The Price of Carrying the Coals

[Ponytail]

A Statement of the probable cost of the carrying Coal along several Railways compared with the River Dun Navigation and the Canals connected with it.

https://www.picturesheffield.com/frontend.php?keywords=Ref_No_increment;EQUALS;arc07567&pos=81&action=zoom&id=154933

Printed by G. Ridge, Sheffield, no date.

Refers to Mr Chambers' Coal, Earl Fitzwilliam's Coal, Silkstone Coal, and Lord Fitzwilliam's Coal.

 

[MartinR]

• Miles (by rail)   Canal cost   Rail cost
• 3¾                    5/5¾            5/1¼
• 6½                    6/1               5/8½
• 15¾                  9/6               9/6¾
• 30                     7/2               10/5
• 28                     9/7¼             11/6

So up to around 15 miles rail is cheaper, over that canal wins out.  This of course assumes that the canal route is of comparable length to the rail route which may not be too accurate.

 

[Ponytail]

Thanks MartinR for working that one out. I assume by rail it would have been delivered quicker but probably some would stick with what they knew at least for the first few years. 

[MartinR]

Not always.  Many collieries had their own staithes, but then other collieries had rail loading facilities.  Wagons are often shunted and spend time in sidings awaiting the next train, boats keep going.  Large consumers or merchants may have a private basin, then again they may have a rail connection.  You'd need to know the detailed provision for each trip to get an idea of speed.  The document is dated 1800-1850, but the start date is way too early, the S&D opened in 1825 and the L&M five years later so what the earliest rail to Sheffield was I don't know.  At that early date what speed did railways operate at?  Finally, coal does not deteriorate in the timescales we are talking about so does speed matter at all?  30 miles is a day's canal journey, but then add lockage time, may be a couple of days.

[Ponytail]

First Rail Line would be the 1838 Rotherham to Sheffield. 

[History dude]

It looks to me like something put out by the Canal companies about the impact of railways on their business. However, I would take the rail figures with a pinch of salt. As we know, the Railways slaughtered the canal traffic and the cost by rail and being cheaper was enough for them to get scared of this new method of transport. With something like that document, you have to take in the motives of who would pay for the expense of publishing it. The document does say "probable" costs. It might be something to do with the canal interests trying to stop Coal Companies actually backing or investing in future rail developments!  Showing they wouldn't save much on the short distances and loose on the long ones.  There was often some strong opposition to rail expansion. 

[Lysanderix]

Many local steelworks had their own barges. Tinsley Rolling Mills brought coal to the works on their own craft until , I believe, the 1920s. One was wrecked and it’s remains could be seen when the River Don was in low water.

One of the companies long serving workman, Darkie Hercock ,was actually born on one of the Companies barges.

[MartinR]

The whole canal vs railway was never as simple as a "slaughter", but having said that I'd agree about your comments on the document.   The Wikipedia article on the SSYN is interesting and mentions that there was commercial traffic well into the 20C with even a limited amount today.

[Lysanderix]

I had an office by the side of the canal until the early 1970 s and there was a daily movement of barge traffic…much of it bringing ferro- alloys into Sheffield. In turn some exports of steel went by barge to be trans shipped in Hull. In winter the canal was kept ice free by a  small craft being rocked from side to side by its crew…. we nicknamed it Kista Dan after the Antarctic ice breaker.