[email protected] wrote: > John, wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "peteuk" <peter.jea...@...> wrote: > > One of the cons borrowed a lorry, and came back a few hours later > > > >>> with the steel superstructure which is there to this day. > >>> > >>> > >> I think the lock is more correctly known as the Colin P Witter lock. > >> Just to keep the archive correct- of course (:-) > >> > >> Regards > >> Pete(approved D H landrover operative) > >> > >> > > And IIRC at the official opening the Lady Mayor of Stratford (through the > > PA system) complimented Mr Hutchings on his monumental erection! > > And then she went a very strange colour. > > John > > > Don't know about that, I wasn't invited :-( > but I can remember the main banner headline from the Stratford rag > "Will Mr Hutchings take down his monstrous erection" > This appeared when Hutch had put the bracing over the top of the lock > down by the theatre, to stop it collapsing in, they had already driven > in very long piles and not found anything solid, and the lock walls were > all buckelling inwards, it was a disaster. > The headline was then followed an article saying how they (however they > were may have been, the council, or a councillor, or the papers editor - > can't remember that bit) though it ruined the views across the meadows > of the church and theatre. > Hutchs response was to hang flower baskets on it. > The steel for this maybe the same steel bracing as mentioned in the > apocryphal tale mentioned before, I'm checking that out.
The version I heard (and I think I did actually hear it from Hutch himself) was that when the sides started buckling inwards one of the cons said "what you need is some telegraph poles to hold those apart". Whereupon the cons departed in the truck and came back with some telegraph poles, (Hutch said "I never did find where they got them from") which kept the sides apart for long enough until the steelwork could be made. If I remember rightly, part of the problem was that the lock was actually built twice as deep as necessary, because at that time the Trust hadn't got permission to build the next lock down and were working on the basis that they might not get permission at all. Quite a few years later they filled in the bottom 6ft or so, stabilising the chamber and making the steelwork largely redundant (and allowing much shallower / lighter replacement bottom gates) - but by then the 'monstrous erection' had become a recognised feature of the lock so it would have been a shame to remove it! > I did hear him say he wanted to put a house on it, typical architect :-)) I think I heard that too. Martin L
