Grand Union Paddington Arm Headroom

[Tam & Di]

On 18/03/2020 at 19:21, Captain Pegg said:

If you published the width as per your yellow outline and the height of your red outline as the single limiting dimensions it would include craft that don’t fit. Those dimensions are legally binding on CRT.

Where do you get the idea of dimensions of that nature being legally binding?

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Tam & Di said:

Where do you get the idea of dimensions of that nature being legally binding?

 

I think "statutory" means "enacted by statute"

 

These are the statutory dimensions for each canal, when it was decided to reclassify to :

Commercial Canal

Cruising Canal (Leisure)

Remainder Canal ( don't do much to it - leave it to go derelict)

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[Tam & Di]

Indeed Alan, and as operators of largish commercial craft we've had cause from probably the 70s on to quote Fraenkel in arguments with BWB. I was merely querying Captain Pegg that a measurement to the top of the arch and the overall width would be legally binding. The bit of Fraenkel you give is actually talking of the maximum craft dimension rather than dimensons of any structures - not quite the same.

 

Tam

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

The bit of Fraenkel you give is actually talking of the maximum craft dimension rather than dimensons of any structures - not quite the same.

Indeed it is not infrastructure sizes, but maximum boat size.

The legislation states that the infrastructure should be maintained such that a boat of that size can still pass - which was recently highlighted where a repaired lock on the (I think) K&A meant a boat could no longer pass.

 

It is interesting to note the comment in the 'notes' for the Ashby canal.

I read it as :

"A high narrowboat may be able to pass, but a high widebeam may not"

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WotEver]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

It is interesting to note the comment in the 'notes' for the Ashby canal.

I read it as :

"A high narrowboat may be able to pass, but a high widebeam may not"

I’d like to see a widebeam turning onto the Ashby from the Coventry...

 

[Captain Pegg]

6 hours ago, Tam & Di said:

Indeed Alan, and as operators of largish commercial craft we've had cause from probably the 70s on to quote Fraenkel in arguments with BWB. I was merely querying Captain Pegg that a measurement to the top of the arch and the overall width would be legally binding. The bit of Fraenkel you give is actually talking of the maximum craft dimension rather than dimensons of any structures - not quite the same.

 

Tam

I never referred to the measurement to the top of an arch, particularly as I doubt that’s what any published CRT dimensions use as a point of measurement. My reference was intended to be to the obligation on CRT to maintain waterways fit for passage of craft that fit within a set of dimensions for the waterway in question.

 

JP

Edited March 30, 2020 by Captain Pegg

[blackrose]

If they can get those big barges under the lowest bridge on the Canal di Midi without any damage you should be fine on a 13ft widebeam on the GU Paddington arm.

 

 

 

This was me taking my 12ft widebeam through the bridge at Bidford on Avon. Slowly does it...

 

 

Edited March 31, 2020 by blackrose

[Phoenix_V]

Yes but try taking one of them through the Islington tunnel

[Jen-in-Wellies]

The oil tanker barges on the South Yorkshire Navigation have a hydraulic lifting mechanism to lower the bridge so it can pass under low bridges. Not a good photo, but here is an old one from 2012 with the bridge raised again at Aldwarke lock in Rotherham after it had been lowered to pass under the 1820's arched bridge behind it.

 

Jen

[jack4000]

I've just travelled from Mile End in East London, along the Regents, along the Paddington Arm and down the Grand Union to Brentford and onto the Thames. Just thought I'd add my experience to this topic in case it helps someone in the future.

 

At a pretty tall height of 2.45m my boat cleared all the bridges easily and I would say that even at the lowest bridges there was a good 15cm+ to spare. CRT's updated dimension data does now show a max height of 2.67m on all those waterways so I'd say this is pretty accurate. Also, the water was pretty much at its highest.

 

Worth mentioning though that I'm only at 2.45m tall down the middle - I have the profile of a regular trapezium! This means arched bridges aren't a problem for me, but if your boat is the same height all the way across and you have a wide beam then you may have some troubles.

 

Hope this is helpful to future researchers!