by Dave Roberts
In May 2019 'Harry Random' (a pseudonym) emailed The Middlewich Diary suggesting a 'Middlewich Riddle' which might intrigue people and generate a lot of interest. And it most certainly did...
Here's 'Harry's' original message:
This would make a fantastic (and completely non controversial) question for the Middlewich Diary, and I can promise you the answer will generate a huge amount of local interest.
Six inches can make a lot of difference, but it seems that since 1971 something in Middlewich seems to have officially reduced in size without some visitors and many residents even noticing.
Can you guess what the answer is?
Harry.
'Harry' also provided a clue to the riddle:
'It's very important, very topical and everyone in Middlewich has seen it and knows what it is.'
I hadn't a clue, save for the fact that 'Harry's' mention of 'visitors' made me think that there might be a canal connection.
So we put the conundrum to the people of Middlewich via the Middlewich Diary and, as 'Harry' prophesied, created an awful lot of interest.
Here's the answer:
'Harry' writes:
I can't remember where online I found the black and white photograph below, but it was described as having been taken in 1971. The bit that I caught my eye was the height of the aqueduct is shown as 12'.0", yet the photograph that was taken in 2011 shows the height as 11' 6".
So what has happened to the missing six inches? - Has the bridge sunk, the road surface risen, was the old height measurement just an estimate, or is there another explanation?
|
| The Aqueduct in 1971 - Max. Headroom 12 feet. |
![]() |
| The Aqueduct in 2011 - Max. Headroom 11ft 6 ins. |
'Harry' of course, never stints on research, and copied his original email tp Paul Cassell, who's a retired transport manager and consultant.
Paul offers us an expert view of just why that vital six inches 'disappeared'. While he's at it Paul also gives us his considered view of just what is causing the current problems with HGVs striking our poor, beleaguered aqueduct:
Dear Harry,
Thank you for the enquiry from yourself and Dave Roberts, I think I have the answer for you both. Nothing as dramatic as the aqueduct sinking or the road surface rising sadly, just a legacy of Britain joining the European Economic Community as it was known back in the 70’s!
As part of EEC road transport harmonisation in the early 80’s we were allowed to increase vehicle gross weights in line with those of most European countries, the most notable being the increase from 32.5 tons to 38 tonnes for maximum weight articulated vehicles with five axles. To ensure safety on the UK roads every road bridge was re-assessed for both weight carrying capability and appropriate signage for weaker bridges. As a ‘belt and braces’ approach weights were actually assessed for up to 44 tonnes+ as this was always on the horizon and is of course today’s maximum weight threshold.Bridge heights also came in for scrutiny as many had either never been properly marked or hadn’t been checked since resurfacing may have reduced the height clearance or just not very accurately measured in the first place! The EEC regulations demanded clearance heights be marked in metric to one decimal place for visiting European drivers who only understood metric measurements and who had metric height warning signs in their cabs. We insisted that our old feet and inches measurements also remained as vehicle travelling height signs in feet and inches were a legal requirement inside cabs for driver information in the UK. Hence why all UK bridges now have both a metric and imperial sign either on the bridge or on the approach to it.
Arch bridges are also marked with ‘goalpost’ signs whereby the stated height is at the upper corners of the goalpost although the centre line through the arch will of course be a little higher, as is the case with Nantwich Road bridge. This is obviously to accommodate square bodied trucks although I know of one vehicle operator who could creep under the canal aqueduct with a milk tanker as long as he kept to the middle of the road!
The checking and re-signage exercise involved an element of calculation ‘rounding down’ which knocked a few inches off the exact conversion calculation particularly at high risk bridges. Originally at 12 ft the Nantwich Road bridge would have been 3.6m, but presumably on checking the height and observing the score lines in the brickwork, a decision was probably taken to round down to 3.5m which is 11 ft 6 inches.
Once all bridges had been assessed for load bearing and height clearance, computerised routing systems, truck-specific satellite navigation systems and good old trucker’s atlases provided by the Freight Transport Association and Road Haulage Association to their members were updated to (hopefully) prevent bridge strikes and collapses!
The problems now experienced at the Nantwich Road aqueduct, in my opinion, are because truck drivers are relying on ‘car’ sat nav systems, not helped by the fact that some mapping software used shows the road going over the canal at that point!!
Well you did ask……………………!!!!!!!!
PAUL CASSELL
Many thanks to Paul for taking the trouble to give us this highly professional reply to 'Harry's' question, and to 'Harry' for posing the riddle in the first place.
Congratulations to everyone who got the answer right, and especially to RUTH DUCK who seemingly came up with the answer within minutes of the riddle being posted.
Thanks to the many people who 'had a go'. There were hundreds of highly original and ingenious answers, and quite a few people were 'on the right track' right from the beginning, even if they didn't quite get there!
Congratulations to everyone who got the answer right, and especially to RUTH DUCK who seemingly came up with the answer within minutes of the riddle being posted.
Thanks to the many people who 'had a go'. There were hundreds of highly original and ingenious answers, and quite a few people were 'on the right track' right from the beginning, even if they didn't quite get there!
Dave Roberts
Editor.



















Geraldine Williams What would be the purpose of an artificial waterfall like that one? Not for water power presumably.
(Not so - as we now know, the waterfall was there for a very definite, industrial, purpose - see below -Ed)
It was certainly very picturesque in its day. I wonder if the 1930s floods also swept away the original farmhouse and altered the level of the riverbank?
Chris Koons Are we talking about the spot just off Croxton Lane? There appears to be another similar, but narrower and more complete, 'waterfall' structure a bit further round the river, close to the reservoir thing.
Dave Roberts That's the place. I take it we're looking at the area on Google Earth? Actually there are a lot of these waterfalls along the Dane (and our other rivers too, of course). But I never knew that this particular one had been dignified with the name of 'Croxton Water Fall'. The one you're talking about, further towards the King Street road and railway bridges, is close to the spot we were looking at here.
UPDATE: We've received the following in the form of a comment from 'Cliffhanger 41' which sheds a lot of light on this subject:
'Dave,the waterfall shown is certainly the one off Croxton Lane. I believe it was built to use the retained water to drive the Flint Mill that was used some long time ago to grind down flint to a powder. This was then transported to the S.O.T. area by the canal to be used to glaze pottery (I think)
A Middlewich Heritage plaque, on the canalside, at the junction of the canal and the river Dane will tell you more.'
The plaque in question is actually one of the information boards (no 10) for the 'Tales of Wych & Water' trail which is just one of eight trails featured in the Middlewich Trails Brochure.
According to the information in the brochure the flint mill operated for about a hundred years, between 1810 and 1910.
There is also information on the original aqueduct which was built in 1777 by Thomas Brindley, replaced in the late nineteenth century and replaced again following disastrous flooding by the present structure around 1930.
The blue brick structures on either side of the present aqueduct are likely to be part of the second aqueduct.
There are also traces, near the site of the mill, of the millrace which ran all the way from the weir (or 'Croxton Water Fall'), and underneath Croxton Lane to power the mill (see below).
UPDATE 11/2/2012:
The weir (or waterfall) is shown here to the right of Croxton Lane and Frank has drawn the course of the millrace which ran from there to the Flint Mill which was, as can be seen, actually on the other side of Croxton Lane and close to the Trent & Mersey Canal (the Flint Mill was not the subject of Frank's article, and so the entire millrace is not shown. It must have been very long indeed).
To the right of the diagram is Croxton Hall, which Frank describes as a 'cheese farm' and has marked as 'demolished'.
Is it the large building seen in the 'Croxton Water Fall' photo?
MORE ON THIS HERE
SEE ALSO CROXTON WATER FALL 2
UPDATE: 5/03/2012: Page 75 of Middlewich (Images of England - Tempus Publishing 2005) by Brian Curzon and Paul Hurley includes the image of the 'water fall' together with a closer view of the hall.
This is what the book has to say about the hall and the 'water fall':
Croxton Hall is a rambling, romantic brick-and-timber framed house of the mid-nineteenth century, built on a picturesque site on the banks of the River Croco
and
'Croxton waterfalls' was actually a weir constructed to control the flow of the river and prevent flooding nearer the town. There was a pool behind which not only made a romantic aspect from the house but could also be used for boating, fishing and other genteel Victorian outdoor pastimes
SEE ALSO: THE MIDDLEWICH LIDO (CROXTON WATER FALL 3)
First published 4th February 2012
Revised and updated 27th April 2019