What??? How???

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

An ugly fat boat with masses of living space (compared to an anorexic tin-slug) got stuck.

Corrected that for you.

[StephenA]

11 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

An ugly fat boat got stuck.

Yes but do we actually know why? Is it a lock defect? Is it something wrong with the boat (i.e. is it actually too big) or was it something like fenders or something under the water like a submerged log?

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, StephenA said:

Yes but do we actually know why? Is it a lock defect? Is it something wrong with the boat (i.e. is it actually too big) or was it something like fenders or something under the water like a submerged log?

 

No we don't, but my money is on the gates being narrower than the masonry, and the masonry falling inwards slowly like Hurleston thereby making the gate exist narrower since the apron re-build.

 

 

 

 

[Murflynn]

7 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

Yikes, glad I’m young enough never to have surveyed in imperial; other than I have done chain surveying.

 

It seems counter intuitive but I guess you get used to it and it becomes instinctive, which is part of the reason why debates about whether imperial or metric is ‘best’ are a bit nonsensical.

 

For general public consumption using feet and inches would be better communication.

 

JP

if the consuming public can't translate 13.21ft into ft and inches they are probably not competent to drive a fat boat in the first place. 

it ain't rocket science. 

only problem is that the duodecimal system uses the factor 3 which the decimal system doesn't, so you tend to get lots of recurring decimal fractions, such as 0.6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666(7) ft = 8 inches.      

Edited May 5, 2019 by Murflynn

[wiltshirewonderer]

Thanks for all the comments....

 

I'm the owner of the boat in question. To clear up a few points:

- The boat in question is exactly 13'6 beam

- She has been through the lock in question (In both directions) several times throughout the years without incident.

- The lock chamber itself is 13'10-13'11

- The engineers on site said that if we were 13'6 we should get through (We are)

- We got stuck on the newly built brickwork on the lower exit which now measures a maximum of 13'5

- Whilst the published dimensions are NOW 13'1, this is a recent change (That we weren't aware of - nobody told us that they had narrowed the canal). It used to be 13'6. Basically, they changed the rules of the game mid-play.

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by wiltshirewonderer

[MtB]

15 minutes ago, wiltshirewonderer said:

Thanks for all the comments....

 

I'm the owner of the boat in question. To clear up a few points:

- The boat in question is exactly 13'6 beam

- She has been through the lock in question (In both directions) several times throughout the years without incident.

- The lock chamber itself is 13'10-13'11

- The engineers on site said that if we were 13'6 we should get through (We are)

- We got stuck on the newly built brickwork on the lower exit which now measures a maximum of 13'5

- Whilst the published dimensions are NOW 13'1, this is a recent change (That we weren't aware of - nobody told us that they had narrowed the canal). It used to be 13'6. Basically, they changed the rules of the game mid-play.

 

 

 

Thanks for posting and clarifying what happened. 

 

Changing the published width of the canal is far easier than moving the wall back an inch, so I'm not surprised by CRT's response to the building error.

 

I wonder if you are gonna turn out to be the only boat to get stuck, or if there is gonna be a long list of them develop. 

 

Out of interest how do you know you are exactly 13ft 6in? I find it seriously difficult to accurately measure the width of a boat, even when out on the bank. 

 

 

[Rebotco]

22 minutes ago, wiltshirewonderer said:

Thanks for all the comments....

 

I'm the owner of the boat in question. To clear up a few points:

- The boat in question is exactly 13'6 beam

- She has been through the lock in question (In both directions) several times throughout the years without incident.

- The lock chamber itself is 13'10-13'11

- The engineers on site said that if we were 13'6 we should get through (We are)

- We got stuck on the newly built brickwork on the lower exit which now measures a maximum of 13'5

- Whilst the published dimensions are NOW 13'1, this is a recent change (That we weren't aware of - nobody told us that they had narrowed the canal). It used to be 13'6. Basically, they changed the rules of the game mid-play.

 

Does this mean that two ordinary narrowboats can no longer share this lock?

If so, this would seem a monumental cock-up!

[Boater Sam]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

Out of interest how do you know you are exactly 13ft 6in? I find it seriously difficult to accurately measure the width of a boat, even when out on the bank. 

 

 

I have done it every time I have surveyed a boat before purchase.

Take a pole longer than the beam. hang 2 strings with plumbobs from near the ends. 

Put pole across roof, plumbobs on outside of both gunwales/rubbing strakes, measure between strings on pole.

   Simples.

[Rob-M]

5 minutes ago, Rebotco said:

Does this mean that two ordinary narrowboats can no longer share this lock?

If so, this would seem a monumental cock-up!

Yes they can but exit the lock one at a time, the lock chamber is 13' 10".

 

6 minutes ago, Boater Sam said:

I have done it every time I have surveyed a boat before purchase.

Take a pole longer than the beam. hang 2 strings with plumbobs from near the ends. 

Put pole across roof, plumbobs on outside of both gunwales/rubbing strakes, measure between strings on pole.

   Simples.

I'm not convinced that would give a 100% accurate width just a rough approximation.

[wiltshirewonderer]

19 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

Thanks for posting and clarifying what happened. 

 

Changing the published width of the canal is far easier than moving the wall back an inch, so I'm not surprised by CRT's response to the building error.

 

I wonder if you are gonna turn out to be the only boat to get stuck, or if there is gonna be a long list of them develop. 

 

Out of interest how do you know you are exactly 13ft 6in? I find it seriously difficult to accurately measure the width of a boat, even when out on the bank. 

 

 

 

Let's just say that she can't have spread 2' since built..... (Or the survey 2 years ago). After being freed, we put rules down the side (To take into account rubbing strakes) and then measured the distance between). The main reason we did this was that the CRT engineering manager that attended site measured her at 13'8 and claimed we would have fitted at 13'6 (Before then measuring the exit at 13'5) and blaming us as the 'new published dimensions' are now 13'1. Was a bit disappointed as we were hoping he was on site to help rather than allocate blame.

 

Local CRT staff (Super helpful and managed to free us with acrow props) said that they have 13'6 beam boats either side so will now have to bring from Reading direction and down the flight for anything West of the new pinch point. I have already spoken to one boat owner that is going to have to cruising patterns due to this and suspect a few more will have a surprise over the summer - the London to Bristol (and onwards) run is a popular one for barge owners. Suspect new signs will be going up at either end of the canal shortly.......

 

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by wiltshirewonderer

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, wiltshirewonderer said:

After being freed, we put rules down the side (To take into account rubbing strakes) and then measured the distance between).

 

This is the bit that intrigues me. How did you ensure the rules were parallel before measuring between them? 

 

I'm not trying to quibble about your width, rather to understand how to establish a width accurately. Even a slight lack of parallel-ness (is that a word?) can result in differences of an inch or more each time you do it, in my experience.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

This is the bit that intrigues me. How did you ensure the rules were parallel before measuring between them? 

Spirit level to ensure verticalness ?

[MtB]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

Spirit level to ensure verticalness ?

 

Two, surely?

 

You haven't tried using a spirit level on a boat, have you? 

 

[Athy]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Two, surely?

 

You haven't tried using a spirit level on a boat, have you? 

 

Should be O.K. if she's stuck fast, shouldn't it?

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Two, surely?

 

You haven't tried using a spirit level on a boat, have you? 

 

I thought we were talking about when it was out 'on the hard', during a survey (Post #183)

 

One spirit level. Mark the ground.

Do the other side

Mark the ground

Measure between marks.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[wiltshirewonderer]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

This is the bit that intrigues me. How did you ensure the rules were parallel before measuring between them? 

 

I'm not trying to quibble about your width, rather to understand how to establish a width accurately. Even a slight lack of parallel-ness (is that a word?) can result in differences of an inch or more each time you do it, in my experience.

 

 

We just the did the best we could with the tools at hand and working with the safest assumptions we could (E.g. sides of the boat above waterline are vertical, the rubbing strakes protrude the same distance).

 

I admit that she may quite possibly be a whisker over or under but she is definitely not 13'8 as they measured and we will definitely not fit through a 13'4-13'5 gap that currently exists at that lock (and never used to when Togg previously passed through regularly without incident). 

 

 

 

[Rob-M]

But measuring the width at specific points doesn't account for any non straightness over the full length of a boat.

Take a banana as an example, at it widest point it might be 1" but draw two parallel lines touching the two edges and it might be 2" wide so could be a big difference over the length of a boat.

[wiltshirewonderer]

6 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

But measuring the width at specific points doesn't account for any non straightness over the full length of a boat.

Take a banana as an example, at it widest point it might be 1" but draw two parallel lines touching the two edges and it might be 2" wide so could be a big difference over the length of a boat.

Agree, however, she was not stuck the full length, only on the new brickwork for a length of about 1 foot either side where it met the boat at the bow end at the point where the forward bulkhead is located (Separating the forward cabin from the chain locker and storage area). This is the point at which we have all been measuring. I can also confirm that Togg is not a banana shaped boat...

[magpie patrick]

38 minutes ago, wiltshirewonderer said:

 

Let's just say that she can't have spread 2' since built..... After being freed, we put rules down the side (To take into account rubbing strakes) and then measured the distance between). The main reason we did this was that the CRT engineering manager that attended site measured her at 13'8 and claimed we would have fitted at 13'6 (Before then measuring the exit at 13'5) and blaming us as the 'new published dimensions' are now 13'1. Was a bit disappointed as we were hoping he was on site to help rather than allocate blame.

 

Local CRT staff (Super helpful and managed to free us with acrow props) said that they have 13'6 beam boats either side so will now have to bring from Reading direction and down the flight for anything West of the new pinch point. I have already spoken to one boat owner that is going to have to cruising patterns due to this and suspect a few more will have a surprise over the summer - the London to Bristol (and onwards) run is a popular one for barge owners. Suspect new signs will be going up at either end of the canal shortly.......

 

 

Thanks, once I saw it was your boat I realised we'd seen it both sides of the lock on several occasions

 

This strikes me as the sort of thing we ought to be creating a fuss over - a big, campaign type fuss. In many ways the extra charge for wide beam licences legitimises such a campaign. 

 

CRT also out to consider the cost to themselves if they have boats of 13 foot 6 that can now no longer serve to the bottom of Devizes - a similar agument saved the Llangollen Canal 60 years ago when BW pointed out the increased cost of maintenance if their boats could not get past a particular bridge

[wiltshirewonderer]

 

 

1

2 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

CRT also out to consider the cost to themselves if they have boats of 13 foot 6 that can now no longer serve to the bottom of Devizes - a similar agument saved the Llangollen Canal 60 years ago when BW pointed out the increased cost of maintenance if their boats could not get past a particular bridge

Yes, I'm hoping common sense will prevail - albeit too late for me as the work won't start until winter closures. However, that will likely need them to recognise the costs across multiple departments budgets - not always as easy as one would hope. 

 

Boaters with deep draught and full length have reached out to me as they have concerns that these dimensions could also shrink so save on maintenance costs. 

[ditchcrawler]

50 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I thought we were talking about when it was out 'on the hard', during a survey (Post #183)

 

One spirit level. Mark the ground.

Do the other side

Mark the ground

Measure between marks.

Do it every 3" for the full length of the boat and then pull a line through to make sure its not banana shaped even by an inch, easy.

[MtB]

52 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I thought we were talking about when it was out 'on the hard', during a survey (Post #183)

 

One spirit level. Mark the ground.

Do the other side

Mark the ground

Measure between marks.

 

No, we are talking about a boat in the water, recently dragged out of a lock after being stuck, remember?

 

So, your easy method involves docking the boat first. Okayyyyyyy.......!

 

[Jim Riley]

So who made the cock up, mismeasured, completely got it wrong? Who was in charge on site? What sanction is to be imposed on them? Pay for the cost of reinstatement to original width? 

[wiltshirewonderer]

37 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

No, we are talking about a boat in the water, recently dragged out of a lock after being stuck, remember?

 

So, your easy method involves docking the boat first. Okayyyyyyy.......!

 

We did the easy method 2 years ago, out of the water at Iver. Made sure to check given we were going on the K&A with max dimensions of 13'6

19 minutes ago, Jim Riley said:

So who made the cock up, mismeasured, completely got it wrong? Who was in charge on site? What sanction is to be imposed on them? Pay for the cost of reinstatement to original width? 

My immediate concern is about a bill landing through my door - they seemed determined to lay blame on me

[Naughty Cal]

6 minutes ago, wiltshirewonderer said:

 

My immediate concern is about a bill landing through my door - they seemed determined to lay blame on me

Would your insurers not pick up the bill anyway?

 

Mind you perhaps not if your boat is wider than the (amended) published dimensions