Jump to content

What??? How???


StephenA

Featured Posts

7 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

Would your insurers not pick up the bill anyway?

 

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

Yeah, that is a concern (Even though they never notified me and made various verbal statements on the day). I'd have to make counter-claims - I wouldn't have bought the boat if I had known they were planning on reducing the published width (Previous versions of the dimensions document go so far as saying they will increase the width of pinch points when budgets allow therefore I certainly wasn't expecting a change in max width, especially not a reduction).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be incumbent upon C&RT to make sure the amended reduced width dimensions were widely available, including at either end of the canal and on the approaches to the narrowed section. I think too it would then be up to all interested parties to contest the right of C&RT to arbitrarilly reduce the dimensions of that particular waterway given the historic use by previous vessels of the original dimensions.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

I think it would be incumbent upon C&RT to make sure the amended reduced width dimensions were widely available, including at either end of the canal and on the approaches to the narrowed section. I think too it would then be up to all interested parties to contest the right of C&RT to arbitrarilly reduce the dimensions of that particular waterway given the historic use by previous vessels of the original dimensions.

That is where I suspect it will be going. Rumour has it that signs will be going up at lock 7 and at Reading next week. Doesn't help me - Togg has been on the K&A for 18 months now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that CRT don't employ direct labour (as far as I know) to do proper building work like this wall, I would think the responsibility to re-build the wall to to the previous dimension would lie with them, but it depends on the exact terms of the contract. The contractors may for example, have been instructed to build it a bit narrower! 

 

Even so, it seems extremely bad management to reduce the width of a lock with no notice, so I think this is a mistake which will have to be corrected. 

 

The OP's boat may not even be the widest to be regularly using the lock, so concrete-planing an inch off the brickwork may fix it for them, only for another even wider boat to show up that still can't get through.

 

 

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Spelling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

Would your insurers not pick up the bill anyway?

 

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

...and also if the boat, due to old age, got unknowingly wider - that the insurance company could say was due to lack lack of proper maintenance....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

...and also if the boat, due to old age, got unknowingly wider - that the insurance company could say was due to lack lack of proper maintenance....

 

Thankfully that one I don't need to worry about. Can't speak for the next boat that gets stuck though.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Even so, it seems extremely bad management to reduce the width of a lock with no notice, so I think this is a mistake which will have to be corrected. 

Just sayin'

 

Sign of the times.

Could this be C&RTs was of controlling the number / size of fat-boats ?

Slowly, slowly reduce the size of the waterways until they become un-usable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Just sayin'

 

Sign of the times.

Could this be C&RTs was of controlling the number / size of fat-boats ?

Slowly, slowly reduce the size of the waterways until they become un-usable.

 

Well this started with BW surely, when they secretly reduced the width of the first lock at hurleston to under 7ft...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Well this started with BW surely, when they secretly reduced the width of the first lock at hurleston to under 7ft...

Strangely BW had a policy on pinch points.

The policy was not to create any new ones or to make any existing ones smaller.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Loddon said:

Strangely BW had a policy on pinch points.

The policy was not to create any new ones or to make any existing ones smaller.

 

They would probably argue that a 13'6" lock does not become a pinch point until it is reduced to 6'9".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Well this started with BW surely, when they secretly reduced the width of the first lock at hurleston to under 7ft...

I think you may have to blame the Shropshire Union Railways & Canals Company for that one - photo is from Bradshaw 1904

20190508_155413.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/05/2019 at 15:16, 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 -

 

Fraenkel Table 10.1.jpg

 

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.

Thanks Nigel. CRT's published max beam was 13'6 at the time I purchased the boat (With the intent of moving onto the K&A as my home waterway) and from what I can see from earlier documentation 13'8 before that. 

 

I have a nasty feeling that they are going to bill me so this is all useful information. Boat owners with 12'6 beam seem to be nervous also given the rapid rate of reduction in max allowable dimensions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wiltshirewonderer said:

what I can see from earlier documentation 13'8 before that. 

From memory 13'8" was only temporary

DBA forum has more details

http://barges.org/forum/waterways-great-britain-and-ireland/19343-kennet-and-avon

There are other threads on there re K&A

Adrian is a good man to have on your side when it comes to dimensions.

 

Edited by Loddon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Loddon said:

From memory 13'8" was only temporary

DBA forum has more details

http://barges.org/forum/waterways-great-britain-and-ireland/19343-kennet-and-avon

There are other threads on there re K&A

Adrian is a good man to have on your side when it comes to dimensions.

 

I have a BW waterways document that appears to have been active for a number of years that stated 13'8. Togg was built to 13'6 to provide a bit of wriggle room (it would be silly to build to max dimensions)

 

Good shout regarding Adrian - thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours 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.

Still only approx. Assumes ground and boat are level

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basic facts then...

 

A boat built to fit through the K&A, that has successfully made passage on previous occasions no longer fits not because of structural weaknesses and natural movement (which CRT tend to put right) but because CRT and their contractors between them can't manage to rebuild a wall correctly 

 

CRT's response is to reduce the maximum size of craft allowed on the canal and say this boat is too big.

 

This is the thin end of a very nasty wedge that could see full length narrow boats banned from the Midlands and Leeds and Liverpool short boats banned from Wigan and Bingley. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

Basic facts then...

 

A boat built to fit through the K&A, that has successfully made passage on previous occasions no longer fits not because of structural weaknesses and natural movement (which CRT tend to put right) but because CRT and their contractors between them can't manage to rebuild a wall correctly 

 

CRT's response is to reduce the maximum size of craft allowed on the canal and say this boat is too big.

 

This is the thin end of a very nasty wedge that could see full length narrow boats banned from the Midlands and Leeds and Liverpool short boats banned from Wigan and Bingley. 

 

 

Don't forget draught. Just yesterday a boat got lifted out at Devizes wharf. She had been moored in Devizes for two years after damage caused by failure to keep the navigable channel clear to published depth.

 

Imagine if CRT just adjusted dimensions to deal with silt issues and cut down dredging costs. It would only take a few years and Brentford would become impassable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

Basic facts then...

 

A boat built to fit through the K&A, that has successfully made passage on previous occasions no longer fits not because of structural weaknesses and natural movement (which CRT tend to put right) but because CRT and their contractors between them can't manage to rebuild a wall correctly 

 

CRT's response is to reduce the maximum size of craft allowed on the canal and say this boat is too big.

 

This is the thin end of a very nasty wedge that could see full length narrow boats banned from the Midlands and Leeds and Liverpool short boats banned from Wigan and Bingley. 

 

 

They could and no doubt intend to proceed along those lines – not for any ulterior motive, as some have suggested, but simply for reasons of economy. It has to be remembered though, that they not only have no legal power to do so, they have a statutory obligation to at least maintain the navigations to minimum standards. However toothless I have claimed the remedy to be, it remains the first port of call for the public to act upon. Certainly, if they do not, then continued down-grading of the network will inevitably ensue.

 

As pertinent to this topic, the full length of the K&A was granted ‘Cruiseway’ status commencing April 18, 2011. At that date whatever the existing dimensions of the navigation were, those had to be at least maintained, enforceable by any member of the public applying to the High Court for an appropriate Order under s.106 of the Transport Act 1968.

 

The information provided by the Assets Management department of BW records the minimum breadth in 2009 for the Tyle Mill (lock 99) to Bath section, as 4.20 mtrs (at lock 41). That should be the minimum standard that since August 2011 must legally be maintained throughout that section.

 

CaRT later issuing revised reduced dimensions therefore, is not merely legally ineffective, it is flaunting contempt for the statutes that bind them; should they wish to achieve reduction of their maintenance obligations, then as I have said previously, they are obliged to take formal steps through application to the Secretary of State.

 

It is a sad reflection on the current management that even BW with its poor track record had actually lobbied alongside the K&A Canal Trust for re-classification of the central sections of the K&A from ‘Remainder’ status. For its successor to reverse the trend under Parry & Co, is naturally to be expected, but is a tragedy nonetheless.

 

It would be most appropriate for the wide beamers suddenly prevented from access to take the necessary High Court action preemptively; certainly, at the least, if any adverse action was taken against them for alleged offences as per byelaws relating to vessels suitable for the waterway, then the best and most appropriate Defence would involve a counter-claim for failure to comply with Statute.

The same applies to full length narrowboats respecting the Midlands, and L&L boats respecting the section between Wigan and Bingley – and indeed anywhere else where statutory dimensions are no longer being maintained.

 

Even if CaRT played their ‘get-out-of-gaol-free’ card in response, that would at least raise the profile of the issue in public awareness, and hopefully engender sufficient protest and threat of withdrawing voluntary contributions to achieve a reversal of the trend.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a definite irony in the NABO article on the upgrade in status back in 2011 –

 

BW regards the Kennet & Avon Canal as a blueprint for successful waterway restoration and regeneration. The restored canal managed by British Waterways, working with volunteers from the local community and local authorities, is one of the inspirations behind plans to establish a new ‘national trust’ for the waterways.”

 

One cannot even claim that BW hoodwinked government into believing that the system would benefit from the privatisation of the organisation; they candidly predicted deterioration for a numbers of years until ‘levelling off’. No such thing as a steady state of deterioration of course, but government were too keen to offload their responsibilities to pay sufficient attention, focussing instead on the ludicrously optimistic assurances that voluntary financial support would massively increase what had been BW’s income outwith government grants.

 

But despite the government’s failure back then, there is still a chance that they could be made to see the consequences of their error now.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Even if CaRT played their ‘get-out-of-gaol-free’ card in response, that would at least raise the profile of the issue in public awareness, and hopefully engender sufficient protest and threat of withdrawing voluntary contributions to achieve a reversal of the trend.

I would doubt that the non-boating public (the 350,000,000 that walk the canal towpaths every year) wouldn't 'care a fig' whether a 72 foot or a 70 foot long boat, or a 14 foot beam or a 13' 11" beam can pass thru' the locks.

 

I would even suggest that the majority of them asked what size a NB is, would have no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.