http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_canal_system
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 24 July 2005 19:14
Subject: [OM] Re: #233
> The UK canal system is more extensive than I thought. I have always
> been struck by the difference in the treatment of the canals between the
> US and other countries. The US had many canals before the advent of
> railroads but these died off and lands were sold and filled in not long
> after the iron horse made its debut. It's ironic that, at least in the
> case of the Middlesex Canal that ran from Boston to the Merrimack River
> at Lowell, Mass. <http://www.winchestermass.org/images/canal9.gif> the
> canal boats carried the rails and ties to build the railroads that would
> eventually do them in.
>
> So, why do UK canals still operate while in the US there are nothing but
> small vestiges left? And, if anything is still operational, it's likely
> part of the park system or, in a few cases, part of the government
> supported inland waterway system. Did the government in the UK build
> and operate these canals either from the beginning or take over
> operations from private parties once railroads made canal operation
> unprofitable? In the US most canals were built with private money and
> the system collapsed with the advent of the railroads.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Simon Worby wrote:
>
> > Found this for those really interested.
> >
> > http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/jim.shead/Inland-Waterways-of-England.html
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
