Talk:Monkland Canal

Hogganfield Lock
"Water for the canal could be extracted from Frankfield Loch, Hogganfield Lock, and any other streams or lochs within 3 miles " Are we sure about this? I hesitate to wade in and "correct" something that might already be correct, but surely we mean Hogganfield Loch .... ???Afterbrunel (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Blackhill Locks
The text says at present:

''At Blackhill, an incline was constructed to enable the transit of the steep gradient there. Initially, the two sections of the canal were separate, and there was an inclined plane there, down which coal was transported in boxes, to be reloaded into boats at the bottom. This was replaced by locks by the time Messrs William Stirling & Sons of Glasgow had completed the construction of the canal. '' There is no reference given for thsi claim and I haven't found it in any source so far. The text is ambiguous as to whether the initial design was like this, but never implemented, or whether it was actually done for a while. Can anyone help with nailing this down? There is still so much to do to get this article adequate. Afterbrunel (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have distant memories of reading something along those lines in a book at long time ago, possibly in "Lindsay". It will be a day or so before I can check, but I will do so; and, depending on the outcome, I will either reply here (if negative) or add a citation. There where inclines in that area which were later destroyed as a result of (possibly) coal extraction or railways: I can't recall the details at present. Pyrotec (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added references from "Paxton & Shipway", which I have to hand, but I've still to check against Landsey. Pyrotec (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks; it is now clear from Leslie and others; the chronology was (1) inclined plane = "boxes" probably on rails; (2) locks (3) locks duplicated (4) inclined plane = caissons on rails, counterbalanced rope system; (5) back to locks.


 * At today's date not quite fully incorporated into the narrative, but it will be in a couple of days. Afterbrunel (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did nothing to the article and I forgot about it. I've got a copy of Lindsey, when I wrote that I was half-remembering back to a copy that I'd borrowed from Paisley library about 20 years ago. Do you (still) need any info? Pyrotec (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's ok; I've finished for the time being (except for correcting the typos, over the next day or two). If you think there is anything to add (or correct), please go ahead. Especially if she has hard information about how the "boxes" (or were they "waggons"?) were let down the slope at Blackhill before the locks were built. All the sources I have been able to find are very vague on that.


 * PS: I've given a lot of thought to the layout (i.e. sequence of sections); there's a lot of material here now and I don't want some readers, who might just want to find basic information, to be put off; hence the sequence I have ended up at. Obviously anyone else is at liberty to change it, but I'd be grateful if they would give it some careful thought. Afterbrunel (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Tons etc
At present the article has a confused mix of abbreviations for units for tons, and we have this:

by the 1920s trade was down to 30,000 tonnes (30,000 LT) per year

For maximum comprehension I am going to change it to tonnes with an explanation (for North American readers) on the first use. In Europe and the UK, the tonne is now universally understood, and is almost identical to imperial ton anyway. I find the use of "metric ton" too footery. The abbreviation "t" is all very well, but it risks confusion and only saves four letters ("onne") a time anyway. Afterbrunel (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Authoritative
My goodness - not often you see such extremely detailed and authoritative works on Wikipedia (no insult intended to others). A great piece of work if you don't mind me saying - congrats to all involved. Rosser Gruffydd 09:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Invention to walk on water
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article1089651 "NEW INVENTION TO WALK ON WATER.— A machine has been invented, by which a person can walk on the surface of the water with perfect safety at the rate of three miles an hour. The inventor lately walked on the Monkland Canal at that rate, which was witnessed by 200 persons." I couldn't find any other information about this with a quick net search so I'll just dump this here. jayoval (talk) 08:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)