Derek R.
-
Posts
4,943 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Derek R.
-
-
I'm not quite sure why anybody with a particular type of boat should see themselves as a special case. Those that restore historic boats may well be preserving part of our heritage, but it is their choice and they presumably get enjoyment from it. Perhaps I could plead a case for special treatment, because I bought a new boat, thus helping to preserve the boat building industry!
All boats take up a certain amount of water space and personally I think that the Broads Authority got it about right by charging a rate based on the plan size, beam x width. My widebeam takes up more water space than a narrow boat and rather than being charged some sort of beam supplement, I would quite happily pay a standard rate based on the plan area. That would also mean that unusually narrow boats would also be treated equally; we would all then just be 'boats'.
Roger
The boat building industry is alive and well - in Poland. That in this country is also busy not only building new, but repairing existing and historic craft (though who knows how the downturn in the economy will affect it). At some time in the future your 'new built' will require anodes and perhaps plating. Will you then patronise the boatyard for another new boat - or get the one you have repaired?
This is not a case of pleading for special treatment, it's a case of getting 'Waterways' to recognise a long standing dimension of what the standard gauge of narrow canals and their craft actually were - and should still be - rather than castigate those with boats a couple of inches or so over what has been taken as the new build beam standard of six feet ten inches.
Some time ago on Thames, boat licences were issued on length times breadth - the area covered. It might seem a more reasonable system, but most of the river was accessible to most of the boats. With the canals this is less so. It could be argued that as wide boats cannot access all the system, they should - length for length perhaps - pay less. But seeing so many places where wide boats cause problems for others when passing - one wonders. Not for no reason did 'Progress' and I assume 'Pioneer' also, get left to carry out maintenance duties only.
I like Dutch barges, our first boat was one. They are characterful and different. Cannot say the same about some modern tin boxes - I'm sure they fulfil a task, but they are uneasy on the eye. Modern wide beam boats - and by that refer to those ten feet or more in breadth - seem to be a product of the wallet and ego. Their place on the majority of our existing canal system is one of some debate, but that is not what this thread is about.
As stated - the issue needs to be complained about and clarification obtained - please write to BW and let them know.
PS The: 'Out of office automated reply from the Mooring consultation team' from the email address within the document - in addition, try enquiries.hq@britishwaterways.co.uk Or write snail mail:
British Waterways Head Office & Customer Service Centre
64 Clarendon Road
Watford, Herts.
WD17 1DA
Simon Salem whose name appears within the pdf document, is Director of Customer Services. Should be based at Watford but unsure.
-
And others see as jealousy
In your dreams - I've been that route.
-
What a load of nonsense, BW has decided that anyone who has chosen to own a boat with a beam of more than 2.1m should pay a higher licence fee. They are not saying that boats wider than a narrow boat should pay it. They decided on this figure because the majority of boats with BW licences fall into this category. They obviously think that by doing so their proposal is pretty well guaranteed to receive little opposition.
The majority of 'narrow' boats on the system are built to a 6'10" beam standard - Trap No.1.
Looking at it from another angle, there are still a number of narrow locks around the system that real narrow boats have great difficulty passing through. These locks are easy to spot because of the damage that has been done to the brickwork.I believe you will find the reason why some locks are not wide enough for some ex-working craft of 7'1" beam to pass easily, is because ground movement has caused the walls to move. Rather than carry out expensive remedial work, a sign is erected 'max beam 6'10"', hence new build standard becomes 6'10".
. . if anyone should be paying more, surely it should be the owners of boats likely to cause damage by having the audacity to think they can use the whole narrow networkI take issue with that. The design width of narrow canals was to accommodate the narrow boats of the day, and that was not 6'10"(2.1m) beam - Trap No.2.
Nowadays, no responsible boat owner is going to damage with intent either a lock wall or his precious boat. Perhaps BW should be compensating the damage their locks have caused to boats because they have failed to be maintained to the original design standards. Fat chance.
The fact is there is no justification for charging wide beams more whatever the beam.If you are writing to BW then reply to the consultation opposing this most unfair proposal.
Some time ago on Thames, boat licences were issued on length times breadth - the area covered. It might seem a more reasonable system, but most of the river was accessible to most of the boats. With the canals this is less so. It could be argued that as wide boats cannot access all the system, they should - length for length perhaps - pay less. But seeing so many places where wide boats cause problems for others when passing (look at our two 14' beam boats breasted up!) - one wonders. Not for no reason did 'Progress' and I assume 'Pioneer' also, get left to carry out maintenance duties only.
I like Dutch barges, our first boat was one. They are characterful and different. Cannot say the same about some modern tin boxes - I'm sure they fulfil a task, but they are uneasy on the eye.
This topic seems to have collected flotsam in spanner sizes and fenders. The issue is about certain 'narrow' boats being charged as 'wide' boats for the sake of a metricated measurement, and lack of knowledge from those who should know better.
As stated - the issue needs to be complained about and clarification obtained - please write to BW and let them know.
-
As has been alluded to in the Pegasus thread, the extract from the BWAF licencing
sub-group report pdf.
Full report here: http://tinyurl.com/595lav
(BWAF = British Waterways Advisory Forum):
----------
8. Wide beam boats
8.1. If size is to be the main determinant of fee levels, then many contributors argue that beam should be considered as well as length. There are about 5,500 boats over 2.1m beam.
8.2. We considered the counter-argument that broader boats have significant restriction of range. We noted that there are other boats whose cruising range is restricted by length, draft or air draft, and that in some areas wide beam boats cannot share locks and hence use more water.
8.3. We concluded that these principles should stand: that all boats should pay on a unified basis; and that the fee should relate to the size of the boat, including beam.
8.4. We considered two options:
(a) Option 1:
8.4.a.1. We considered the effect of adding 10% or a flat £50 to the fees of all such boats. A 10% increase would raise about £190k in a full year compared with £200k for the £50 flat fee. The supplement for wide boats on river-only licences would be 40% lower than for canal licences as required under the 1971 Act. We believe the percentage supplement to be slightly fairer.
(
Option 28.4.b.1. We considered the effect of increasing the fees of wide boats according to the following formula:
2.1m - + 10%
2.6m - + 20%
3.1m - + 30%
3.6m - + 40%
4.1m - + 50%
4.6m - + 60%
8.4.b.2. This would raise about £396k in a full year, bearing in mind that the 40% river discount would carry across.
8.4.b.3. Because this would significantly increase the fees for the very largest boats, BWAF recommends that the formula be introduced over say, 3 years, starting with 10% or a £50 flat fee in 2009/10.
© BWAF believes that such charges would go some way towards redressing what many boaters see as unfairness, and recommends that a wide-beam supplement be introduced, following consultation on Options 1 and 2 above.
(d) It was reported to us that the governing body of DBA [Dutch Barge Association?] would oppose the introduction of supplementary charges for wide beam boats."
--------------------
From the above it can be perceived that the "extensive consultation" undertaken in 2007 apparently did not include the HNBOC or other individuals with historic narrow boats of seven foot (and often a 'bit') in width. Did they want us not to know, or was it shrouded in some questionnaire?
Have the BWAF simply not been able to use a measuring device and chosen 2.1m (6'10") as a convenient figure believing all narrow boats are within such a measurement - or are they genuinely seeking to jeopardise their standing as 'guardians of our waterway heritage' (not that I personally have any belief in the latter) and through the pockets of those individuals who take on the upkeep and maintenance of historic craft when BW themselves fail so miserably. Grants for buildings, but not for boats. So they fade, peel, crumble away, are stripped of everything, then offered at auction. Guardians of the purse only. Of course that is necessary, but at what cost?
There are listed 27,968 registered boats. How many of these are Historic narrow boats of a nominal seven foot beam, and hereafter charged as "Wide" boats for the sake of maybe three inches and another fifty quid a throw?
WRITE - the deadline for comment is the 7th November 2008. You'll doubtless get an automated response but do it - and put pen to paper too.
consultation@britishwaterways.co.uk
Simon Salem: Marketing and Customer service Director.
WRITE as groups, WRITE as individuals - it must be made clear to all concerned that narrow boats can be as wide as 2.2m (7' 2.6", and that within such they are capable of using narrow locks, and as has pointed out elsewhere, the six foot ten inch standard chosen by most modern boat builders was due to certain locks causing pinch problems through maintenance inadequacies.
WRITE - because this is either ignorance - or another stealthy slice from our pockets.
Email or snail mail or both - but WRITE. It may be an oversight, but if it gets written into the book uncontested - we'll all be paying yet more.
And if you want an example:
Subject: Boat Licencing Paper 5th September 2008 - response
"Dear Sir,
I write with regard to the subject heading and note that the chosen limit for a 'narrow' boat has been 2.1m. (6'10")
Does the Board intend to categorise the hundreds of historic narrow boats that were built to a design width that varied from seven feet, to seven feet and one inch as 'Wide' boats? All these craft are capable of navigating narrow beam locks and canals and are not restricted to wide beam waterways, unless inadequate maintenance to locks and structures in a minority of cases has caused same to reduce the designed width, hence the 'new build' standard of 6'10".
To have the 'historic boat' reduction in licence fee rescinded at some future date is bad enough. To now have the ignominy of being classified as 'Wide' boats for the seeming catch of another fifty quid a throw, is insult to injury.
A great many of the historic narrow boats that are lovingly kept, restored and shown to the public at events around the system are done from the private purse, for which they receive at best a word of thanks, and at worst thrown stones and theft. In comparison to the condition of some craft at National museum sites, it is the private historic boat owner who should be receiving greater discounts for protecting a National heritage.
-
* Can you please advise me that the 2.1m width limit is an error of judgement, and should read 2.2m?
-
* Failing that, can you please explain why historic narrow boat owners are to be singled out for inclusion into a category that they do not fit?
If ever there was another incentive to 'give up' - this is one. And who would take care of another 'heritage' boat - British Waterways?
R.S.V.P."
-----------------
Of course, if we are to take the 'Report' word for word - it will only apply to boats 13m long - won't it!
-
-
Yes.
One of my favourites is 'A Caravan Afloat' by C J Aubertin. First published in 1916 it describes the canal era before WW1. In a £40 towed, paddled and poled with minimal superstructure and awning punt, the family explore the canals. Reprinted in 1982 by Shepperton Swan. Poetically written, a good read, some photos by the author.
'Victorian and Edwardian Canals (from old photographs)' by D.D. Gladwin published by Portman. All sorts of navigations, lots of 'grainey' shots but good. Nice shot looking up to Batchworth lock showing bridge and buildings long gone.
-
I have posted a 1905 postcard on my gallery site which shows a Severn Boatman with his shaft on the 6 foot deep rock bottom which sugests it is 18 to 20 feet long. A rare 'sailing' narrow boat.
The 'sweeps' on Droitwich Salt Trows were 22 feet long, used for rowing when the wind fell.
Thanks Max, around 20' seems favourite. My 14' is barely adequate when needed, something the length of a standard scaffold pole (21' I believe). Even Mrs P. thought forty was a bit much, must have been wrong.
-
Derek,
One futher thing to bear in mind if trying to piece together the Idle Women from published works.
Susan Wolfitt at least chooses sometimes to protect the identity of a trainee by phrases like "I shall call her Ruth".
It's possible the other authors may also have disguised names, but not put in their text that they have done so.
One thing I noticed, Susan Woolfit says at some point "There were only ever two of us called Susan", so if that's true any reference to Susan is either Susan Woolfit, or Susan Blood, I think
Had a chat on the phone with Mrs Jean Peters this evening. I asked her if she knew how many women trainees actually went through the training process (not necessarily all of it) very quickly she replied around three hundred. She made some sketches of various items during her years as a trainee, and said the Imperial War Museum held some, but she had some at home. Very interested, I suggested she took them along to a local library for copying and forwarding, this she will do. Jean is going to go through my notes and will make comments, then send them back. Jean is still certain there was some sort of interconnecting device on some of the gates, but cannot remember which ones, or whether they were a failed experiment, suggested Sonia might know. Still waiting to hear from an archivist at Waterways on that one. And yes, 40' shafts is wrong, probably 20'.
I asked her about the names of her fellow trainees being changed for anonymity "Oh no, I used their real names." She also confirmed that she only knew of two Susans. I fancy this may be amongst the girls that stayed the course, and not the three hundred!
Be interesting to see if Sonia will add anything.
-
There's a photo of the church spire and a sketch of the church itself on the Birmingham History forum. I think you need to be a member to see them though.
Just looking through that collection again, and notice some shots are duplicated - the second of the two are without skyline structures, so some of the photos may have been 'doctored' (what a lovely old fashioned word for 'amputated' - origins Naval C1700's?)
-
-
Venus! Thank you. Quite a job (says he - having only patched a canoe). Which dock is that Tim?
'George & Mary': "One of two prototype wooden pairs by Harland & Wolff 1934/35"
Empress looks lovely there.
-
Excellent! Cheers. No stopping you now . . .
-
I remembered (the then gorgeous) Emma Smith didn't write under her real name and a quick google turned up that she was Elspeth Hallsmith (or more likely Hall-Smith.) She still appears to be going strong according to the Guardian.
(snip)
Paul H
I wonder if the name listed as Hull-Smith, is in fact Hall-Smith, and maybe Elspeth - all the same Emma Smith?
-
Yes, I thought third from right had the edge over second from right, (with apologies to Miss Smith if she is alive to read this)
According to "Troubled Water" Emma Smith is second from right, and Stella is on her right, (I assume that means to the left of her from the photographer's viewpoint).
Olga is on the far left, and Daphne French just behind, (presumably part obscured?)
Is Stella another one for your list, or do you have her?
Ah! No - haven't got Stella. And one of the un-named rapid departures may be a Vivienne.
I didn't have Margery McPhee either, though I found a Margaret.
From Kits Amateur Boatwomen, I also read that early on after Kit had got some experience with buttying with the Sibleys, the decision was made between the two trainers; Molly and Kit, to go it alone by splitting the trainees they had between two boats, which meant a pair crewed by just two. This seemed possible as both the trainees they had with them; Rosheen and Bridget, had picked it up well, and were all for it. Bridget stayed with Molly on Bainton & Saltly, Rosheen with Kit on Battersea and Uttoxeter - at least for a while. Edit: Reading on, this was short lived as they took on two new trainees each, making eight on two pairs, and a bit chaotic.
Two others at the reunion I see were Virginia Strauss and Avril Scott-Moncrieff - that makes the six.
More: Jean, Kay and Miranda worked Astrea & Corolla, and another name or nick-name Jean speaks of is 'Slatty'.
-
(snip)
Somewhere (Waterway's World?) there is a photo of a dozen or so trainees on the roof and gunnel of the motor Ascot (from where I remember the coquetish Miss Smith) which identifies many of the women - but I can't find it at the moment.
(snip)
Paul H
They are here Which one is Emma?
Ah-ha Touché! I'll guess third from right.
-
In September 1944, a "Grand Union Manning List" gives the following boats manned by trainees:
Antony & Alphons (Miss McPhee)
Atlas & Capella (Miss Martin)
Capricorn & Cleopatra (Miss French)
Ceres & Cetus (Miss Boughton-Leigh)
Deimos & Vela (Miss Strachan)
Phobus & Moon (Miss Trevor)
Sun & Dipper (Miss Harper)
Ascot & Crater (Miss Hull-Smith)
Battersea & Uttoxeter (Miss Gayford)
Bognor & Dodona (Miss Ramsey)
So 10 pairs out of a total of 98 pairs in commission at the time.
.
In addition Hydra & Crux were operated by a Mrs Cox who although undoubtedly a woman does not have the indicative letter W after her name as the others do. She could have been a trainee and the W is missed off the list but could equally be a widow from boating stock.
Paul H.
That's interesting, to link in with that I have -
Daphne French, trainer using Capricorn and Cleopatra
Miss Martin - Frankie Campbell-Martin
Cicely, a NZ girl I have on Hercules & Cetus
Sonia South (later Smith/Rolt) and her two friends Chattie Salaman, and Meriol Trevor, all three connected with the theatre - Phobos & Moon
Audrey; Evelyn Hunt & Anne (well respected) may well have crewed Sun & Dipper
Kit Gayford (trainer) used Battersea & Uttoxeter, but Pavo for a while too
Molly Traill was the second original trainer with Kit, and left to train girls on the FMC fleet in Birmingham, being replaced at Hayes by Daphne French.
Of the other names I have;
Wendy
'The Basher' - both left after first trip
The 'Dresden Chinas' - two girls who Sunbathed a lot, didn't last
Rosalie & Josephine - left part way through first trip having been iced up somewhere
One, who waited in the back cabin waiting to be shown the 'accommodation' and who I suspect left that night (or early next a.m.)
Margaret Ridout (Cornish)
Emma Smith (Miss Hull-Smith?)
Susan Woolfitt
Susan Blood
Virginia Strauss
Billie
Olga Kevelos - who in 1948 went motorcycle racing and became works rider for several British and foreign factories, winning two International Six Day Gold medals
Helen Skyrme (There was a Helen who insisted on wearing gloves - perhaps?)
Eileen - a former hairdresser, tough little boater
Avril Scott-Moncrieff - crewed on Alphons
Jean Peters
Kay
Miranda Pemberton-Pigott
Daphne March of Worcester, steerer of Heather Bell and who introduce Kit to canal boats
Bridget
Rosheen
Jill
Mary
A pipe smoking trainee in photo but un-named (Amateur Boatwomen)
Nancy Smith (Miss Hull Smith?) and her mate -
Margaret on the Leeds & Liverpool -
And others!
Those names in Blue attended a reunion at Rickmansworth in 1992. There may have been others, but their names are not mentioned.
Alan asks about a crew of two - it may have happened, and certainly did when one of the three took ill, but planned that way - unlikely I think.
-
I'd mentioned on the other thread - on 'GU tying up places', that it was written - 30 pairs had been worked by women trainees during WWII. This seems a lot, Anthony Burton states: "There were, after all, never very many of them and at the best they represented only a tiny fraction of the boating population - no more than fifteen pairs were worked by women on the cut at any one time."
That still sounds generous, as it would need 45 women as crew. However, so far I have names for 37, + 1 un-named = 38 and that includes three trainers; Eily (Kit) Gayford; Daphne French; and Molly Traill. Kit Gayford states in Amateur Boatwomen:- "At one time we had eleven pairs all worked by girls". 38 would cover that, though some girls de-bunked on the first trip (one on the first night).
On the Leeds and Liverpool, Nancy Smith and her mate Margaret worked the short boat 'Mu' until '45, but make mention of a boat 'Venus', and a Widdop 24hp engine, being fitted out in the hold with ten bunks for trainees. No more is known in that direction - could have been a short boat - so not far off of fifteen pairs.
-
Here's another - Below Coppermill Lock No. 84: from Margaret Cornish (Ridout) http://tinyurl.com/59rm7o
Could have been just the trainees, though I suspect they followed regular crews places.
Interesting/boring statistic for you - at their height, 30 pairs of boats were run by Wartime trainees (sounds too many, wonder if that's right), but only six trainees lasted the full three years to '45, and only one went on and stayed - Sonia, who became Smith, later Rolt.
-
The writing has so much presence to it that it must surely have been written soon after the events, perhaps in the form of a diary?
Steve
Yes, she kept a log book.
Buzz bombs - V1's, pulse engine cuts out - tens seconds of silence before impact.
There's masses of similar recollections at The Peoples War.
-
Hi Andy aer kid, Blossom ere.
Ard a thort a black country mon with yower family pedigree wood a nowd, just spake tew Horice!
This ones not too far off topic either. One of the uses of a cabin shaft was for shutting bottom end gates on narrow locks. If you took a close look at, for instance the Wolverhampton 21, on the inside face of the ends of the bottom gate balance beams, there was always fixed a piece of timber about an inch thick and the depth of the beam. This board was always peppered with the holes inflicted by the square pointed ends of cabin shafts. By stopping (almost) the back end of a motor boat leaving the tail of the lock it was possible to push against the wooden pads on the ends of the ballance beams from the counter of the leaving motor and start them closing. The process usually being completed by the half a paddle raised to one flush the motor out of the lock and two to fill the lock for the following butty. Ive also seen and used a cabin shaft for lifting the ratchet and dropping ground paddles working uphill as the boat leaves the lock. Cabin shafts were also used for removing 'crap' from round the blades, although a 'pigs tail' shunters pole was the prefered tool for this purpose.
cheers aer kid
Dow bang 'em about
Blossom
Welcome to the banter box Blossom. I'd forgotten about the pads on the balance beams (don't get out much). Reminds me of the first time we went down the 21, got a reprimand from locky (Skinny Ol'boy in a flat 'at and bike clips) for not lifting a bottom paddle while strapping the top gate shut. He was a diamond after that - went ahead and set 'em up - lickety split to the bottom, that was before they put new gear in. Handy piece of kit a shunters pole, mine took a walk after I'd tidied it up. Never did find it.
-
Eighteen or twenty feet would have been common.
I used to have a 25' shaft (until someone used it as a lever
), though that came from the Dukers (Bridgewater barges) rather than Narrow Boats. That was the longest I've ever come across.Tim
That's more like it, something like the length of a scaffold pole, around 21' mark.
-
(snip)
I quite like
"A backbreaking job, not to mention carrying a forty-foot shaft down the sheeted top planks"
Yes, that would be tricky. wouldn't it!
Ah - yes! That was something I was going to canvas you all for. Just how long was a long shaft? I have a 12'6" and a couple more feet would be better, but better still would be an 18'. What is the norm for a decent shaft nowadays, come to that - what was back then? Forty foot (if you could manage one) would probably shaft off the bottom in RCD! You'd be poking factory windows out with one of them . . .
Another example of 'fourteen' being heard as 'forty'?
-
Where is what you are reading published, (if at all), please, Derek ?
It's a collection of articles available from the BBC WW2 Peoples War. They are most easily accessed through the website of the Narrow Boat Magazine
Scroll down to 'Idle Women' (Wartime trainees by Jean Peters) in eight parts. It is a personal account, and at times there are clashes, but has a varied mixture of elation on a fine day and of future hope, and abject misery - both physical along the 'Bottom road' in filthy weather, and emotionally.
To be frank, it's not an easy read, and I fancy this is less a reflection on Mrs Peters, but more likely by the manner in which her memories have been transcribed. If a person not familiar with canal terminology, or local place names, not to mention the vernacular, and who may either have set down from a hand written set of pages, or tape recording her account - the chances of getting things quite wrong are rife. Reading through the BBC series of eight articles I was struck with a succession of anomalies that simply cried out to be corrected - and that is what I have done.
Through the offices of the Bournemouth Libraries who provided the link between Mrs Peters and the BBC, I have managed to contact Mrs Peters direct. I have sent her today a full manuscript of her BBC displayed record of her trips, fully edited to the best of my knowledge with regard to the cut, correcting place names and such data that would to us seem ridiculous, such as empty boats drawing 4' 9", place names such as Curditch for Curdworth, and Appleton for Alperton (though the vernacular may not be far off) - and even possibly the gates linked by wires. Other similar oddities occur, such as: "to put a pie the star in cupboard". This simple nonsense line can be explained if read - 'to put a pie in the stern'end cupboard' - especially if it's pronounced 'starn'. If you had heard an elderly lady speaking such a line, and have no knowledge of boats - it might just sound like nonsense, and with no knowledge of any different - nonsense may get written down.
So, a large sheaf of documents are now winging their way to Bournemouth with the hope that Mrs Peters will read, or have read to her, and approve for possible inclusion in some place or another connected with canal history, an edited manuscript. Not all of what is written is peculiar - some of the descriptions of lock working a pair are spot on. And her descriptions of Regents Canal Dock, and Bulls Bridge yard are pure paintings with words.
The trainees experiences were but short lived in comparison to the life long boaters, but valuable nonetheless for their view of a world very far from that which was their norm.
-
Yes, some of that is true. I think Eily Gayford's book title might give some strength to the recollections of a few - 'Amateur Boatwoman'. This is not to deride their often valuable records, but fifty years can have effects on memory - and if someone had kidded them on at the time . . .
I've mailed the 'Gods' at BW seeking guidance
Bet that'll send them into a state of and -
Having read through the memoirs of a Wartime trainee, mention has been made of the gates on the Northern G.U. being connected by wires, so that pushing one opened both. I've not heard of this before. I wonder if such was installed originally, and was abandoned as problems with maintenance began to show. I've Googled for information but found nothing.
It sounds like an idea that in practise would have suffered problems of maintenance due to complexities of underwater or conduit connections.
Option 2
Working Boats to pay an extra £50 Licence
in General Boating
Posted
Yes.
However, as there are more new build boats with 6'10" as stated than there are historic narrow boats at anything between 7' and a couple or three more inches, I didn't see it as tongue in cheek, more a likely misconception (seemingly shared by 'Waterways') that 'all' 'narrow' boats were built to 6'10".
You speak of fairness, yet consider that a 14' narrow beam cruiser should pay the same as a 110' x 16' beam Tjalk?
That £50 is on top of the 9% increase coming our way. Whether it's next year or otherwise, it is based upon a figure chosen by someone who considers that all 'narrow' boats are 6'10" (2.1m) beam, some person or persons not familiar with the narrow beam canal gauge as built 200yrs ago.
It was government that failed to finance the continued improvements to the Northern GU, and there was a little matter of a small man with a moustache in Germany stamping his feet. It had been intended to run 100ton barges through from Brentford to Birmingham. But lack of funds and circumstances changed all that. Two narrow boats could also carry almost as much as Progress, and be more flexible inasmuch as they could access ALL the system AND were able to pass in the available width of canal as it was. With this barge traffic in mind, the Southern GU lock cills were lowered to allow 5'6" depth, but only as far as Berkhamsted. With one wide (14') beam boat moored, two narrow boats have a limited amount of room to pass. I've even had a canoeist shout at me to get out of the way as he raced to overtake me as I was passing a moored 14' beam boat, crashing through brambles as he did so (Tring cutting, daft place to tie with a boat that wide).
Some of the prettiest. What engine? Picture?