edhistory

Mike, The Snow site has this: http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/watermap1856/watermap_1856c4-6.html Useful, but beware of the contours - they are not based on the Ordnance Survey datum. I have previously tried geo-referencing the East Dulwich tile in GIS but the result was very ugly. But at least you can see from the contours where the three streams in our valley exited. The other Neckinger references will have to wait until the weekend. John K

Go to any web-site about the Effra and you will read it joins the River Thames at Vauxhall Bridge. Look at any map reconstructing the overground course of the Effra and it will show the same. Check out photos of the impressive Victorian sluice-gate next to Vauxhall Bridge and you will see the bold name-plate "EFFRA" above. Here is an extract from the 1681 map of Vauxhall Manor. I did an irregular crop to show all the river bank from Lambeth Palace. The map shows two branches of a "Common Sewer". So, the Lord of the Manor commissions a map of his land and it does not show the Effra crossing it, just two common sewers. All those historic associations about Queen Elizabeth taking her barge up the Effra to Dulwich? John K

On another fruitless search for illustations of local vernacular architecture I came across a picture of The Plough I had not seen before. The first file is the common engraving which was reproduced as a postcard c1905. The second one I had not seen before (but perhaps everyone else has). Note the poplars. John K

Mike, I didn't crop much. I have a couple of new maps for the Neckinger - maybe at the weekend. Your date seems to have been right within a decade. John K

Map from the Borough of Camberwell Annual Report 1907-1908. So much for the River Effra outfall at Vauxhall? Interesting how the Bellenden Road sewer was intercepted and directed east. John K

The size of double bedrooms in the Victorian terraces and semis under consideration is the width of the house by half the depth of the main body of the house. Bedroom inflation is an artefact of gentrification. John K

I don't think the Victorians built any such houses in that area. You'll probably find one double and two singles, or, one double, one single and a box room. JOhn K

But Fazer71, it's so two-dimensional. John K

Perhaps they know better than to use this simplistic metric in East Dulwich? John K

http://catalogue.postalheritage.org.uk/dserve/dserve.exe?dsqServer=localhost&dsqIni=Dserve.ini&dsqApp=Archive&dsqCmd=Show.tcl&dsqDb=Catalog&dsqPos=16&dsqSearch=%28%28text%29%3D%27dulwich%27%29 Does anyone have a good quality colour photo of this? John K

For the young man who was discussing birds of prey in East Dulwich today. The URL was not as easy to find as I remembered: http://archive.org/details/ornithologicalno00powe John K

Benmorg: Your brother will be aware that the geology of Ealing and other parts of West London is different to that of the East Dulwich and Nunhead Valley. Have a chat with him. John K

benmorg: Thank you for providing the link to the RICS consumer leaflet. As Monkey wrote earlier don't use a surveyor, use an engineer. This is the ICE consumer book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Has-Your-House-Got-Cracks/dp/0727730894/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345153002&sr=1-1 It is particulary useful for practical "subsidence" problems that people might encounter in East Dulwich. However as a consumer book it does use the umbrella term "subsidence" instead of the specific technical term. This is written from experience as I have a copy of the book. Damage to buildings in East Dulwich referred to as "subsidence" is one of these: War damage Tree damage Low quality construction including inappropriate subsequent modifications Landslip/sheer/slump which might amount to heave (but only in a very small area of EasT Dulwich). I have yet to see or hear of any instance of subsidence in East Dulwich. You may wish to check more background, and sources I have previously provided, in this thread: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,686044,691410#msg-691410 John K

benmorg: I note you have not provided evidence to support your assertion(s). John K

mikeb: Following your suggestion I came across this: http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-379-1/dissemination/pdf/vol_28/surreyac028_111-163_codrington.pdf The Neckinger reference is on page 127. There is also a plausible explantion of "Canute's Trench" there. John K

benmortg: It doesn't matter whether you disagree, or I agree, with the technical definition. But I would be interested to know who has "recognised"... John K

benmorg: Trees (or their removal) can damage buildings, but that is not subsidence. It is well known that insurance companies assess subsidence risk incorrectly. This is not helped by posters on the EDF writing about "subsidence" in East Dulwich. John K

Have a poke around http://www.subsidenceforum.org.uk/subsidence_what_is_it.php and check out the risk map for East Dulwich. I am still not aware of a single case of subsidence in East Dulwich, but woould be happy to be corrected. John K

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ljk4r#synopsis

If (East) Dulwich Library were to close the land would revert to the Dulwich College Estate and the buildings forfeited. ... unless the original covenant was revised. John K

I have been told that in the 1950s and 1960s all new girls at HOGS were taken to the lawn next to the "stream" that runs through the school grounds and were told the "stream" was the River Peck and that Queen Elizabeth I used to picnic on the lawn. Did this really happen? John K

Has the Camberwell Borough Council 1885 Road Adoption Order for Chesterfield Grove been examined yet? John K [Who has not seen the text of the Order]

Perhaps if we go back in time and work forwards? This map comes from the London Archaeologist journal. This shows that the Neckinger was originally a River Thames channel between eyots. John K

townleygreen: Mainly because I've not seen any evidence to support the allegation that the "River Neckinger" was in any sense a river. I've attached an extract of Seller's map of Surrey. This shows an unamed watercourse with a source at the northern of the two alleged sources of the "River Neckinger". This shows this watercourse as a tributary of the River Wandle. I have another Surrey map of the same vintage which I can't locate at the moment that shows the same watercourse is a tributary of the River Effra (which is more plausible!). The point is that this watercourse flows from east to west. Most of the internet references and recent books covering the "River Neckinger" are derived (copied without credit) from Barton's "Lost Rivers of London". Even the revised edition is now seriously out of date because of the subterranean mapping of northern Lambeth and northern Southwark as a result of archaeological excavations over the last 30 years. The topography of the reclaimed tidal marshes does not support a "U-shaped river". Huguenot: In this case my definition would exclude canalisation, straightening, or reveting existing watercourses. This area of tidal salt marsh used to extend northwards from the mouth of the East Dulwich and Nunhead valley to the present course of the River Thames. There were many non-persistent eyots and channels. Reclamation started c60AD and contiuned intermittently for about 1600 years. This is probably the reason the growth of settlement at Peckham was constrained to the north for so long and why the Peckham Domesday return is surprisingly small. If a watercourse follows a straight(ish) line over this terrain for more than about 100 yards it is almost certain to cut through an eyot. In this area the natural flow of the braided River Thames was west to east. Land reclaimation is normally by cutting drainage ditches. mikeb: They look like drainage ditches to me. There's too many straight lines and right angles for them to be anything else. It's interesting to note the discontinuity across the Lambeth Road. South of the road is probably Seller's watercourse. It looks like the southern section of the "River Neckinger" including the alleged East Dulwich tributaries was an entirely different drainage system. John K

This is not my fault. Someone else mentioned trolleybuses first. The London Transport Passenger Board had a ?southern conversion programme? to replace South London trams with trolleybuses. STAGE 6 trolleybus routes: Route 556 replacing trams 56/62/84 Forest Hill to Peckham Rye via Westminster Route 560 replacing tram 60 Goose Green to City (Mon-Sat peaks only) Route 562 replacing trams 56/62/84 Peckham Rye to Forest Hill via Blackfriars All trolleybuses were to be operated out of a converted Camberwell depot. In July 1939 the London Transport Passenger Board accepted that STAGE 6 might be delayed because of ?events?. Ten STAGE 6 training trolleybuses were ordered in September 1939 and ?desultory? work continued on planning electricity sub-stations until January 1940. The work then stopped. After a review completed in April 1946 (the Menzler Report) concluded that motor buses were a more cost efficient replacement for the trams,the plans were aborted, and a public announcement made on 15 November 1946. John K