Talk:Grand Union Canal

Untitled

Is this canal really part of London's architecture? I suppose it depends on what you understand by architecture... Ian Cairns 23:47, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Old Grand Union with this article

A proposal has been made (though with no justification cited) to merge Grand Union Canal (old) with this article. I note that no similar proposal has been made to merge Grand Junction Canal or Regent's Canal which would be necessary for consistency. (I declare an interest as the initial creator of the old Grand Union and Grand Junction pages.) Note also that the old Grand Union page is now rather longer than when the proposal was made – as no justification was given, it is not clear whether the initial brevity of the article contributed to the merger proposal.

The GUC article is currently extremely thin on history of the modern Grand Union prior to 1929 – there is a lot of history associated with the canals which went to make up the modern Grand Union, including the Grand Junction, (old) Grand Union, and the Warwick canals. While there is a case to be made for including all of this here, and sticking with the redirects that have been put in place, to me it seems more appropriate to have a page for each of the canals as they were authorised and constructed under their historic names, and their history to 1929, and have this main article as the history from 1929 (plus a little beforehand leading up to the formation of the modern GUC), together with a detailed route description as the line exists today. I believe this to be the better approach for readers, and avoids what would otherwise become a very long single article.

What do others think? StephenDawson 14:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your logic. I can't guess at the rationale for the proposal to merge. However, looking again at the introductory paragraphs, I do think it could be tightened up to make the historical context clearer. How about this:

The Grand Union Canal is a canal in England and part of the British canal system. The waterway stretches for 217 km (135 miles) and has 160 locks. The (present) Grand Union Canal was formed in 1929 from the amalgamation of several different canals. The Grand Junction Canal, the Warwick and Napton Canal, the Warwick and Birmingham Canals and the Old Grand Union Canal came together to form today's main line.

It connects the two largest cities in England, London and Birmingham, with arms to places including Leicester, Slough, Aylesbury, Wendover and Northampton.

then move the remaining material into a short new section "History", beginning with four {{seemain|xxxxxxxx Canal}}'s and containing a very brief summary of their content. I'd seriously consider putting the history at the end of the article. --Concrete Cowboy 17:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Inspired by that (of course the old GU doesn't form part of the main line of the modern GU), I looked again at the intro and have re-phrased it slightly. I've also expanded the history and created a section for it. I think the history is better at the beginning than the end as it complements and adds understanding to the route description, branches etc. StephenDawson 09:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

That sounds quite logical. Although the old Grand union didn't form part of the main line which is the London, Birmingham stretch. I think the history would be OK near the beginning as long as it wasn't too long. G-Man 18:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but in practice I think the GUC article would become too long if it included the histories of its 11 constituents too. I don't feel that simply because the Old Grand Union and the modern Grand Union share names their articles should be combined, unless the other constituents were merged too – surely to do otherwise would be inconsistent. StephenDawson 09:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wendover Canal Arm

This has now been started on a separate page, it will be added to over time, so I can see much point to it being incorporated into this article. Unless anyone else disagrees?--Pandaplodder 11:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Route Map

It would be great if somebody would be able to create a route map of the canal similar to that of the great western canal page. George5210 (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I've added a simplified route map. --Grim23 (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, as far as it goes, but that is, in effect, only to Napton Junction. We need the details for the section north of there. In any case, the GU did not go to Gas Street; its terminus was at Warwick Bar, below Camp Hill locks, where it met the BCN.Hymers2 (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A long overdue map! I've made some changes around the Birmingham end. It is more usual to show right-angle junctions on canals though. Oosoom ^Talk 12:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the junctions to right angles, and thank you for the corrections. --Grim23 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I mistaken in thinking that the map has been changed in the last month or so? I'm sure there was a more detailed route map before which included many more places and gave a much better idea of the route. Has this been removed for good reason? --Calroscow (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The map has been evolving but not been radically changed since its creation. It is intended as an overview of the long and complex canal, there are more detailed maps on some of the arms' pages.Grim23 (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit sparse, isn't it, when compared to other canals. The answer is probably to break it into sections (as done for the Kennet and Avon Canal) and/or include collapsible sections (as done extremely effectively (showing either/both historical and new routes) for the Wilts & Berks Canal). Either way would also allow the article to be expanded to give more detail for better consistency with comparable canal articles. EdJogg (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wilts & Berks Canal solution is neat. -- Grim23 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2009

I have a full route map with all locks, main roads, rail bridges, aquaducts, winding holes, arms, marinas and wharfs but dont know how to add it to the document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyhakron (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is the map as cannot find any of your contributions that would indicate a location. To add it to the article just include it like {{Map name}} assuming that you have placed the map at Template:Map name. Keith D (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

11 years later, the map is, sad to say, still missing. A List of locks & junctions isn't very helpful to people without detailed geographical knowledge in the back of the mind (i.e. foreigners like me). From Germany: Basine (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have added a link to the Canal and River Trust map in External links. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I've made several maps. One for the Leicester section will be next, although I'm a bit unsure as to whether the River Soar should be included. G-13114 (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Kingswood Junction

Kingswood Junction is not mentioned in the article or on the map but it is a major junction connecting the Grand Union to the Stratford upon Avon canal. AussieKev (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Inundation at Brentford, 1841

There was a major failure of the canal at Brentford, Middlesex in January 1841, with much loss of life in the resultant flooding. Contemporary newspapers are available online which have the details. Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The failure was that of the dam at the Welsh Harp, not the canal itself. River_Brent#Notable_floods. By all means some find reliable references for the flooding that it caused in Brentford, so it can be added to the article. Aspro (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Union Canal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927173436/http://www.sloughobserver.co.uk/articles/1/6334 to http://www.sloughobserver.co.uk/articles/1/6334

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

River Soar

I've seen a number of sources which state that the River Soar is considered a part of the Grand Union Canal, (like these [1][2]) but the article currently states that it's a separate waterway. Can anyone clear this up, and should the article be amended? I'm planning to make a map of the Leicester section but I'm unsure as to whether to include the Soar. G-13114 (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

History before 1929?!

Some history of the canal, particularly of the Birmingham main line before 1929, would be appreciated! Seems a massive oversight not to have any at all. Dan100 (Talk) 20:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dan100: it didn't exist under this name before 1929. The info you want may be at Grand Junction Canal so could you look again at this [GUC] article to see if it could do better at pointing readers to the GJC article? I doubt you are the only one to have been stymied like this. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)