Wide beams on the right canals

[Pluto]

33 minutes ago, JCO said:

To follow on from Pluto's point above about Worsley to Manchester coal traffic being carried in 7 foot beam boats, I have a question:

When the Trent and Mersey was being planned, did the pre-existence of narrow craft inform the decision to build it to 7 foot dimensions - even though it linked two broad navigations - or were the constructional difficulties of boring Harecastle Tunnel any wider the deciding factor? 

JCO

The cost of excavating Harecastle would certainly have been a factor, and originally Brindley suggested a canal for boats 6 feet by 70 feet. He seems to have experimented with the Worsley boats, the largest mine boats then being 6 feet wide, but eventually chose 7 feet, possibly because of Runcorn locks as I suggested earlier. When the T&MC was being proposed, the economic success of canals was uncertain, and raising sufficient finance was a problem. A narrow canal is estimated to be 33% cheaper than a wide canal, so ensuring sufficient finance would have been a factor. At the same time, it is worth thinking about the tonnages a canal was expected to carry. Compared to horse-drawn road transport, a narrow canal was a major improvement. It was only by the late 1830s that industrial output had grown sufficiently to make building narrow canals uneconomic, particularly as railways were then being constructed. However, it is worth remembering that the average goods train load in 1880 was only about 60 tons, so successful canals could compete effectively.

[JCO]

Thanks for that Pluto - it all makes sense to me. I would often wonder - whilst  chugging along at 3.5 mi/h on a quaint, hopelessly-outdated transport system that is no longer fit for original purpose - what would have happened if Brindley had had the foresight, finance and civil engineering capability to build the T & M to broad dimensions. How might the rest of the system have evolved differently?

JCO

[Pluto]

18 minutes ago, JCO said:

Thanks for that Pluto - it all makes sense to me. I would often wonder - whilst  chugging along at 3.5 mi/h on a quaint, hopelessly-outdated transport system that is no longer fit for original purpose - what would have happened if Brindley had had the foresight, finance and civil engineering capability to build the T & M to broad dimensions. How might the rest of the system have evolved differently?

JCO

You just have to remember, that when it was built, it was fit for purpose, and remained that way for at least sixty years. How many modern engineering projects are likely to last 60 years?

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, Pluto said:

The cost of excavating Harecastle would certainly have been a factor, and originally Brindley suggested a canal for boats 6 feet by 70 feet. He seems to have experimented with the Worsley boats, the largest mine boats then being 6 feet wide, but eventually chose 7 feet, possibly because of Runcorn locks as I suggested earlier. When the T&MC was being proposed, the economic success of canals was uncertain, and raising sufficient finance was a problem. A narrow canal is estimated to be 33% cheaper than a wide canal, so ensuring sufficient finance would have been a factor. At the same time, it is worth thinking about the tonnages a canal was expected to carry. Compared to horse-drawn road transport, a narrow canal was a major improvement. It was only by the late 1830s that industrial output had grown sufficiently to make building narrow canals uneconomic, particularly as railways were then being constructed. However, it is worth remembering that the average goods train load in 1880 was only about 60 tons, so successful canals could compete effectively.

The IWA (here) certainly believe so. 

[Movin' on]

6 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

Bloody widebeams 

 

It's a shame there are not more of these on the move on the A&C these days.

 

That would be great on the North Oxford ??

[blackrose]

12 hours ago, Halsey said:

As MANY of us have said many times - you, your boat and the way you use it are the exception which puts wide beams in a good light 

 

Carry on cruising - my beef has only ever been with those types who think cruising a wide beam through Braunston (incl the tunnel) and up the Northern Oxford is acceptable because they are "entitled" to!

 

They are not boaters, never will be, and aren't part of any community I want to be part of - rant over. 

 

Great pictures BTW ?

 

 

Thanks. Have you ever actually had a problem with widebeams in those areas like a collision for example, or is it just the idea of big boats in those places that makes you so angry? In my experience there are a lot of narrow boaters who just don't like widebeams wherever they are. I've been slagged off on the Thames and the southern GU on more than one occasion by people telling me my boat is just a floating flat and I can't go anywhere, etc, but  the truth is that these narrow-minded people just don't like anything that isn't a narrow boat. Also, when we talk about who is or isn't a boater, I think perhaps we need to keep in mind that whatever one's personal thoughts on particular types of boats, public condemnation of someone else's pride and joy isn't a particularly boaty mindset. I know I just said that the proportions of narrow boats were all wrong, so perhaps I'm being hypocritical, but I wouldn't normally slag off other types of boats and was only responding to what you said.

Edited July 21, 2020 by blackrose

[peterboat]

1 minute ago, blackrose said:

 

Thanks. Have you ever actually had a problem with widebeams in those areas like a collision for example, or is it just the idea of big boats in those places that makes you so angry? In my experience there are a lot of narrow boaters who just don't like widebeams wherever they are. I've been slagged off on the Thames and the southern GU on more than one occasion by people telling me my boat is just a floating flat and I can't go anywhere, etc, but  the truth is that these narrow-minded people just don't like anything that isn't a narrow boat. Also, when we talk about who is or isn't a boater, I think perhaps we need to keep in mind that whatever one's personal thoughts on particular types of boats, public condemnation of someone else's pride and joy isn't a particularly boaty mindset. I know I just said that the proportions of narrow boats were all wrong, so perhaps I'm being hypocritical, but I wouldn't normally slag off other types of boats and was only responding to what you said.

I can't be bothered anymore, I am sat in my wheelhouse on a sunny evening with all the room of a conservatory, its lovely looking up a navigation made for very large boats. Yesterday I passed the time of day with the skipper of the Exol Pride a boat designed for these waterways, what a lovely life we lead?

[blackrose]

14 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I can't be bothered anymore, I am sat in my wheelhouse on a sunny evening with all the room of a conservatory, its lovely looking up a navigation made for very large boats. Yesterday I passed the time of day with the skipper of the Exol Pride a boat designed for these waterways, what a lovely life we lead?

 

Yes, just enjoy your boat and your life without feeling the need to criticise other people's boats. That's the right attitude for a real boater.

[Guest]

I'm personally not a big fan of the aesthetic of those 'narrow' Dutch barges but if somebody is happy with their boat fair play to them.

 

To claim that the appearance of a boat can make one 'physically sick', which somebody has done in this thread is just ridiculous.

[Ianws]

Really close to where we are moored on the Leeds Liverpool there is a skew bridge with very little sight of what is coming the other way until you are almost in the bridge. A couple of wide beams pass a day but my first 2 times out I encountered them at that bridge, the first occasion in driving rain (and I wear glasses). It was as a bit nerve wracking first time, it looked like a dreadnought approaching, but we both went slowly and survived with no issues. I’ve also learned to keep a cap handy to keep the rain off my glasses.

[noddyboater]

13 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

I'm personally not a big fan of the aesthetic of those 'narrow' Dutch barges but if somebody is happy with their boat fair play to them.

 

To claim that the appearance of a boat can make one 'physically sick', which somebody has done in this thread is just ridiculous.

Ok, you're right.  Nauseous,  bilious maybe but not actually sick. I'd have been in a right state otherwise as I used to moor in a boat yard turning the things out.

[Up-Side-Down]

11 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

Bloody widebeams 

 

It's a shame there are not more of these on the move on the A&C these days.

 

Just be patient. They should be back within a month ............

[Movin' on]

1 hour ago, blackrose said:

 

Thanks. Have you ever actually had a problem with widebeams in those areas like a collision for example, or is it just the idea of big boats in those places that makes you so angry? In my experience there are a lot of narrow boaters who just don't like widebeams wherever they are. I've been slagged off on the Thames and the southern GU on more than one occasion by people telling me my boat is just a floating flat and I can't go anywhere, etc, but  the truth is that these narrow-minded people just don't like anything that isn't a narrow boat. Also, when we talk about who is or isn't a boater, I think perhaps we need to keep in mind that whatever one's personal thoughts on particular types of boats, public condemnation of someone else's pride and joy isn't a particularly boaty mindset. I know I just said that the proportions of narrow boats were all wrong, so perhaps I'm being hypocritical, but I wouldn't normally slag off other types of boats and was only responding to what you said.

I have no problem with wide beam boats per sey and never have had - I suppose deep down for me the problem is the fact that the term "wide beam" is even used - its a boat and on an appropriate waterway there is no problem and no issue or need to distinguish it from any other boat.

BUT - there is undoubtedly a breed of "wide beam" owner who wants to prove they are entitled to go anywhere where physical restrictions just about allow usage without any application of common sense - the Northern Oxford being the best example I know - these are the people I have a problem with not their boats.

 

[Bewildered]

1 hour ago, Halsey said:

there is undoubtedly a breed of "wide beam" owner who wants to prove they are entitled to go anywhere where physical restrictions just about allow usage without any application of common sense - the Northern Oxford being the best example I know - these are the people I have a problem with not their boats.

 

There are plenty of places on the North Oxford where meeting an oncoming Narrowboat is a challenge, certainly wouldn’t want to meet an oncoming wide beam.

It would be such a simple engineering project to put a set of narrows at the first bridge, thus stopping these boats from using a waterway that is unsuitable for them.

 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Bewildered

[Movin' on]

On 21/07/2020 at 00:48, noddyboater said:

Who ever thought that doubling the width of an average narrowboat design was a good idea has a lot to answer for. 

....................that would be the New Boat Company ...................who spotted a gap in the market for floating flats on the Thames and London many many years ago

Edited July 22, 2020 by Halsey

[DandV]

23 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Corrected for you :

 

"Whoever thought that it was a good idea to half the width of a proper boat to produce a 7 foot wide boat has a lot to answer for."

 

Nowhere else in the world was that 'daft'.

But two 7 ft wide boats joined by a deck and with space between can be quite awesome. But just not on most UK canals.

Edited July 22, 2020 by DandV

[Alan de Enfield]

42 minutes ago, DandV said:

But two 7 ft wide boats joined by a deck and with space between can be quite awesome. But just not on most UK canals.

Yes, I guess you are 'right'

23 foot beam is a tad to wide and a 57 foot mast would struggle under the bridges.

 

 

 

[DandV]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Yes, I guess you are 'right'

23 foot beam is a tad to wide and a 57 foot mast would struggle under the bridges.

 

 

 

And have you got fins sticking out underneath as well?

[Alan de Enfield]

26 minutes ago, DandV said:

And have you got fins sticking out underneath as well?

But they are not very big :

 

 

[noddyboater]

3 hours ago, Halsey said:

....................that would be the New Boat Company ...................who spotted a gap in the market for floating flats on the Thames and London many many years ago

I hope they can sleep at night. 

As I've said,  with the odd exception most things look better in their original proportions, to me at least. 

The Fiat 500, Mini Cooper, Christina Aguilera..

[peterboat]

4 minutes ago, noddyboater said:

I hope they can sleep at night. 

As I've said,  with the odd exception most things look better in their original proportions, to me at least. 

The Fiat 500, Mini Cooper, Christina Aguilera..

The problem is narrowboats arnt the norm beamy boats are more stable so safer, my 12 foot wide boat hardly rocks, I get plenty of comments on how good it looks compared to a narrowboat 

[Mike Todd]

14 hours ago, Halsey said:

I have no problem with wide beam boats per sey and never have had - I suppose deep down for me the problem is the fact that the term "wide beam" is even used - its a boat and on an appropriate waterway there is no problem and no issue or need to distinguish it from any other boat.

BUT - there is undoubtedly a breed of "wide beam" owner who wants to prove they are entitled to go anywhere where physical restrictions just about allow usage without any application of common sense - the Northern Oxford being the best example I know - these are the people I have a problem with not their boats.

 

Replying to this entry but also several others on this and like threads:

 

Whilst I am instinctively in the camp that is concerned about the inappropriate use of boats wider than the intended size for a navigation, the criticism based on people trying to see where they can get worries me.

 

It has long been part of the leisure canal scene to 'take your boat where no other boats can go' and, arguably, if Tom Rolt had not had that attitude then we would have precious little mileage left to cruise. There are places today that are little used, hence the promotion by IWA of the Sliver Propeller Challenge to encourage people to push the boundaries. 

 

Equally, we have taken both our present and our previous 60ft boats  across the Calder and Hebble, including Salterhebble top lock. Technically such boats are not within the dimensions of the canal - official constraints apply width and length independently. Are we as guilty as the wide beams mentioned in this thread who try use parts of the North Oxford?

 

Some folk like to explore short arms with no winding hole and have to reverse out. Some insist on navigating parts of the Middle Level and Fens where there is a statutory right of navigation. Are they equally culpable?

 

To me, the 'just because it is there' sense of challenge is a strong motivation (not that I have ever thought of scaling Everest!) and the more significant consideration is what you do, in the process, to other people and to the environment, including the man-made parts. Risking other people who come to rescue you, significantly impeding or even damaging other boats, and disproportionately wearing out fragile structures are all matters that should be taken into consideration.

[Movin' on]

12 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Replying to this entry but also several others on this and like threads:

 

Whilst I am instinctively in the camp that is concerned about the inappropriate use of boats wider than the intended size for a navigation, the criticism based on people trying to see where they can get worries me.

 

It has long been part of the leisure canal scene to 'take your boat where no other boats can go' and, arguably, if Tom Rolt had not had that attitude then we would have precious little mileage left to cruise. There are places today that are little used, hence the promotion by IWA of the Sliver Propeller Challenge to encourage people to push the boundaries. 

 

Equally, we have taken both our present and our previous 60ft boats  across the Calder and Hebble, including Salterhebble top lock. Technically such boats are not within the dimensions of the canal - official constraints apply width and length independently. Are we as guilty as the wide beams mentioned in this thread who try use parts of the North Oxford?

 

Some folk like to explore short arms with no winding hole and have to reverse out. Some insist on navigating parts of the Middle Level and Fens where there is a statutory right of navigation. Are they equally culpable?

 

To me, the 'just because it is there' sense of challenge is a strong motivation (not that I have ever thought of scaling Everest!) and the more significant consideration is what you do, in the process, to other people and to the environment, including the man-made parts. Risking other people who come to rescue you, significantly impeding or even damaging other boats, and disproportionately wearing out fragile structures are all matters that should be taken into consideration.

 

I'm not quite sure what your point is here as I agree with all you have said above - it IS all about consideration for others and appropriate behaviour - a wide beam on the North Oxford fits neither of these nor does a wide beam going through Braunston or Blisworth tunnels without CRT involvement endangering all/any users - that's my point.

 

I may not like wide beams on the GU north of Gayton Junction but they are now a fact of life we all have to live with or go elsewhere - at least for the most part the GU can cope.

 

 

[noddyboater]

2 hours ago, peterboat said:

The problem is narrowboats arnt the norm beamy boats are more stable so safer, my 12 foot wide boat hardly rocks, I get plenty of comments on how good it looks compared to a narrowboat 

But since I moved off the Sheffield canal my narrowboat hardly ever rocks either because it's usually sat on the bottom. 

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, Halsey said:

 

I'm not quite sure what your point is here as I agree with all you have said above - it IS all about consideration for others and appropriate behaviour - a wide beam on the North Oxford fits neither of these nor does a wide beam going through Braunston or Blisworth tunnels without CRT involvement endangering all/any users - that's my point.

 

I may not like wide beams on the GU north of Gayton Junction but they are now a fact of life we all have to live with or go elsewhere - at least for the most part the GU can cope.

 

 

I was really taking issue with statements like there is undoubtedly a breed of "wide beam" owner who wants to prove they are entitled to go anywhere where physical restrictions just about allow usage and referred to similar cases where the envelope is pushed. To disallow such activity requires proof that doing so has unacceptable consequences, not just that we don't like it. Whilst my temptation might be to agree with the suggestion that waterway dimensions should be enforced as strict limits, I also know that several of our own very attractive journeys would not have been permitted. Rather a case of 'be careful what you wish for'