Forums Forums Wirral History : Chasing the Past Wirral History British Council Films - Merseyside

Nice film.

There's also mention of "the Bridgewater canal, which connects the great seaport with our industrial centres". FFS where do they get their information from? The Bridgewater canal starts at Runcorn, passes near Manchester and ends up at Leigh, where it joins the Leeds and Liverpool Canal. Later, a reference again to the "Wallasey luggage boats". The makers of the film must have got a better backhander from Wallasey Corporation than Birkenhead was prepared to offer.
In other words, don't trust official sounding (British Council) films.
Having said all that, it's a nice film.

Thanks for sharing that.

wow i was born in 61 but still remember the "old docks" apart from the horse and carts had been replaced with diesel vehicles, i remember the "listers" buzzing around , they used to have a couple still working in lairds when i started in 76' amazing how much has changed (for the better is debateable)

In its heyday, the Bridgewater Canal DID connect Merseyside with the centre of Manchester.

The first section of the canal was built in 1761 to transport coal into Manchester from the Duke of Bridgewater's mines in Worsley.

Fifteen years later, the canal was extended to near Runcorn, where it connected with the Mersey - giving a direct link from the river into the heart of Manchester.

The Bridgewater was later extended from Worsley to Leigh, where it linked up with the Leeds-Liverpool Canal.

After the opening of the Manchester Ship Canal in 1894, commercial traffic declined on the Bridgewater and in 1966, the locks that connected the canal with the Mersey were closed.

In this British Council film, it seems likely they are talking about the Manchester Ship Canal and not the Bridgewater Canal.

Factually flawed it may be, but they might be right about the length of the docks.

Take for example, seven miles of the river bank. Build docks. Each quayside has an outer quay and an inner quay, usually of roughly the same length. And then add in the two side quays between them.. In that way 200 yards of riverbank becomes 800 yards of quayside, if the dock were square, and so on.

Here is an extract from 'Study of European Ports 1909 - The Port of Liverpool.'

"At present, the docks and basins consist of 427 acres of water area and 26 miles of lineal quayage on the Liverpool side of the Mersey River, and 165 acres of water area and 9 miles of lineal quayage on the Birkenhead side, making a total water area of 592 acres, and a total lineal quayage of 36 miles.

The area of the Dock Estate consists of 1,171 acres on the Liverpool side, and 506 on the Birkenhead side, or a total of 1,677 acres. On the Liverpool side the docs extend from the Hornby Dock on the north to the Herculaneum Dock on the south, a distance of over seven miles, with not a foot of property between these limits the Mersey Dock Estate owns large areas of foreshore property for future extensions of this great system."

Read more: The Port of Liverpool - Study of European Ports, 1909 http://www.gjenvick.com/PortsAndHar...-StudyOfEuropeanPorts.html#ixzz20W74s4wL

This seems to be an excellent site for shipping document collections.

I'm sure the people of Southampton would benefit from reading the full article so that they don't have to speculate about who is taking who's shipping trade. We can draw our own conclusions (and often do), but if you read the article, you will see such facts as approximately 6000 ocean-going vessles using the north end of Princes Landing Stage each year.

And don't think these ships were small, just because it was over 100 years ago. I've just been looking at some sailings from Liverpool made by Cunard ships in 1913. In that year, Cunard alone was running fourteen ships across the Atlantic, nearly all from Liverpool. Cunard were running a weekly service to New York, and a fortnightly service to Boston.

The 'Ivernia' and her sister 'Saxonia' were quite small by comparison, at just 1964 passengers each compared to some of the others. 'Carpathia' could carry 2550 passengers, 'Carmania' 2650, with sisters 'Franconia' and 'Laconia' each holding 2850. The 'Lusitania' and 'Mauretania' held 2165 each.

By comparison, a modern cruise ship, built about ten years ago, will typically hold a similar number of passengers.

That's certainly one way of looking at it, and perfectly valid I suppose.

@ yoller; yes, I think they meant the Manchester Ship Canal.

The problem is that, with the commentary delivered in such an authoritative voice, people are inclined to take it as gospel.