What??? How???

[dmr]

14 hours ago, Goliath said:

There’s a lock amongst the Devizes filght where you’re not recommended to share? Can’t remember. But have twice been witness to a pair of boats stuck in it. 

Only for a short period mind. A bit of rocking about and engine bursts freed them. 

That lock chamber itself is fine, its getting out of the bottom gates that's the problem. As I've set before, its in a very unfortunate position as by the time you've got down that far you are getting into the swing of things, enjoying yourself, and not paying attention to half hearted paper notices stuck to the balance beam. Its generally fine to share as long as both boats don't drive out together.

 

..............Dave

[dmr]

Its a big boat thats got stuck, but it has been through that lock before. Has it been through through that lock before in that direction? There are certainly locks that will take a boat one way and not the other (Hurlston and us for example). Its also reported that some locks change with the seasons.

 

The published dimensions are only a guide, there are loads of threads on this forum about over-sized boats going through locks, its not reckless, its standard boating. Lots of canals are stated as 70 foot but 71+ foot working boats go through all the time, so its not really fair to blame the boater too much. His only possible mistake, knowing he is tight, was that he should maybe have gone it a little slower. Then again, faced with a bit of sticking (on the bottom or on a not fully open gate) we frequently have to make a balance of probabilities decision about whether or not to push on with a bit of force and momentum.

 

...............Dave

[ditchcrawler]

Facebook says its now clear, The cool of the night must have made it contract 

[Captain Pegg]

21 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

So, assuming you're right and the lock wall is built in the wrong place and it isn't a fender stuck down the side we can't see, we appear to have a case of unstoppable force meets immovable object. 

 

Are CRT going to demolish the wall and re-build it so an oversized boat can fit? Or is The TOGGENBERG going to have to find another waterway to cruise?

 

CRT changing the published max dimension of the canal seems the simpler solution, and the one I predict CRT will go for.  

 

 

 

Such a decision won’t be made on the basis on one boat.

 

I believe the majority of the K&A’s locks have the capability to accommodate two 6’ 10” narrowboats irrespective of the fact that such an arrangement is wider than the published limits. As I outlined to MP the absolute limiting points on any navigation are usually a small number of discrete locations and a better approach is to have a strategy to improve those rather than to use them as a reason to introduce more limitations. Preservation of the capability for locks to be used by pairs of narrowboats is beneficial to both the usage and water supply aspects of the canal as a whole. Therefore I would view removal of that capability at any lock where it can reasonably be sustained as a poor solution. That’s a better criterion for decision making in this instance than the impact on one boat.

 

If the channel has been narrowed below the limits that apply at the majority of K&A locks I’d rather hope CRT will ultimately restore it. Theoretically Toggenburg should struggle at other locations anyway. It appears to be close to all of the published dimensions and as I have stated previously on threads about tunnels the published dimensions ultimately work in combination rather than singularly.

 

JP

[Horace42]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

My insurance says I am covered for :

 

Section B - Liabilities to Third Parties
Claims by Third Parties and Passengers
If by reason of interest in the Craft the Insured shall become liable to pay and shall pay any sum or sums in respect of any liability,
claim, demand, damages and/or expenses arising from or occasioned by any of the following matters or things during the currency of
this Policy, that is to say:

 

Loss or damage to any harbour, dock (graving or otherwise), slipway, way, gridiron, pontoon, pier, quay, jetty, stage, buoy, telegraph
cable or other fixed or moveable thing whatsoever, or to any goods or property in or on the same howsoever caused:

 

So I would guess this is probably an 'industry standard' clause so C&RT should be able to recover the costs.

My bold emphasis in your comment above. This could be read to mean the boat owner pays - ie, CRT are not protected by the Third Party cover of the policy - which surely defeats the whole object of compulsory third party insurance. 

 

PS. CRT might be covered by the policy.  The insurance company pays out - and then chases you for the costs involved.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Horace42
PS

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Horace42 said:

My bold emphasis in your comment above. This could be read to mean the boat owner pays - ie, CRT are not protected by the Third Party cover of the policy - which surely defeats the whole object of compulsory third party insurance. 

No - it means if the insured person becomes "liable to pay etc etc etc", then the insurance will cover it.

 

Your Insurers will cover You for: 
2.1 all sums (not exceeding the sums stated in Your
Schedule) that You legally have to pay as a
result of owning or having an insurable interest
in Your Craft noted in Your Schedule,
including any legal liability arising when Your
Craft is being used, navigated or in the custody
or control of anyone else with Your permission,
resulting in:
i) the death of, or injury to, any other person, or
any other person insured by this Policy,
including anyone getting on or off or
travelling on Your Craft;
ii) damage to any other property;
iii) the raising or attempted raising, removing or
destroying of the wreck of Your Craft;
iv) pollution caused by Your Craft as a result of
loss or damage

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, magpie patrick said:

We have no good reason to expect a GU town class can get to Llangollen though, historically they were big narrow boats and they didn't trade that way.

I have been all the way to Llangollen (and to Maesbury) in a GU town class. Not in trade, and done this century. It would be a shame if I can't do it again. 

1 hour ago, Tim Lewis said:

Rochdale canal 2002

The difference between that and the most recent incident is that the narrowing on the Rochdale occurred while the canal was legally unnavigable. Since reopening it has never been fit for 14ft beam craft.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Tim Lewis said:

Rochdale canal 2002

 

 

 

[Athy]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

Reminds me of a French road sign I saw many years ago, "Défense de Doubler". I hadn't realised that having twins was illegal over there.

[dmr]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

Such a decision won’t be made on the basis on one boat.

 

I believe the majority of the K&A’s locks have the capability to accommodate two 6’ 10” narrowboats irrespective of the fact that such an arrangement is wider than the published limits. As I outlined to MP the absolute limiting points on any navigation are usually a small number of discrete locations and a better approach is to have a strategy to improve those rather than to use them as a reason to introduce more limitations. Preservation of the capability for locks to be used by pairs of narrowboats is beneficial to both the usage and water supply aspects of the canal as a whole. Therefore I would view removal of that capability at any lock where it can reasonably be sustained as a poor solution. That’s a better criterion for decision making in this instance than the impact on one boat.

 

If the channel has been narrowed below the limits that apply at the majority of K&A locks I’d rather hope CRT will ultimately restore it. Theoretically Toggenburg should struggle at other locations anyway. It appears to be close to all of the published dimensions and as I have stated previously on threads about tunnels the published dimensions ultimat and so its ok as long as oely work in combination rather than singularly.

 

JP

I am pretty sure that over years we have shared every single lock on the K&A with another boat and we are slightly over the standard 6 foot 10. This includes the tight Devizes lock and the two Semington locks.  In these cases its only getting through the bottom gates thats the issue, so its possible to wriggle out as long as both boats are not full length. One of the Seend locks is the most difficult as the paddle gear prevents the gates opening fully, I think this is the only one where we failed, a shorter boat should be ok. Its very sad if this lock repair has reduced the width of the K&A. I accept that this might be tolerable if its due to natural movement, as on the Rochdale, but not if its a bad repair.

 

................Dave 

[Dave123]

According to Facebook and CRT email the boat is now unstuck. 

I am in agreement with those above that clearly this is a poor repair job, additional navigation restrictions should never be introduced by repair works. If the boat recently got through without problems it is hardly the fault of the boater. Also dislike CRT being so quick to blame the boater, becoming more common in stoppage noticed eg vandalism eg the middlewich breach 

[roland elsdon]

But you can get a town class to trevor.... but popularity can be an issue. Star class is harder..

 

[billS]

3 hours ago, AndrewIC said:

So, the pic from Facebook was posted publically by NABO and credited to Dru Maryland, so I will attempt to attach it to this reply. The boat was going down the lock, and the bottom gates are open. There is clear water visible between the boat and the lock wall, but the boat is stuck half way out of the lock. The boat is the Toggenberg, which is listed as 13ft 6in, and has apparently passed the same lock previously without issue. Conclusion: the wing wall rebuild may now be narrower than the lock. CRT implicitly blaming the boat for being wider than their "published dimension" of 4m is obfuscation and diversion, the real questions are why have their contractors rebuilt the walls significantly narrower than the lock, and why have CRT unilaterally reduced the maximum beam by at least 4.5in (and maybe as much as 7.5in)?

 

Clearly the boat stuck there because they forgot to untie the stern rope. Sheesh!

[dmr]

The photo does show a bit of clearance in the lock itself, so it looks like the entrance is the issue, I assume this is the rebuilt wingwalls. I think I read that these are done in concrete and then faced in bricks. Easy fix is to remove the facing bricks and stick on some of that brick effect wallpaper, even better get a local artist to paint some bricks on the concrete, it would probably look much then some CRT repairs where they use red engineering bricks in a lock built with black engineering bricks.

 

................Dave

[ditchcrawler]

39 minutes ago, roland elsdon said:

But you can get a town class to trevor.... but popularity can be an issue. Star class is harder..

 

Someone tows Saturn up there and back every year I believe 

[Captain Pegg]

5 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Someone tows Saturn up there and back every year I believe 

But that’s a Planet class...

 

ETA - just twigged that Saturn is the SU fly boat

Edited May 3, 2019 by Captain Pegg

[ditchcrawler]

2 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

But that’s a Planet class...

What is, the boat that tows it?

 

[Peter X]

I quite like the theory that contraction of the boat due to lower temperatures overnight enabled the boat to get free. Quite possible as the steel hull would contract more than the brick etc. of the lock base? Could this explain why a boat stuck in a lock had its stern line tied round a bollard, i.e. they knew it might drift away during the night propelled by a leak from the top gate?

 

The photo certainly appears to show the lock entrance being narrower than the rest, which points the finger at a bodged repair job. I do fear that gradual creation of new pinch points by poor repairs is a worry.

[Psychalist]

Not a good start for the new owners. Looks like it lost a wheelhouse somewhere along the way.

 

From the sales particulars:

 

"Toggenberg is a very heavily engineered barge ideal for long term cruising / live aboard use.

Her clever design means that she has masses of living space, yet is easier to manoeuvre on canals & rivers than many smaller craft. She is also a capable (proven) coastal cruiser."

 

/G

[Athy]

Just now, Peter X said:

I quite like the theory that contraction of the boat due to lower temperatures overnight enabled the boat to get free. Quite possible as the steel hull would contract more than the brick etc. of the lock base?

Quite possibly - and in any case, the boat would contract inwards and the lock would contract (if at all) outwards.

[Captain Pegg]

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

What is, the boat that tows it?

 

I should have used an irony emoji!

 

You responded to a thread referencing Star class boats with a comment about Saturn. Now I will admit that for a moment I thought that Saturn must therefore be one of the smaller GU boats often referred to as Star class (even though not all were technically named after stars).

 

The comment about being towed should have been a clue.

 

JP

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Psychalist said:

Not a good start for the new owners. Looks like it lost a wheelhouse somewhere along the way.

 

From the sales particulars:

 

"Toggenberg is a very heavily engineered barge ideal for long term cruising / live aboard use.

Her clever design means that she has masses of living space, yet is easier to manoeuvre on canals & rivers than many smaller craft. She is also a capable (proven) coastal cruiser."

 

/G

It actually looked 'visually' more balanced with the cabin.

 

Maybe a low-bridge ??

[Captain Pegg]

11 minutes ago, Peter X said:

I quite like the theory that contraction of the boat due to lower temperatures overnight enabled the boat to get free. Quite possible as the steel hull would contract more than the brick etc. of the lock base? Could this explain why a boat stuck in a lock had its stern line tied round a bollard, i.e. they knew it might drift away during the night propelled by a leak from the top gate?

 

The photo certainly appears to show the lock entrance being narrower than the rest, which points the finger at a bodged repair job. I do fear that gradual creation of new pinch points by poor repairs is a worry.

The photo is misleading. You can’t tell that from the photo because the new concrete work visible is in fact set a complete brick width back from the original wing wall which is yet to be restored as a facing.

 

JP

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, Psychalist said:

Not a good start for the new owners. Looks like it lost a wheelhouse somewhere along the way.

 

From the sales particulars:

 

"Toggenberg is a very heavily engineered barge ideal for long term cruising / live aboard use.

Her clever design means that she has masses of living space, yet is easier to manoeuvre on canals & rivers than many smaller craft. She is also a capable (proven) coastal cruiser."

 

/G

 

And with tyres for fenders in the ideal posotion to cause the jamming seen in the photograph.

 

 

 

[Athy]

Looks a bit shot at in that view, doesn't she? From what you say, she should fit in well on the K&A - metaphorically speaking, of course.