The case of the Birmingham Ship Canal(s)

Birmingham famously is supposed to have more canals than Venice (albeit over a wider area) but lacks easy access to the sea by larger vessels. In the 1880s there were a number of schemes to enlarge some of the canals linking Birmingham to the major rivers of the country to create a ship canal that could allow vessels up to 200-300 tons (depending on the scheme).

River steamer on the Severn
at Worcester

The scheme which probably came closest to getting the go-ahead was a link to the river Severn above Worcester by enlarging the Worcester & Birmingham Canal(1). The scheme envisaged going through Droitwich so presumably the Droitwich Canal would also have been enlarged. The Birmingham City Council formed a Ship Canal Enquiry Committee to look into the scheme which would have allowed vessels up to 200 tons right into the centre of the city. The cost of the scheme was estimated at £2 million (when of course this was real money).

However in 1888 the Council declined going ahead with the scheme and disbanded the committee, citing that it was outside of their municipal concerns(2). There were also worries that the railways would undercut the canal making it economically unviable.

This wasn't the only scheme however, a number of the city's great and good also proposed a ship canal scheme linking Birmingham to the river Mersey(3). This canal, which would have allowed ships up to 300 tons would have linked Birmingham to the Weaver Navigation Canal and then through to the Mersey, Liverpool and the sea. This canal would have been 60ft wide and 11ft deep and would have passed through South Staffordshire, the Potteries and Cheshire(4). However this scheme (which would have cost a mere £1.6 million) came to naught as did a scheme to link Birmingham to the Thames(5).

By the late 1890s canals were beginning to be seen as old hat as the railway network continued to grow. In many ways it is a shame none of the ship canal schemes came to anything. Ships up to 300 tons would be much larger than anything that usually chugs through the canals at Birmingham's heart. The Edwardian steamer TSS Earnslaw perhaps can give us an idea of the sort of boat we might have expected making it up to Birmingham in the early 1900s (although it would be slightly oversize at 330t). The canal schemes came to nothing though may have inspired this song...

Photo (c) trakesht at Wikipedia

(1) Charles Anthony Vince MA, History of the Corporation of Birmingham Vol 3 1885-1899 (Cornish:Birmingham, 1902), p. 365
(2) Vince, p. 368
(3) Birmingham & Liverpool Ship Canal (Pamphlet, 1888), p. 5
(4) Birmingham Daily Gazette 6th July 1888
(5) Birmingham & Liverpool Ship Canal, p. 17

The 70s house

Scanning a few old photographs yesterday i came upon this one taken in the first house i lived in, in Crosby. I was only a baby at the time so the photograph was likely taken sometime in 1972 or perhaps early 1973. What is most interesting about the photograph is probably what is missing. There seems to be a total absence of technology though there was probably was a TV out of shot. Nowadays a photo of a living room would include remote controls, mobile phones, consoles, DVDs and other technology. Back in the early 1970s you would have a TV and a telephone and little else, maybe a hi-fi or a radio. Other than that the room is very familiar and probably trendily retro these days. I wonder how the living room will change in another 40 years time.

Its interesting how much has changed though some items in the photo have survived all these years, the painting on the wall for example is right behind me on my own wall now as i type this!

Lets get the 2013 model making season started!

I build my models in the kitchen extension, its a light and airy room but too airy during the Winter as its unheated! Because of that i tend to have a Winter lay-off and resume building when it finally gets warm again. We are still some way off it being warm to be honest but Spring is here (officially) so its time to begin the 2013 season. First model will be Project 042 which will be the cruiser HMS Suffolk, my first ship.

Known but unknown ancestors

Recently i have been lucky enough to have found a few photographs of some of my ancestors taken in the interwar period. The first photo is of my Great Aunt Annie and Great Uncle Leslie (plus a dog, name unknown). Annie lived very close to where i live now literally a few hundred metres away (though the street her house was on no longer exists) so it is likely the photo was also taken in the area.

Although i have heard stories about Leslie, who was my Nan's younger brother, i never met him (he died not long after i was born). He was captured at Dunkirk and spent the war in Nazi coal mines, this affected him terribly physically and mentally i am told. I do have his last will and testament in my archives and he did not leave a great deal after he passed away. I know these things about him and his life but nothing from the man himself.

Despite all the information we can glean on our ancestors these days we still often lack enough to truly understand them, to know how they thought and what they were truly like. The NY Times has an interesting article on how the internet and social media will enable people to record so much about themselves and how they thought for future generations (though whether people will be that interested is another matter). For now though we usually just have to rely on piecing together bits of information with hazy memories (often second-hand).

The other photos, taken from Aston in the 1920s (or early 1930s) unfortunately have no names on them so the identity of these ancestors is unknown. Sometimes we just have these tantalising snippets on the past age. It perhaps means we cherish what has survived all the more, any future historians looking into my life will have to wade though hundreds of photographs of my dinner and blog posts on science-fiction before they can get any idea about me!

Did Gustave Whitehead build the first successful aeroplane?

Its common knowledge that the Wright brothers built the first practical aeroplane and as everyone knows they flew first in 1903, an event which heralded the age of heavier-than-air flight. However there have been other claims over the years about people who may have beaten the Wright brothers to it. One claim is that Gustave Whitehead (or Weißkopf) first flew his Number 21 aeroplane in 1901, interestingly Jane's have now said that they think he was indeed the first. The first flight was widely reported at the time in over a hundred newspapers and periodicals though nowadays of course everyone knows it was the Wrights.

Its no surprise if it is true and that Whitehead was first but is largely forgotten now, often this happens with inventors. The first is not necessarily the one who is remembered especially if there are a number of people working on the same problem simultaneously. Historical "facts" can be challenged later on especially as new technology allows for analysis of material that was not possible earlier. One example is the analysis that has been made of a proported photograph of Whitehead's aeroplane in flight at a 1906 exhibition. A photograph of the exhibition has been forensically examined to see if the phone of the flight can be discerned. The analysis is fascinating but i remain to be totally convinced by it.

This story comes with a whiff of conspiracy too. The Smithsonian has barred access to some photographs which may (or may not) show Whitehead's aircraft due to the fragility of the material. The Smithsonian got their hands on the original Wright Flyer in return for giving the honour of first flight to the Wright brothers (this has been found to be true thanks to a Freedom of Information request according to Jane's).

Gustav Whitehead probably did fly his aeroplane first though whether it was what you could consider a controlled flight is a matter of opinion, he stated himself that to steer the aeroplane in flight he had to move himself around in the fuselage. Whitehead's aeroplane was a bit of an evolutionary dead-end, the Wright biplane was the template for heavier-than-air aviation for the next few decades in many ways.

Photos from Wikimedia Commons.

Did large eyes cause the demise of the Neanderthal?

A study of Neanderthal skulls has led scientists to suggest that the size of their eyes may have led to their demise and eventual extinction. Larger eyes meant that more of their brain was dedicated to seeing in the longer darker nights in Europe and the generally lower light conditions compared to Africa. Modern humans who stayed in Africa for longer (thus in better light) did not evolve this eye and brain adaptation and so their brains could develop higher level thinking, which enabled them to better adapt to the ice ages through improved clothing (for example evidence of needles and early tailoring has been found while Neanderthal clothing remained cruder) and to develop larger social groups.

However modern humans living at higher altitudes have also evolved larger vision processing areas in their brains and this has not resulted in reduced cognitive abilities. The findings seem to run counter to recent research that has dispelled the earlier view that Neanderthals were "stupid brutes" and instead were only slightly less intelligent than ourselves. Indeed although modern humans' advantage was only slight it was apparently just enough to tip the balance in their favour in the battle for survival during the ice ages.

John Hawks is among those sceptical.

The single most important correlate of orbit diameter is body mass. Neandertals were bigger on average. QED.
— John Hawks (@johnhawks) March 13, 2013