What??? How???

[NigelMoore]

4 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

Natural movement is one thing but critical dimensions shouldn’t move adversely as a result of repair that ultimately is intended to preserve navigation (if that’s what has happened). It seems a lot of people aren’t aware of the actual published dimensions for the K&A so it would be interesting to know if and how they have changed over time.

 

There is a statutory obligation under the 1968 Act to maintain the main navigable channel of the relevant waterways to a) dimensions sufficient to allow passage of any craft that were recorded as having customarily used the particular waterway during the 9 months prior to 8 December 1967, or b) if the waterway or part has been restored or improved since that date, to dimensions such as the restoration work made possible (which could be greater or lesser I suppose).

There is no obligation to maintain or improve the waterways to accommodate vessels larger than those meeting the pre-1967 criteria, and the relevant dimensions recorded by BW relating to that 9 month period were listed within the Fraenkel Report in table 10.1. As relevant to the K&A these are -

 

 

It would follow that in terms of obligations on boaters, no craft exceeding those statutorily defined dimensions should be brought onto those waterways; doing so would qualify as an offence under the byelaws, while damage caused to locks certainly does, whether because of too large a vessel or carelessness.

3. No person shall bring use or leave in any canal any vessel which is not in every respect fit for navigation on the canal or part thereof where it is intended to be used.

23. (1) The master of any vessel approaching, entering, passing through or by or leaving any lock or movable bridge shall cause his vessel to be navigated at such speed and controlled in such manner as not to strike, imperil, damage, obstruct or run foul of the lock or movable bridge or any part thereof of any other vessel approaching, entering, passing through or by or leaving the lock or movable bridge.

52. The master of any vessel using any canal shall be responsible for the safety and security of the vessel and its mooring and shall be answerable to the Board for any damage done by such vessel or by any person employed about the same to the canal, vessels, goods and property of the Board in or on any part of the canal;
 

Just for clarity, and respecting the statutory obligations – the maximum breadth of craft listed as customarily using the widest section of the K&A (Hanham to Bath) in the relevant 9 month period was 3.05mtrs (10'), even though the lock dimensions for that section were listed as 5.79mtrs width (19').

 

However, as per the Transport Act 1968 s.105(2)(b) “the duty imposed by that paragraph (the obligation to maintain the waterways in a suitable condition for use by vessels) shall extend to any vessel of the kind therein mentioned as respects the dimensions of which paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection is satisfied.” - said subsection (b) providing: “if the waterway or part has been restored or improved since that date . . .”

 

So in terms of statutory obligation, it will be the dimensions of the restored canal that applies, rather than those of (a). The lock dimensions between Hanham to Bath being 5.79mtrs width (19'), and the other sections listed being 4.34mtrs (14.24') and 4.47mtrs (14.67'), it could be considered that the maximum dimensions of vessels since restoration should be those fitting the locks – hence the minimum breadth of the locks in the narrowest section listed (Bull's Lock to Hamstead) must be maintained at 14.24' to meet the '68 Act obligation. Being volunteer work that eventually restored the K&A, of course, the existing statutory dimensions may not always have been adhered to.

 

With the original dimensions in mind, however, a vessel such as 'Toggenberg' should be able to traverse the entire K&A between Reading and Bath with plenty of room to spare through the locks, even in the narrowest section, despite CaRT's published maximum width of 4mtrs. They would be acting generously, in other words, if s.105(2)( a ) applied, but erroneously if s.105(2)( b ) applied – depending on the dimensions of the locks as rebuilt/refurbished by the volunteers leading to the re-opening in 1990. From the photos and information re: previous passages by this boat, it would appear that the original dimensions were in fact adhered to in the restoration of the locks, such that CaRT ARE now obligated to maintain passage for boats of that dimension.

Edited May 3, 2019 by NigelMoore

[Psychalist]

If the assertion that it has previously transited the lock, rather than coming from Reading, could the answer be difference in pound level or ballast rather than the lock repair?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 hours ago, Dave123 said:

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 

The reason for C&RT's willingness to blame vandals and boaters for stoppages lies in its "days lost to unscheduled closure Key Performance Indicator (KPI)".

 

Over the years this has been changed such that it now excludes short stoppages and those C&RT considers to be outside its control such as vandalism and boater error.

 

Some time back, I wrote a program that is able to calculate the number and duration of stoppages from C&RT's database. For its 2017/18 year C&RT gave a figure of 490 days lost. My program found over five times that number of days lost!

 

Put another way, by labeling most stoppages as outside its control, C&RT managed  to reduce the true figure by 80%.

 

[zenataomm]

The fact you can see light between the hull and the lock side is immaterial.

On the occasions I got either Rigal or Marcellus caught in the Cheshire locks or Rodbaston the same could be observed.

It's what's going on beneath the water line that matters more than often.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

There is a statutory obligation under the 1968 Act to maintain the main navigable channel of the relevant waterways to a) dimensions sufficient to allow passage of any craft that were recorded as having customarily used the particular waterway during the 9 months prior to 8 December 1967, or b) if the waterway or part has been restored or improved since that date, to dimensions such as the restoration work made possible (which could be greater or lesser I suppose).

There is no obligation to maintain or improve the waterways to accommodate vessels larger than those meeting the pre-1967 criteria, and the relevant dimensions recorded by BW relating to that 9 month period were listed within the Fraenkel Report in table 10.1. As relevant to the K&A these are -

 

 

In that table there appears to be 53 miles of missing canal between Hamstead and Bath which presumably was unnavigable by that point in time and includes the lock in question. The sections quoted are little more than the River Kennet and River Avon sections at either end of the original through navigation and exclude most of the canal proper. So would the dimensions achieved at restoration apply to the middle section?

 

JP

Edited May 3, 2019 by Captain Pegg

[magpie patrick]

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

it could be considered that the maximum dimensions of vessels since restoration should be those fitting the locks – hence the minimum breadth of the locks in the narrowest section listed (Bull's Lock to Hamstead) must be maintained at 14.24' to meet the '68 Act obligation. 

The problem with that is the locks never were that wide in the first place - part of the  conundrum of the K and A is that the locks on the canal section, the only bit the K&ACo actually built, were smaller than the locks on the river at either end.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

10 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

The problem with that is the locks never were that wide in the first place - part of the  conundrum of the K and A is that the locks on the canal section, the only bit the K&ACo actually built, were smaller than the locks on the river at either end.

From the1904 Bradshaw's guide:
Kennet 74ft 0in x 14ft 0in x 3ft 6in average draft x 10ft air draft;
Canal 73ft x 13ft 10in x 3ft 6in average draft x 8ft 10in air draft;
Avon 75ft 0in x 16ft 0in x 3ft 6in average draft x 9ft air draft.

[NigelMoore]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

In that table there appears to be 53 miles of missing canal between Hamstead and Bath which presumably was unnavigable by that point in time and includes the lock in question. The sections quoted are little more than the River Kennet and River Avon sections at either end of the original through navigation and exclude most of the canal proper. So would the dimensions achieved at restoration apply to the middle section?

 

What dimensions were achieved in the restoration I do not know. 13'10” which Allan quotes from Bradshaw's for vessel dimensions on the canal section is approx. 4.22mtrs, so only 0.12mtrs (approx 4&3/4”) narrower than the locks for the narrowest section listed between Bull's Lock and Hamstead. It seems unlikely that lock dimensions would have been altered, as I presume that would entail more work.

 

My own perplexity over the Fraenkel figures is aroused by the sizes listed for vessels using the Reading to Tyle Mill section – how many boats were active then or at any time, measuring 21.95mtrs x 1.98mtrs? Not even narrowboats were that skinny.

[NigelMoore]

1 hour ago, zenataomm said:

 

It's what's going on beneath the water line that matters more than often.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Certainly a possible explanation for what happened here. The CaRT stoppage notice of 06/12/2018 @ 10:20 commented that: “Following the inspection it has been found that the bottom approach chamber wall support has collapsed.” And the later Notice dated 18/12/2018 “found the bottom approach walls to the lock have moved further.”

 

That being so, it may be that regardless of what has been done above water level, the foundations below water having moved might not have been restored back to the appropriate width.

[Captain Pegg]

37 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

What dimensions were achieved in the restoration I do not know. 13'10” which Allan quotes from Bradshaw's for vessel dimensions on the canal section is approx. 4.22mtrs, so only 0.12mtrs (approx 4&3/4”) narrower than the locks for the narrowest section listed between Bull's Lock and Hamstead. It seems unlikely that lock dimensions would have been altered, as I presume that would entail more work.

 

My own perplexity over the Fraenkel figures is aroused by the sizes listed for vessels using the Reading to Tyle Mill section – how many boats were active then or at any time, measuring 21.95mtrs x 1.98mtrs? Not even narrowboats were that skinny.

 

22 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Certainly a possible explanation for what happened here. The CaRT stoppage notice of 06/12/2018 @ 10:20 commented that: “Following the inspection it has been found that the bottom approach chamber wall support has collapsed.” And the later Notice dated 18/12/2018 “found the bottom approach walls to the lock have moved further.”

 

That being so, it may be that regardless of what has been done above water level, the foundations below water having moved might not have been restored back to the appropriate width.

I think that the K&A from Reading to Bath had fallen into disuse to all intents and purposes by 1967. It seems the key will be whether the dimensions for the canal section have changed since reopening in 1990. It seems to be established that the design width of the original canal was 13’ 10”.

 

As per my post #42 the wing walls below the water level have been rebuilt in concrete.

 

JP

 

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Captain Pegg

[magpie patrick]

 

Another look at this table and I'm slightly gobsmacked - the beam from Reading to Tyle Mill is 1.98 metres, or a tad under 6 foot 6 inches! Bulls lock to Hamstead rather more generous at around 9 feet, and the Avon a whopping 10 foot and a bit!

 

Or am I misreading it...

 

Just read Nigel's last post - apparently I'm not - was it just poor metric conversion? I think in 1967 out statutory units were still imperial.

 

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by magpie patrick

[RLWP]

How about the Leicester branch to Foxton - 1.37 metres?

 

That's a very narrow cabin

 

Richard

[MtB]

18 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

Another look at this table and I'm slightly gobsmacked - the beam from Reading to Tyle Mill is 1.98 metres, or a tad under 6 foot 6 inches!

 

I reckon that is a transcription error. 4.98m seems more likely. The locks along that stretch are really wide IIRC.

[Captain Pegg]

21 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I reckon that is a transcription error. 4.98m seems more likely. The locks along that stretch are really wide IIRC.

By 1967 the canal wasn’t fully passable to normal canal boats so the dimensions probably reflect some leisure craft used on isolated sections.

 

JP

[NigelMoore]

1 hour ago, RLWP said:

How about the Leicester branch to Foxton - 1.37 metres?

 

That's a very narrow cabin

 

Richard

But that is only the superstructure width.

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I reckon that is a transcription error. 4.98m seems more likely. The locks along that stretch are really wide IIRC.

Can't be 4.98mtrs, because the locks for that section are listed as only 4.47mtrs in width.

[RLWP]

4 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

But that is only the superstructure width.

Four foot?

[NigelMoore]

Four and a half feet. Narrow, yes, but on a hull width of 2.12mtrs which is closer to standard narrowboats today. It seems more proportionate than the same superstructure width for the Bull's Lock to Hamsted boats of 2.74mtrs beam.

Edited May 3, 2019 by NigelMoore

[MtB]

13 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

But that is only the superstructure width.

Can't be 4.98mtrs, because the locks for that section are listed as only 4.47mtrs in width.

 

(My bold.)

 

And the listing is always dead accurate and never deviates from what was actually built, as any fule kno!

 

If you ever used those locks, you'll perhaps remember how 'roomy' some of them are, Nige!

 

 

 

 

[NigelMoore]

Never got further than Devizes Mike, and that was long ago. My abiding memories are of turf-sided locks and ridiculous swing bridges that leave you on the wrong side if operating solo. Certainly one of the more interesting canals though, and definitely adventurous slaloming downstream through to Reading in strong stream conditions.

[Captain Pegg]

So can anyone confirm the history of BWB/CRT dimensions since the K&A Canal reopened in 1990? Things aren’t helped by the number of differing versions of the truth published in print or online. However from the above my reading is that unless the dimension has been reduced since 1990 - against which there are legal safeguards - then I suspect the boat is in fact oversized.

 

However we know that oversized boats regularly traverse waterways successfully - and there are even oversized boats with commercial licences - so its not a black and white issue although I suspect the owners and operators of such craft implicitly (knowingly or otherwise) accept the liability.

 

Thats why I think it’s important not just to understand the legal position but also the latent capability of any waterway and have a strategy for future works that is cognisant of such.

 

JP

[magpie patrick]

37 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

.... oversized boats with commercial licences - so its not a black and white issue although I suspect the owners and operators of such craft implicitly (knowingly or otherwise) accept the liability 

Where they are  commercial there is usually a gauging exercise to make sure it will work - for example Harleyford Aggregates 

[ditchcrawler]

40 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

So can anyone confirm the history of BWB/CRT dimensions since the K&A Canal reopened in 1990? Things aren’t helped by the number of differing versions of the truth published in print or online. However from the above my reading is that unless the dimension has been reduced since 1990 - against which there are legal safeguards - then I suspect the boat is in fact oversized.

 

However we know that oversized boats regularly traverse waterways successfully - and there are even oversized boats with commercial licences - so its not a black and white issue although I suspect the owners and operators of such craft implicitly (knowingly or otherwise) accept the liability.

 

Thats why I think it’s important not just to understand the legal position but also the latent capability of any waterway and have a strategy for future works that is cognisant of such.

 

JP

So what will happen when they rebuild the A45 bridge at Braunston to 7" 6' cutting off the widebeams that at the moment use it? Will it be wrong which a lot of people are calling for.

[NigelMoore]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

So can anyone confirm the history of BWB/CRT dimensions since the K&A Canal reopened in 1990? Things aren’t helped by the number of differing versions of the truth published in print or online. However from the above my reading is that unless the dimension has been reduced since 1990 - against which there are legal safeguards - then I suspect the boat is in fact oversized.

 

However we know that oversized boats regularly traverse waterways successfully - and there are even oversized boats with commercial licences - so its not a black and white issue although I suspect the owners and operators of such craft implicitly (knowingly or otherwise) accept the liability.

 

Thats why I think it’s important not just to understand the legal position but also the latent capability of any waterway and have a strategy for future works that is cognisant of such.

 

JP

The BW table used in the Fraenkel Report gives figures only from Hanham – Bath (no.s 1-9); Hamstead to Bull's (No.s 81 – 88), and Tyle Mill to Reading (No.s 99 – 107). This is because only those sections were classified in the 1968 Act as 'cruising' waterways. As relevant to the statutory obligation then, BW and now CaRT are indeed and since 1968 have been, obligated to at least maintain those dimensions.

 

Because the other, restored sections were classified as 'Remainder', no figures were collected for the dimensions relating to locks and boat use between Locks 10 – 80, and 89 – 99. However, one might optimistically surmise that logic dictated the necessity of the intervening sections being built to at least the minimum size of the locks through which it would be necessary to access those sections. With an acknowledging nod to MtB's cynicism about the accuracy of records of course, and recognising that the volunteer work done would not necessarily have been constrained by original dimensions as would have been the case had BW been responsible and the 'missing' sections of the K&A not classified as 'Remainder' waterway.

 

The legal safeguards under s.s 105 (setting the standards) & 106 (which enables any member of the public to sue the Board in the High Court for failure to maintain the standards) of the Transport Act would require that any diminution of the obligatory minimum standards recorded in Table 10 of the Fraenkel Report be approved by the Secretary of State.

 

s.105(3) “If it appears to the Minister that, having regard to any change in the size, design or type of vessel customarily using any commercial waterway or cruising waterway, or any part thereof, it is desirable to exercise his powers under this subsection, he may (after consultation with the Board) by order substitute for the duty imposed on the Board by the foregoing provisions of this section in respect of that waterway or part such duty in respect of the maintenance thereof as he considers appropriate having regard to that change, and may by that order make such incidental or transitional provision as he thinks necessary or expedient in connection therewith.”

 

In practice, the safeguards are toothless; for a start because all such referrals to the Secretary of State seem to slip under the public radar (witness the several successful applications by Parry to flog off parts of the Trust Infrastructure property), and because of the 'get out of gaol free card' of s.106(4) whereby the Board can evade the consequences of relevant court proceedings by pleading impecuniosity in order to get an 'exemption certificate' from the Secretary of State - “The said certificate is a certificate in writing to the effect that it appears to the Minister or, as the case may be, the Scottish Ministers that the imposition of any requirement on the Board on the basis of their existing duty would result in their incurring substantial expense and that, having regard to their financial position and their duty under section 18 of the Act of 1962 and section 41 of this Act, it would be unreasonable for them to bear that expense without a grant or further grant under section 43 of this Act.”

 

So in the end, the only effective protection would come from public protest of sufficient numbers to threaten the PR drive for voluntary funding. I personally do not see any evidence - amongst either boaters or other public - for the necessary will and resolve such as characterised those who were responsible for restoring the K&A in the first place.

[MtB]

So in summary, it looks as though the lock wall is allowed stay where it is unless there is sufficient public outcry. 

 

Its a good thing the poor old TOGGENBERG chose to stay east of the lock while the work was being done, or it would have been stuck forever in the really pretty section. 

 

 

[thebfg]

For those that cant see the fb post here is the lock without a boat in.

 

I can confirm the boat in question has been up and down that lock before.