What??? How???

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

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.

That’s precisely why a transparent policy would be beneficial. It’s a bit late to think about it after allowing boats wider than the published dimensions to regularly travel a canal without sanction. 

 

Applying my logic would more likely result in it being built 14’ rather than 7’ 6” since 14’  is the predominant width available between Braunston and Hillmorton and it can be used. That’s what I mean by latent capability. It’s nothing to with historic usage; it’s about what’s naturally and reasonably available for the future.

 

However there would arguably be nothing to stop a 7’ 6” restriction being imposed on that section from a legal perspective if that was a stated policy.

 

If we can stop discussing legal requirements based on the situation of 50 years ago and start thinking about what the system could and should look like in 50 years time we might move forward.

 

JP

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

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.

Yes, but has anything changed since 1990?

[Dave123]

Another twist to this tale is that the widebeam CRT work boats used in this area will also be unable to fit through the repaired lock! That might make them think about re-widening the lock back to its original width....!

[Murflynn]

31 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

Another twist to this tale is that the widebeam CRT work boats used in this area will also be unable to fit through the repaired lock! That might make them think about re-widening the lock back to its original width....!

that's begging the question : 'does CRT work?'

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

that's begging the question : 'does CRT work?'

 

I didn't think they had any on the K&A. All work I've seen being done here is subbed out to a firm called "Land and Water", who have a mahoosive work flat much the same size as the inside of a lock and with a large Hiabb at each end and a small push tug to move it around. 

 

The chap who operates it says they crane it in and out at Devizes, so it may never have passed through the newly narrowed lock mouth at the westerly end, but you'd think they'd check!

[Athy]

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

 

The chap who operates it says they crane it in and out at Devizes, so it may never have passed through the newly narrowed lock mouth at the westerly end, but you'd think they'd check!

Not nessercelery. When we hire on the Mon & Brec while between boats a dozen or so years ago, we were told that BW had delivered a new work boat to canal quite recently. Unfortunately, its beam was wider than the canal's locks, so it had stayed in the depot since being delivered.

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, Athy said:

Not nessercelery. When we hire on the Mon & Brec while between boats a dozen or so years ago, we were told that BW had delivered a new work boat to canal quite recently. Unfortunately, its beam was wider than the canal's locks, so it had stayed in the depot since being delivered.

 

YEs but in this case, the newly built lock entrance was only 6ft in front of the work boat!

 

[Horace42]

From a different direction on this; is it possible for a boat to gradually get 'wider' due to old age - thus unwittingly at risk of entering a lock that became had become 'thinner' due to old age - and got stuck on the fateful day.

.... just a thought......

[Athy]

1 minute ago, Horace42 said:

From a different direction on this; is it possible for a boat to gradually get 'wider' due to old age - thus unwittingly at risk of entering a lock that became had become 'thinner' due to old age - and got stuck on the fateful day.

.... just a thought......

I believe so, and that that is why some old boats have chains stretched across their holds.

[Boater Sam]

4 minutes ago, Athy said:

I believe so, and that that is why some old boats have chains stretched across their holds.

And they always did have to prevent the spread when loaded.

[matty40s]

20 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

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 b⁵e 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

 

 

Taken from the 1967 restoration plan.

[matty40s]

5 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

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.

Party?

[Athy]

Has that idea actually been proposed? If so, I am surprised.

[NigelMoore]

5 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

Yes, but has anything changed since 1990?

No, not as far as the listed sections are concerned - unless some Secretary of State has since approved any reduction of the mandatory dimensions. Possibly, so far as the 2 unlisted sections go.

[GUMPY]

Surely the important dimension is not 1990 but what it was when the K&A ceased to be a remainder waterway and was reclassified as a Cruising waterway, since that would be the dimension that cart have to maintain the canal to.

BW used to have a policy of not creating new pinch points on a waterway that's gone......

 

[Captain Pegg]

18 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Surely the important dimension is not 1990 but what it was when the K&A ceased to be a remainder waterway and was reclassified as a Cruising waterway, since that would be the dimension that cart have to maintain the canal to.

BW used to have a policy of not creating new pinch points on a waterway that's gone......

 

That was 2011 and at some point since 2004 the published width of the canal section has decreased from 4.12m to 4m.

 

JP

[magnetman]

12 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

That was 2011 and at some point since 2004 the published width of the canal section has decreased from 4.12m to 4m.

 

JP

The latest CRT PDF of waterways dimensions was created and modified (presumably this means edited) on 25/04/2019 which is quite recent. 

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/original/32433-waterway-dimensions.pdf

 

It would be useful to know if anybody has an older PDF of the watereays dimensions stored somewhere and if they could extract the metadata from it to get the date of creation/modification. 

 

Google metadata extractor for online services. 

 

Might be interesting to have a look at published maximum beam for the K&A between Devizes and Bath prior to 25/04/2019.

 

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by magnetman

[TheBiscuits]

16 minutes ago, magnetman said:

The latest CRT PDF was created (presumably this means edited) on 25/04/2019 which is quite recent. 

 

It would be useful to know if anybody has an older PDF and if they could extract the metadata from it to get the dates. 

 

Google metadata extractor for online services. 

 

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20160410045104/https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1059.pdf

 

Also 

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/original/38460-dimensions.pdf?v=ba4690

Edited May 4, 2019 by TheBiscuits

[magnetman]

That is interesting

 

The second link seems to confirm that the 4m beam has been in place since end of July 2018.

 

https://www.get-metadata.com/result/7ca65373-5e4f-47fd-b1cb-391f4dab4543

Edited May 4, 2019 by magnetman

[Captain Pegg]

So in February 2010 the beam from Reading to Bath was published as 4.2m. In August 2014 it was 4.12m. Now it is 4.00m.

 

JP

 

 

[MtB]

4m in engineering terms is a very loose value.

 

4.00m would be more likely particularly as the previous value was 4.12m. This implies a tolerance of 1cm.

 

4.00m happens to be 13ft 1 1/2in, near as dammit, if my arithmetic is correct. 

[ditchcrawler]

8 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

So in February 2010 the beam from Reading to Bath was published as 4.2m. In August 2014 it was 4.12m. Now it is 4.00m.

 

JP

 

 

Maybe its when surveyed it and the walls were moving

 

[AndrewIC]

8 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

So in February 2010 the beam from Reading to Bath was published as 4.2m. In August 2014 it was 4.12m. Now it is 4.00m.

 

13ft 9in, 13ft 6in, 13ft 1.5in, give or take.

[Captain Pegg]

4 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

4m in engineering terms is a very loose value.

 

4.00m would be more likely particularly as the previous value was 4.12m. This implies a tolerance of 1cm.

 

4.00m happens to be 13ft 1 1/2in, near as dammit, if my arithmetic is correct. 

Yes. 4m only narrows it down to “somewhere between 3.5m and 4.5m”. CRT do quote it as 4m but also as 13’ 1” so they do mean 4.00m. I added two decimal places to give an obvious comparison to the previous 4.12m.

 

JP

[Captain Pegg]

2 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Maybe its when surveyed it and the walls were moving

 

Presumably it is genuine movement of a feature (or features) that has led to the changes and from a safety point of view it’s necessary to do that, although CRT state the published dimensions are a “rough guide”. However such instances should not be allowed to restrict the long term navigation capability of a whole waterway by stealth.

 

JP

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Yes. 4m only narrows it down to “somewhere between 3.5m and 4.5m”. CRT do quote it as 4m but also as 13’ 1” so they do mean 4.00m. I added two decimal places to give an obvious comparison to the previous 4.12m.

 

JP

I'm not sure that C&RT are capable of getting any dimension correct - they seem to have some strange idea's.

Maybe the 'tape measure holder' was on work experience and did not understand English measurements.

 

3 examples - Moorings :

 

Up to 64' 12" / 19.80m mooring at Knowle Bottom Lock L1

Drinking Water Elsan Disposal Refuse Disposal

Availability Occupied

Waterway Grand Union Canal

Maximum Length 64' 12" / 19.8m

Mooring Use Leisure

Distance 218.28 miles

 

Up to 21' 12" / 6.70m mooring at Knowle Bottom Lock L1

Drinking Water Elsan Disposal Refuse Disposal

Availability Occupied

Waterway Grand Union Canal

Maximum Length 21' 12" / 6.7m

Mooring Use Leisure

Distance 218.32 miles

 

Up to 63' 12" / 19.50m mooring at Foxton Bottom Basin L1

Car Parking Drinking Water Electricity Elsan Disposal Refuse Disposal

Availability Occupied

Waterway Grand Union Canal

Maximum Length 63' 12" / 19.5m

Maximum Draught 3' 3" / 1m

Maximum Width 6' 11" / 2.1m

Mooring Use Leisure

Distance 222.22 miles