Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: #233

Subject: [OM] Re: #233
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:14:23 -0400
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
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz