# Talk:Stroudwater Navigation

Any idea why this article has been called Stroudwater Navigation? I can't find any reference to this in the current literature (Cumberlidge, Nicholson etc.) except for a heading in the Cotswold Canals Trust. Even they call it a canal elsewhere. It doesn't actually follow the line of the Frome at all and Cumberlidge says it was never a canalisation of the river. Chris55 (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Because Charles Hadfield calls it the Stroudwater Navigation.©Geni 14:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
... and because the owners are still called the Company of Proprietors of the Stroudwater Navigation. Cumberlidge (2009) also calls it Stroudwater Navigation, while Cumberlidge (1998) mentions the correct name under Navigation Authority. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chris, I can see you've waited twelve years for an answer on this, but I am able to shed some light on it!
The Company of Proprietors of the Stroudwater Navigation was formed in 1730. (Note that the current canal was not built until 1779, some half-a-century later). Their original intention in 1730 was to make the River Frome itself navigable. This was bitterly opposed by the mill owners of the Stroud valleys, who felt their river water would be wasted by navigable locks, and so nothing came of it.
A second attempt followed, using early containerisation - boats would travel between mill weirs and a crane on the weirs would lift boxed cargo from one level to the next. This was well ahead of its time but ultimately doomed to fail, running out of money before completion.
The current canal represents attempt number three. This time, they almost entirely avoided the river, building a canal instead (and reaching a compromise that water would only be taken on Sundays, when the mills weren't working). But the earlier name, Stroudwater Navigation, stuck, as did the Proprietors. Here is a source for the above, from the horse's mouth: http://www.stroudwater.co.uk/cpsn/heritage.html
The 1779 canal did not entirely avoid the river. There actually was a short section of the Frome that was made navigable. Just upstream of Wheatenhurst Weir to the east of Saul Junction, the River Frome itself was used for half a mile or so before boats rejoined the man-made route. This was soon bypassed by a parallel canal channel to avoid issues with the water level changing, but the old canal alignment and aqueduct have been destroyed by 20th century flood relief work, so the Phase 1B restoration work is going to use the River Frome again in a short navigable section.
Also, just to add confusion, further upstream from Wallbridge to Ebley, part of the canal itself is now designated a "main river" by the Environment Agency. Three streams (the Slad Brook, the Painswick Stream, and the Ruscombe Brook) were diverted into the derelict canal channel - again, 20th century flood relief work. The restored canal channel itself can therefore have a significant current on this section for boats, especially after heavy rain. A new set of weirs has been built at Ebley Mill to discharge floodwater safely into the Frome again, and all of the three locks in between (Wallbridge Lower, Dudbridge Upper, Dudbridge Lower) have enormous overflow channels to allow stormwater to head down-valley. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Suitably referenced, with inline citations
Reasonable coverage - no obvious omissions or inaccuracies
Defined structure, with adequate lead
Reasonably well written for grammar and flow
Supporting materials - Infobox, map, images, POI table
Appropriately understandable
I have assessed this article against these criteria, and am rating it B. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Cotswold Canals website(s) all appear to say that stage 1a of the restoration is from The Ocean, at Stonehouse to Brimscombe Port. Wikipedia says from "Stonebridge", a mystery. The Ocean seems to be a pond, to the east of the railway bridge, called "Ocean Railway bridge" in at least one place, and not made of stone. The first bridge within stage 1a is called "Ocean bridge", and is a metal swing bridge -- if it is currently fixed, it might be concrete. There is no name "Stonebridge" on the OS map, and all references to it on the web look as though they may have been copied from a single source. So I suggest it should be removed, and changed to "The Ocean", Stonehouse.
Imaginatorium (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The people at http://www.ukcanals.net/tsevern.html a primary source for "Stonebridge" confirm this is an error, so I have changed both occurrences to refer to Stonehouse.
Imaginatorium (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, by 2017 "Stonebridge" had been reinserted. So I just removed it again. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Saul junction is mentioned several times in the article, but is not shown on the route map. (Indeed, it is quite difficult following some of the prose about the route and restoration against the map, as the locations are not always obvious.)
Could someone adjust the route map please? (I don't feel qualified to do so myself.)
EdJogg (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I added "Saul Junction" in parenthesis. If this is not the Absolutely Best Preferred format, someone will adjust it later. A quick search suggests that in many cases the junction name is written on the opposite side from the crossing waterway name, but this map has everything on the right. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I wasn't sure what to do for this one. (Someone else will certainly fix it if it's wrong.) I have tweaked the template for the Thames and Severn Canal slightly, as that was within my previous experience with these things. And my accompanying text changes are now making another reference to Saul Junction, so your edit is timely! -- EdJogg (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The article says:

The canal was not provided with a towing path for horses. Some boats sailed along the canal, but most were bow-hauled by men.
Well, was there a towpath, or not? What is "bow-hauling"? One would guess it means a man (of more or less fair sex) pulls a rope attached to the bow of the boat. But then where does the man walk, if not on a towpath? Can there really be a path somehow too narrow or low headroom for a horse??? Anyone any clues to this mystery? (The current description on the CC website happily talks about the towpath, and even that the "towpath" will go under a different bridge on the M5. That'll be tough on the horse...) Imaginatorium (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a towpath today on the Stroudwater Navigation, and it's definitely big enough for a horse. I've walked almost the entire length of it myself. It is indeed going to be diverted under a separate M5 underpass, which is a shame, but saves money and complexity. But the towpath wasn't originally there when the canal was built.
Humphrey Household's  Thames & Severn Canal, if I recall his book correctly, states that for many years the entire route between Thames and Severn was provided with a towpath - except the separately owned Stroudwater Navigation. This gap was the cause of much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and was eventually rectified.
I believe the gangs of men who used to bow-haul were, in the very early days of water transport (think rivers and flash locks), walking along the water's edge and expected to get their feet wet - especially when crossing tributary streams and tree roots etc. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)