Captain Pegg

The technology may be but I don’t think the process has been used to make steel in any large volume in the UK until relatively recently. I don’t think it’s the reason Vauxhall cars were crap. That’s got far more to do with protection, or lack thereof. Anyway it’s not what this thread is about.

Whatever the method of production and wherever it’s done the material from which steel is made is some form of contaminated iron. Be it carbon and sulphur in pig iron from a blast furnace or the rust and foreign bodies in scrap. In any case blast furnaces are charged with scrap to aid the smelting process. Steel making is mostly about removing the unwanted stuff and if that can’t be done then making sure it’s encapsulated in a form where it isn’t detrimental to the performance of the product is the next best thing. That is achieved by the addition of alloying elements. The idea that steel made from scrap is inferior is a myth that seems to stem from ignorance of how steel is made. To the best of my knowledge the electric arc furnace process is relatively new and there are only two major producers in the UK. Not sure any 1960s Vauxhalls would have used it.

This is a confused statement. Steel made by the electric arc furnace method uses scrap as it's feed stock and hence is recycling carbon that is already locked into the alloy. That carbon has to exist in some form somewhere. It's doing no harm while chemically locked into a piece of metal. Steel made by the traditional method of converting pig iron made in a blast furnace introduces huge volumes of carbon into the atmosphere from the coke used to smelt the iron ore. Only a small proportion of the carbon gets locked into the pig iron and most of that is removed in the steel conversion process. Hence adopting new materials to limit the overall global requirement for steel while promoting the use of the electric arc process to recycle waste ferrous material into steel is a more environmentally friendly approach than just continuing to produce new metal from the smelting of ores.

I’ve moored above Atherstone locks and I’ve also moored below the town locks many times and left my boat there unattended overnight. Access to shops and the station is why people choose to moor in the town rather than the countryside. I’ve also single handed the flight at various times of day including early and late and in near darkness. Never had even the slightest hint of a problem there. I also have no expectation of encountering Volockies after 1400, below lock 5, in inclement weather, or in winter.

How were these locks drained, via gate paddles or ground paddles? If the latter it could explain why altering the top of lock was easier as that appears to be have been achieved without altering the original culverts. Also works to the bottom end of a lock might have required a lot more de-watering activity than alterations carried out inside the top gates.

The Blisworth passage was this morning so any wide beams still north of Stowe Hill will certainly be struggling to make it.

Pretty much the most dangerous place on a canal is a lock and volunteers are evidently trusted to operate them safely. I believe Harecastle tunnel is operated by volunteers, that’s certainly how it appeared to me on numerous trips through this past year. There’s some pretty significant fixed plant operation and safety critical tasks to be undertaken there.

The notice for booking of passage of the moveable towpath is still current. Although as 9’ 5” constitutes a wide beam craft it’s difficult to deduce exactly what width of craft CRT think can navigate the Rochdale yet still need the towpath to be removed. The GU case is most definitely temporary (at least officially) and relates to the bridge below Shop Lock. There is a legal requirement to maintain that waterway fit for boats of 12’ 6” beam. Previous threads have shown CRT’s grasp on their own published dimensions can be tenuous. As with all things CRT this is more likely cock-up than conspiracy and I think perhaps stems from the maintenance of the published dimensions by operational staff concerned with real time issues rather than asset management staff with an understanding of the legal requirements and longer term strategy. Just to prove the point while the GU between Whilton and Camp Hill accommodates 12’ 6” craft the Oxford between Napton and Braunston is 7’ maximum beam.

Yes, an ‘operation’ is a full cycle.

From which we can deduce there are a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 316 widebeam passages from Stoke Bruerne to Braunston over the course of the year. The latest lock usage stastics for Buckby top lock (2022) show 3815 operations. So that's at least 3,500 and a maximum of 7,000 narrowboat movements.

The CRT volunteer scheme certainly costs money to train and equip the volunteers, who can also claim expenses. Not that we should worry about that in this case since it is likely cheaper than providing employees. Albeit the fact that volunteers can't be rostered may be a factor in why there was a suspension of passage over Christmas. I think CRT have the balance about right in prioritising around 4 hours of each week for widebeam passage through Braunston and Blisworth tunnels. Although I doubt widebeams account for as many as 1 in 20 movements through the tunnels which is what that broadly equates to in terms of time. Albeit noting that if you're going the same way as a widebeam then you aren't necessarily restricted. @Lady M were you planning an early cruise through Blisworth tomorrow?

I think the majority of winter moorings are probably taken by non-liveaboards. That's certainly the case where my boat is currently moored. A winter mooring is clearly a home mooring based upon CRT's own definitions. Yet it doesn't directly qualify for a licence rebate under the new charging regime. It could of course be built into next year's winter mooring prices but I'm not optimistic that it will.

It's a result of there having no been no widebeam passages available between 22nd December and 3rd January due to staff shortages over the Christmas holidays and as the canal is closed south of Stoke Bruerne after this weekend this may be a very necessary window for those craft heading southbound. In normal circumstances there is provision for a maximum of two widebeams in each direction on Tuesday and Thursday mornings.

Yeah, must be.

I may have slightly expanded upon @Arthur Marshall’s question. It does involve a cruise down the Staffs & Worcs to Stourton but that also means he’ll get to go through Bratch locks. I think the Stourbridge and Dudley route is far and away the best approach to the core of the BCN. Nothing much to write home about on the B&F and I’m not mad on Wolverhampton locks. The others have their moments but they’re the wrong direction for Arthur.

I propose a core route and possible detours along the lines of: Access the BCN via the Stourbridge and Dudley canals with possible visits to Stourbridge basin and Hawne basin. Head round to the BCLM at Tipton and take a trip into Dudley Tunnel with the DC&TT. Carry on into Birmingham city centre via any combination of old and new main lines and it possible take a trip up Oldbury locks to Titford pools. Moor in Birmingham city centre. Leave central Birmingham via Farmers Bridge and then probably Ashted/Garrison for Star City moorings. Ascend Perry Barr and Rushall flights then explore the top end of the BCN including possible visits to Anglesey, Norton Canes and drop down to Walsall basin. Contiune round via Wednesfield and then exit down the Wolverhampton flight. Penkridge, Stourbridge Town and Wolverhampton stations are all easy for the canal. Penkridge and Wolverhampton easy for trains from the NW. Obviously you could do the whole thing the other way round.

Exactly. And purple boats too. I also have a theory that the licence fee for boats up to 35’ should be halved.

Do you not recognise that adding a ‘disppointed’ or ‘rolling the eyes’ emoji to the end of a post - particularly about someone else’s choices - is a horrible behaviour? As is starting a response with a <sigh>? It isn’t compatible with being tolerant of others’ points of view. I’m not so daft to think that there aren’t some issues but I will always defend the right of a craft meeting the navigational dimensions to be able to navigate the waterway in question. And I’ll always challenge anyone who claims that wide boats shouldn’t be on waterways that are legally required to be maintained to facilitate their navigation. I genuinely can’t think of a northern waterway that a wide beam can access that doesn’t fall into that category. I’ve done that many times on this forum; mostly in relation to the GU. It isn’t just you.

It’s because you continually cast aspersions on other boaters based on what I suspect may be fairly limited experience and knowledge. Which are the northern canals that aren’t wide that have problematic wide beams?

Are you suggesting that wide beams shouldn’t be on the northern canals where you’ve presumably experienced these problems first hand?

I doubt you’d start a response with an audible sigh in a face to face meeting with a group in the pub. The point was that a boat moored stupidly is a boat moored stupidly. Whether it’s a widebeam or not isn’t relevant to that fact. There are lots of circumstances where a particular shape or size of boat or the attitude or size of crew can be an impediment to others. In some circumstances a 70’ boat squeezed on the end of a mooring impeding a junction, a lock landing or a winding hole is more of a nuisance than a 50’ boat would be. But we don’t get excited about 70’ boats here because they conform to the collective notion of what a ‘proper boat’ might look like. Not only that the numerous pairs of 71’ 6” x 7’ 0.5” boats moored abreast on the GU are definitely OK despite the fact it’s only officially a 12’ 6” wide waterway north of Berkhamsted. If we’re worried about CRT’s funding issues surely we should be welcoming boaters to the waterways rather than tutting at the shape of their cabins. None of us have any claim to the waterways, and even less to be self appointed arbiters of what is right or wrong. It’s of ultimate benefit to us all to get boats onto the canal in the first place. Then comes the issue of how to manage the consequences.

Why are you so rude?

So it’s just boats that inconvenience you. No need to distinguish the type. And presumably if the boat is within the permitted dimensions all is good.

When boating where though? I’m on the GU between Berkhamsted and Birmingham every month, often more frequently, and I haven’t noticed any significant changes in the numbers of wide beams of the move. In a routine day I’d expect to encounter 0 or 1, with 0 being more likely than 1. I don’t doubt some people do get inconvenienced by them. I’ve had minor delays further south where they are more prevalent; a certain amount of which is because those on the move often seem under-crewed. It made me wonder if your experience was skewed by towpath observations around London.

Is your evidence of increasing levels of annoyance caused by widebeams gained from personal experience or from the comments of folk on CWDF or other social media?