construction. Page 208 in the 'new' Grand Junction book shows brick walls, stone copings, and a concrete bed being laid at Tring in 1903. Page 204 (new), page 139 (old) shows brick walls still being used to construct Maypole Dock, Southall in 1913. But by the time of the first World War, Millner had done his bit to see that the move to all-concrete technology had been made.

Back to top of this page

Back to Archive Index

Back to BCS Home Page

Website design by Jeremy Cooper at oliomedia

	Langham's Leaks: Mountmill The last of three articles by Dave Goodwin reprinted (slightly edited) with permission from the Old Union Canal Society Magazine Christmas 1998
Mountmill Leaks The recent interest in the technology first used above Tythorn Lock on the 'Leicester Line' caused me to dig out my records of Millner's correspondence regarding the famous leaks on the Buckingham Arm. Photographs in Alan Faulkner's 'Grand Junction Canal' (old book, page 122), and David Blagrove's "Waterways of Northamptonshire" (p.29, photo 36) clearly show that the Bucks. structure followed the 'Langham' pattern closely. When William Yates was installed as GJ Engineer, Milner sent a detailed report to him, dated 15th June 1917. Past History In Sep 1893 Millner had surveyed the Bucks Arm as part of a survey of all GJ waters. He reported a 'very bad leak in the rock bottom at Mountmill' (about halfway up the ten mile canal). This caused the then manager B.W. Cook to have a stoppage to re-puddle the bed. In Nov 1902 - with Millner himself now in charge - the leak had grown to 46 locks per week. A week's stoppage for further re-puddling cost just over 29. By Oct 1913, when the Arm was closed 'for cleansing', a 'big gang' was sent to Mountmill, they opened up the holes, filled the worst with concrete, and again re-puddled over the top. The cost this time was estimated at 75. As before however, though the leak was initially stopped, it soon broke out afresh. 'Since then the District Labourer has spent the greater part of his time in searching for the holes and puddling them with the water in'. (This would have meant probing the bed with a bar, and dropping clay over the affected area from a boat - a rather haphazard process.) Recommendations Millner's June 1917 report noted that he had put two gauges in the canal bank to monitor the major leaks. One of these was 2 ft. wide - and had a constant flow over it of some three and three quarters inches! The other was 1ft wide, with one and three quarters inches running. His calculations concluded a loss of 95 locks of water per week - 4,940 locks per year! 'Today the gauges register slightly more' he said. Plans, sections, and photographs were included and sent to London H.Q. Normally the Bucks Arm acted as a feeder to the Stoke Bruerne/Cosgrove pound, but because of the massive leak, they were being allowed to take water from the River Tove (at Stoke bottom lock) at the rate of 70 locks per day. 'In humble opinion the Bucks Arm should be made watertight, and even navigable' he wrote. 'This leakage can be permanently stopped by adopting the "Langham Pound" system of concreting on a smaller scale' (the Bucks Arm was narrow, as opposed to the wide gauge of Leicester Section). 'I have shown the proposed section at a top width of 18ft., and if cost is to be a consideration, I would reduce the width to 16ft.' (The Langham Leak trough was planned at 25ft between copings). Costs had risen to ' 6 per yard forward' ( 4 per yard had obviously proved to be an optimistic assessment on 'our' canal?). Work Methods I hesitate to question the accepted date of the Mountmill word, but the 1917 date of Millner's report coincides nicely with the following quote (dated 28th Nov 1917), 'To Messrs. English Bros., Wisbech. My Co. will shortly require some rough portable shelters for about 100 men, in sections, please supply at short notice. New or second hand will answer our purpose. I think three or four 20 ft. x 8-10 ft. wide would give accommodation, fitted up with a rough table and benches for seats. Please state lowest price and date same could be put on rail for Buckingham'. The photo in 'Grand Junction Canal' falls rather short of the above description, since only ONE wooden hut appears in the picture, smaller than indicated. 1917 would mean wartime of course, but SURELY those monstrous leaks could not have continued for two years? The dozen or so men pictured seem to be clearing up, the contract almost complete. They are dressed for winter, indeed there seems to be a light dressing of snow, the planked barrow-runs very necessary to prevent the ground being churned up. A winter scene then, but a question - which winter? 1917 or 1919? Brick, Stone and Concrete As mentioned in the previous article, one can follow the gradual tapering down in the use of stone as a building material along the canal, and its replacement (as with the use of all-brick structures) by reinforced concrete. GJCCo Engineer Gordon Thomas (Millner's boss) had used mass concrete (i.e. no reinforcing bars) at Foxton for the Incline work, but by 1911 was saying - 'I do not intend using but very little granite coping in the future on the canal, but propose substituting in place thereof reinforced concrete coping, cast in situ, and this will be the best method of coping the wall at Buckby. For this purpose you should requisition a freight of crushed shingle, as to the composition of the coping I will see you.' He also recommended that Millner pay a visit to the Building Trade Exhibition at Olympia, there being 'many matters of great interest to you, especially in reinforced concrete work'. Trough Technology As with other constructions, one can follow the changes in trough construction. Page 208 in the 'new' Grand Junction book shows brick walls, stone copings, and a concrete bed being laid at Tring in 1903. Page 204 (new), page 139 (old) shows brick walls still being used to construct Maypole Dock, Southall in 1913. But by the time of the first World War, Millner had done his bit to see that the move to all-concrete technology had been made.
Back to top of this page Back to Archive Index Back to BCS Home Page
Website design by Jeremy Cooper at oliomedia