Jump to content

March of the Widebeams 2


John Liley

Featured Posts

I have restrained myself from joining in on this topic, but can resist no longer.

 

In the 1950s and 60s, when Britain’s canals were falling apart, the attitude of campaigners was to push for restoration on every route we could. Dimensions were important..  

 

The 1904 edition of Bradshaw’s Canals and Navigable Rivers gives “the maximum size of vessels that can use the navigation” as a14 ft 3 in beam for the section between Brentford and Braunston. When wider locks were later introduced north of Braunston similar figures were listed (see Inland Waterways of Great Britain, 1950 Edition)

 

The notion of a 12 ft 6 in limit on the Grand Union Main Line was convenient for British Waterways, when that less than enthusiastic body was in control. The existence of the compromise freight barge Progress, built at 12 ft 6 in provided a useful example, but the Right to Navigate still existed and no formal change was ever attempted.

 

British Waterways liked to suggest that 14 ft 3 in beam was acceptable south of Berkhamsted and 12 ft 6 in beyond, though narrow boats worked side by side over many other stretches. Why Berkhamsted? See the writings of the late Robert Aickman, the man who really saved our canals. “The Great Berko Mystery” he called it.

 

In 1971 I took the Leeds & Liverpool short boat Arthur, 14 ft 3 in in beam, from London to Braunston – then beyond. I had been invited to do so by my friend Michaet Streat, who ran the Braunston complex (and also the Blue Line carrying fleet, on the Jam Hole Run).  Being well connected with the canal maintenance staff, he enrolled their co-operation to the extent that, at one doubtful bridge in particular, they would come and dig away the towpath to free us.

 

In the event we reached Braunston without difficulty, passing oncoming craft without problems (though we went through tunnels in the middle of the night).

 

Once at Braunston we decided to see how much farther we might get. There were the “new’ locks, after all, but it was the bridges that undid us. At Number 103, half way to Napton, we stuck for several hours, as a working party evolved, drawn in increasing numbers from the boats we held up. I am forever grateful for all those good people, who helped in hacking away the towpath with chisels and who, when we were free again, cheered us on our way.

 

It amazes me, still. that British Waterways, presiding over a regular traffic in narrow boats that travelled, whenever they could,  breasted up in pairs, should have built a concrete towpath sticking out three inches and a half more than it should. If such a body really wanted trade this would never have happened. The path on each side, I might add, verged on the non-existent.

 

Then, after a few more miles and locks, another bridge intervened. This was at the Blue Lias Inn near Stockton. There, though the width was alright, the bridge arch wasn’t..

 

From there we backed up, turned the boat around somewhere and, ultimately, took her off to France. Where, I might add, there are wider craft aplenty. And for good reason: they are more comfortable. They will keep on coming.  And, however the arguments flow, let us at least stick to the dimensions for which the Grand Union Main Line was built.:14 ft 3 in, not 12 ft 6 in. And certainly not 13 ft 11 in. That was just plain silly.

 

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to C.W.D.F. Mr Liley.

 

I think it would be helpful if a Moderator could combine this with the other thread of the same title otherwise things are likely to get confusing.

 

I would like to say again that although there may have been intent for PROGRESS to have a beam of 12'6'' it was gauged at 12'1 1/2'' :captain:

 

edit = reported as needs to be merged with the other thread of the same title.

Edited by pete harrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, John Liley said:

In 1971 I took the Leeds & Liverpool short boat Arthur, 14 ft 3 in in beam, from London to Braunston

I recollect a series of articles in 1971 published in Motor Boat & Yachting featuring the journeys of Arthur from Yorkshire and down the Trent, in fact I have just found a scan of the same. A good article at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I'm just wondering why you only have a post count of 1.

 

You have posted several times in the past - particularly regarding your Pillings Lock Marina saga.

Ahem!

 

I seriously think you are confusing the surname Lillie with the surname Liley.

Please don't associate John with that dreadful saga, unless you can present evidence to support your claim!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

Ahem!

 

I seriously think you are confusing the surname Lillie with the surname Liley.

Please don't associate John with that dreadful saga, unless you can present evidence to support your claim!

You could well be correct.

John (Lillie) really did suffer in that terrible debacle - nothing worse than when family turns on family.

 

Apologies to John (Liley)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, John Liley said:

Once at Braunston we decided to see how much farther we might get. There were the “new’ locks, after all, but it was the bridges that undid us. At Number 103, half way to Napton, we stuck for several hours, as a working party evolved, drawn in increasing numbers from the boats we held up. I am forever grateful for all those good people, who helped in hacking away the towpath with chisels and who, when we were free again, cheered us on our way.

 

I was one of them, on the way back from the IWA National Rally at Northampton. I was helping crew one of the B&MCC boats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

And are you going to combine the two threads?

Non sequitur of the day.

This thread has its own title and character, so there is no need to amalgamate it with any other.

Edited by Athy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome John …..

A super surprise to hear from you and to read a short and to the point account of history.

I applaud the content of your post however not your final comment

On ‎12‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 23:41, John Liley said:

They will keep on coming.  And, however the arguments flow, let us at least stick to the dimensions for which the Grand Union Main Line was built.:14 ft 3 in, not 12 ft 6 in.

I don't disagree that the GU Main Line was built with the intention as stated.

Nor that it suited Waterways for it not to be, we all remember the unpublished goal of BWB, along the lines of "... if we can just get rid of the boats, the job will be so easier" 

When you completed your journey with Arthur campaigning to save canals was still uppermost.  Every other weekend there were working parties of volunteers wheelbarrowing away and uncovering locks that were forgotten,  Thank god for them say I. 

The likes of IWA and NBOC would only hold rallies in places near to impossible to access in order to publicise the threat.

If you access the HNBC website you may find mention of those campaigning rallies, I couldn't find it.

IWA sold out with their first floating caravan rally at Milton Keynes.

Your trip to Napton with Arthur met the need, it proved what a lot of us suspected about that navigation.

 

There are more boats on the cut now than ever, so if you were to repeat your exercise, I wouldn't support it.  The only thing I would grant you is that you know what you're doing and as such unlikely to cause the havoc and damage lesser mortals are doing. 

The sole favour I would grant such boats is to build them a winding hole at the first bridge (103), I would also ban them totally from the N Oxford.  I worry about the arrival of CM'ers when the latest influx gets to an age where they're bought up by those never intending to tie them up in a marina.

 

If the trend does Keep them coming then I'm all for stoking up a Showman's with best Welsh and going for a wobble up the nearest motorway in the middle lane.

 

Keep well, stay safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall measuring the beam of "Progress" - I certainly don't have record of it to hand and generally quote it as 12' 3" which differs from both measurments here - however it was certainly 74' long. We took it to Braunston on several occasions and to Sampson Road lock (the first 7' one) once, and had no particular problems except at a bridge in Leamington with a tight arch

Co-incidentally we also fetched up with "Arthur" via 2 or 3 other owners including Richard Branson, removing its conversion and giving it back the name "Mersey".

 

Tam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, our yesterdays!

 

The Caribbean holiday referred to was in fact a voyage in which I rejoined my old boss, Peter Haward, who delivered yachts for a living. Many of them were of wood, in some cases old wood, and falling to pieces accordingly. This one, however, was of steel, a schooner we moved from Guadeloupe to Cannes in the Mediterranean. Despite being posh, and supposedly well-found, she still  managed to spring a major leek 1,000 miles from anywhere, when a weld failed. This we managed to seal with the cement our far-sighted skipper had brought on board. For much of the voyage we saw a ship every couple of days. Nonetheless, if we hadn't got out of the way, the second one would have hit us. As on any voyage, there is always something.

 

For me, I suppose it was a holiday, save for being shaken awake at two in the morning by a dripping figure telling me it was my turn to go on watch. Hence. probably, my return to canalling in later life.

 

Regarding the 'Arthur' trip up the GU, a motivation was to demonstrate to Authority that canals should be used to their limits. Thereby, eventually, they might be made larger. Naive this may seem today, but I remember Harry Grafton, of British Waterways, putting forward a scheme to enlarge the waterway between Brentford and a transhipment terminal to be built at Watford.

 

Even today such a project would get short shrift from a government with little connection with the benefits of water transport. Elsewhere, the viewpoint is different.

 

To illustrate, I attach (hopefully, if I press the right buttons) a photo of a (British( friend's barge in France. This has 1,450 tonnes capacity, though carrying only 1,000 tonnes here, on a canal that was really intended for aa great deal less. The Grenelle Environnement, a Think Tank established when Sarkozy was President, has been rooting for water transport on a major scale. Indeed, a 2,500 tonne Canal is being built to succeed this one..

 

For more, if that is to your taste, see my forthcoming article in Waterways World, due at the end of this month. Canals move on, whether we want them to, or not!

DSC_0027.jpg

  • Greenie 3
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.