On 18, Jun 2007, at 16:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On 18/6/07 15:56, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> >> On 18, Jun 2007, at 15:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> ...and Nicholsons quotes the height difference from Stourport upper >>> basins to the Severn as 24ft 8in, which would mean that the broad >>> locks (being only two rises compared to the four rises of the >>> parallel >>> narrow locks) >> >> Parallel . . . with what ! > > Parallel with the broad locks. Well, approximately.
Much to my surprise I must concede, having peeked at Google Earth, the upper locks are indeed more or less parallel. The lower ones are more or less, completely not. But what is the reason for the big kink between the top pair and bottom pair of narrow locks. Amusing though it is to watch the goings on, I just can't understand why they put them like that. Unless it's the topography and a trade off between requiring an entry angle with the river and the availability of land at the right level to scoop out basins of the required area. I don't know which ones were built when, so I suppose I could do some research. Staffy at Stourport Britain's number 1 canal town www.stourporttown.co.uk
