On 28/10/2015 21:15, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <mailman.1.1445975737.30538.genbrit@rootsweb.com>, johnfhhgen > via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> writes: > [] >> For Norfolk to Northumberland, sea passage was always a possibility. As > > (As another has said, my ancestors probably were too late for this > discussion. But let's proceed anyway, as I for one find it interesting:) > >> well as fishing, for that particular route there was coal traffic from >> the 16th.century if not earlier (coals to Newcastle!) > > Well, I guess the boats that took coals from Newcastle had to go back > the other way! > >> Sea passage was always a possibility for anywhere in reasonable reach >> of the coast. In earlier times places now thought of as "inland" were >> also ports - e.g. Norwich, Gloucester, and so on. >> From late 17th.cent increasing number of places linked by canal. >> Water was the transport of choice for goods from time immemorial - >> think of stone and timber for castles and cathedrals. > > I've always thought of canal traffic as goods rather than passengers ... There were specific passenger boats which had a team of two or more horses to give them faster passage. They carried a scythe blade on the bow to cut the tow ropes of ordinary barges that didn't drop them in time! -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail.