Talk:Worcester and Birmingham Canal

message: This page is named incorrectly - the canal is the Worcester & Birmingham (known locally, though informally, just as the "Worcester Birmingham"), not the Birmingham & Worcester.
:Support for Name Change I agree with the unnamed writer above. The canal has always been known as the Worcester and Birmingham Canal since it was built. It is cited that way by both Hadfield and by Rolt and as the writer above has said it is known locally just as the "Worcester Birmingham". DonBarton 15:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was Page moved per request, see also , for evidence that it's official name is W&B, and not B&W.  See note below about history. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Birmingham and Worcester Canal → Worcester and Birmingham Canal – Worcester and Birmingham Canal is the correct name for this canal, as used by British Waterways Starsean 11:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
===Diglis and Lowesmoor basins===
I am puzzled by the statement that basins at Diglis and Lowesmoor were not built. Both these basins certainly exist now as I have tied up in each of them. Were they built later?Hymers2 (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree - is this someone having a laugh? Pterre (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it seems to be me misreading or misinterpretting a source. I must have got the infomration off of Priestley's Navigable Rivers and Canals where it says, "The intention of making a basin at Lowesmore being abandoned, and one in lieu thereof being made at Diglis, that part of the former act which authorizes a tonnage rate of two-pence per ton on all barges or other vessels passing from the Severn into any basin belonging to the company, is repealed, but they are allowed to take the following additional". I can't even understand how I could have misinterpretted it. I apologise! - Erebus555 (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I am puzzled by the statement that basins at Diglis and Lowesmoor were not built. Both these basins certainly exist now as I have tied up in each of them. Were they built later?Hymers2 (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - is this someone having a laugh? Pterre (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it seems to be me misreading or misinterpretting a source. I must have got the infomration off of Priestley's Navigable Rivers and Canals where it says, "The intention of making a basin at Lowesmore being abandoned, and one in lieu thereof being made at Diglis, that part of the former act which authorizes a tonnage rate of two-pence per ton on all barges or other vessels passing from the Severn into any basin belonging to the company, is repealed, but they are allowed to take the following additional". I can't even understand how I could have misinterpretted it. I apologise! - Erebus555 (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Diglis and Lowesmoor basins