Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
mattsbsmith

Grand Union Paddington Arm Headroom

Featured Posts

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?

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

 

 

 

Screenshot (109).png

Screenshot (110).png

 

 

Screenshot (112).png

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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"

 

 

 

Screenshot (109).png

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Captain Pegg
  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by blackrose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

aldwarke.JPG.cacb10fa6f82003e5c6f1d357f7cf126.JPG

 

Jen

Share this post


Link to post
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.