Grand Union air draught

[Bronco99]

1 hour ago, Loddon said:

Not at the moment.

Anyway the bar at the entrance to the river is one of the worst in the country Not for inexperienced boaters.

Thou doth presume. May I point out that inexperience on the canalworld forum does not an inexperienced boater make. Nor does inexperience on the Grand Union with a wide beam cruiser.

 

Having said that, I should get off my high horse and concede that I am relatively inexperienced ?

Edited January 7, 2021 by Bronco99
additional comment

[matty40s]

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

No.The position of the moored boats may mean that you have to pass closer to the piles than you would have done otherwise, but it doesn't force you "into" them, and the gap available for you to pass through is at least as wide as the locks that you have to pass through anyway.

Not true unfortunately David, I brought a short, 6'10" wide boat up from the Thames a couple of years ago before the hiring season started.

I didnt think I would get through, and had to scrape both sides along boat/piling, at max revs to make it through the mud.

Wyvern are known for taking up most of the channel, and its true.

[Mike Adams]

5 hours ago, calara said:

Wide boats have every right to be on the GU given that it's a wide canal. We have to pay more for less of the system and expect the channel to be kept clear for us. There are plenty of narrow canals you will find you have exclusive use of.

The GU never was a proper wide canal  beyond Berkhampstead and although the locks were widened in the 1930's  only couple of wide boats were ever built for that section and were not a success. Whilst it is possible to get through wide beams can cause problems for deep draughted narrow boats as well as they can block the channel if inconsiderately moored. So much of the press suggests that wide boats are suitable for many canals but as cruising boats they are not ideal in many places where they theoretically fit.

Edited January 7, 2021 by Mike Adams

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

The GU never was a proper wide canal  beyond Berkhampstead and although the locks were widened in the 1930's  only couple of wide boats were ever built for that section and were not a success. Whilst it is possible to get through wide beams can cause problems for deep draughted narrow boats as well as they can block the channel if inconsiderately moored. So much of the press suggests that wide boats are suitable for many canals but as cruising boats they are not ideal in many places where they theoretically fit.

 

Hence the proposed new licence T&Cs regarding "the boat dimensions must be suitable for the canals on which it will be used".

[Allan(nb Albert)]

48 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Hence the proposed new licence T&Cs regarding "the boat dimensions must be suitable for the canals on which it will be used".

It would be better to say canals must be suitable for boats of statutory dimensions ...

 

[frangar]

10 hours ago, calara said:

 

The condition of the canal below Stoke Bruene is very poor and overgrown. There are many narrow boats who don't allow for the fact that they are on a broad canal - I had to knock a couple of them out of the way rather than drive through trees - not an option for you with a cruiser.

 

If you tried that with me your boat would be well in the trees and you would be in the cut.....what an arrogant arse you are......

[Alan de Enfield]

29 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

It would be better to say canals must be suitable for boats of statutory dimensions ...

 

That, I believe is NABO's argument, 

 

C&RTs definition is that the boat must be 'suitable' for whatever dimesnions C&RT decide (and which will probably slowly reduce year on year)

[Bronco99]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

That, I believe is NABO's argument, 

 

C&RTs definition is that the boat must be 'suitable' for whatever dimesnions C&RT decide (and which will probably slowly reduce year on year)

This NABO argument makes total sense. Boaters shouldn’t have to wonder if their vessel is ‘suitable’ for CRT specs. Which is why a navigation’s full superstructure dimension limit was important for arched bridge research.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

That, I believe is NABO's argument, 

 

C&RTs definition is that the boat must be 'suitable' for whatever dimensions C&RT decide (and which will probably slowly reduce year on year)

Exactly right but they have recently claimed twice that they have made no changes whatsoever to statutory dimensions over the last eight years. 

 

From an information request (the statutory dimensions in the 2012 Waterscape and 2012 CRT document were found to be the same but differed considerably from the 2020 CRT document provided)

 

Quote

 

Allan Richards left an annotation ( 9 November 2020)

First part of this request was-
Statutory dimensions in force when CRT took over responsibility from British Waterways.

CRT's response was -
The statutory dimensions are set out in the craft dimensions document (see https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlo...) , they have not changed since the Trust was formed and are based on the statutory dimensions set for British Waterways

I have now identified several earlier craft dimensions documents that show that they have changed significantly.

In particular, I have identified a Waterscape branded document and a CRT branded document from 2012 (when BW became CRT). If they are the same in respect to craft dimensions then this is the information that CRT should have provided

 

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Further to my post #109, below is a sample (using some of my local waterways) of changes made by CRT to statutory dimension date over an eight years period.

The differences resulted in a criminal investigation by the Information Commissioner under Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act.
 

Quote

 

The Ashby Canal
2012 July	??????????	2.49	1.39	2.64
2020 July	21.95	2.13	0.9	1.98
Difference		0.36	0.49	0.66
Birmingham & Fazely Canal
2012 July	21.52	2.23	1.39	2.2
2020 July	21.34	2.13	1.22	1.98
Difference	0.18	0.1	0.17	0.22
Coventry Canal
2012 July	22.85	2.27	1.5	2.25
2020 July	21.34	2.13	1.4	1.7
Difference	1.51	0.14	0.1	0.55

 

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by Allan(nb Albert)
Corrected - see post below

[TheBiscuits]

1 minute ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Further to my post #109, below is a sample (using some of my local waterways) of changes made by CRT to statutory dimension date over an eight years period.

 

There's a typo of 2012 instead of 2020 on the B&F bit.

 

Quick edit it before anyone asks for the original document. 

 

[Sea Dog]

2 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The differences resulted in a criminal investigation by the Information Commissioner under Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act.

What was the outcome of said investigation, Allan?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 hours ago, Sea Dog said:

What was the outcome of said investigation, Allan?

Investigation is ongoing.

However, it has to be said that, in the 20 years since the Freedom of Information Act was passed, the Information Commissioner has only prosecuted under S77 on one occasion.

 

2 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

There's a typo of 2012 instead of 2020 on the B&F bit.

 

Quick edit it before anyone asks for the original document. 

 

Thanks - I've corrected it.



 

Edited January 8, 2021 by Allan(nb Albert)