Fat boats on the North Oxford

[Cheshire cat]

11 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I was good, wasn't I? I didn't think anyone had twigged...

I have seen Arthur out and about and believe he might have changed his hair colouring lately

[zenataomm]

5 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

Miles Away was back on its berth lunchtime ish on Sunday. We were out for a pub lunch so didnt see it  come back (yes Tim, the pub was open!).

Perhaps he changed the name so he could sneak past unnoticed.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Cheshire cat said:

I have seen Arthur out and about and believe he might have changed his hair colouring lately

That's as may be...

 

Edited August 29, 2022 by Arthur Marshall

[MrsM]

At least if Arthur gets stuck in his boat he only needs to blow0 the bloody doors off! 😆 (toot on the trombone might do it!)

[Victor Vectis]

Miles Away featured on Google Earth passing the moorings by Birdingbury Bridge on the GU and tied up beyond the other side of the bridge.

Dated 08/22.

[ditchcrawler]

Could this be the answer as seen on the Mont,

[MtB]

34 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Could this be the answer as seen on the Mont,

 

Phat chance of that happening officially, given CRT agreed with the 16ft wide marina entrance being built. 

 

Unofficially though, a narrows could be created if enough boaters got together. 

 

[Hudds Lad]

Only just checked my mail, this arrived at 10:33am. Who knows if they were only just informed of plans or if it’s a delay at their end. Less than half an hours notice is not really good enough, especially if you’re already cruising.

 

 

Notice Alert

Oxford Canal
Location: Wide beam passage, Dunchurch Pools to Braunston 
Starts At: Bridge 81, Borstal Bridge
Ends At: Bridge 93/94, Braunston Junction

Wednesday 14 September 2022 11:00 until Wednesday 14 September 2022 12:30

Type: Advice 
Reason: Information

Original message:

Today at 11am - 12:30pm there will be a wide-beam boat journey on the North Oxford Canal from Dunchurch Pools Marina to Braunston.

 

We kindly remind boating customers to be aware of the wide-beam boat and take extra care whilst navigating through this section of the canal.

Apologies for the short notice regarding this boat movement.

[Tam & Di]

25 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

We kindly remind boating customers to be aware of the wide-beam boat and take extra care whilst navigating through this section of the canal.

Apologies for the short notice regarding this boat movement.

 

I find this sort of advice very odd. If it is a craft of a size allowed by the canal in the area, why should they give special warning? If it is larger than the dimensions of the canal, why would they allow it to move (or even to moor)? Do they put out notices saying "On Saturday there will be a lot of novices leaving the xx hire base so take extra care whilst navigating through this section of the canal.?"

 

Tam

Edited September 14, 2022 by Tam & Di

[Stroudwater1]

10 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

 

I find this sort of advice very odd. If it is a craft of a size allowed by the canal in the area, why should they give special warning? If it is larger than the dimensions of the canal, why would they allow it to move (or even to moor)? Do they put out notices saying "On Saturday there will be a lot of novices leaving the xx hire base so take extra care whilst navigating through this section of the canal.?"

 

Tam

 

TBF it may occasionally be helpful, even more so stating the number of young hirers wearing a full sailors outfit

[Dr Bob]

1 hour ago, Hudds Lad said:

Only just checked my mail, this arrived at 10:33am. Who knows if they were only just informed of plans or if it’s a delay at their end.

 

Well it's not Miles Away. They are still here.

It looks like it is the new Aqualine fat boat that was launched 4-5 weeks ago for commissioning. It has been sat near the slipway since it was put in with the occasional 'visitor' - presumably to kit it out. I've just noticed now that its gone - and was defo there this morning. I would guess therefore that this is a 'once only' transit and it was at Dunchurch just to be launched.

 

 

[Lady M]

Phew.  We came through on Monday.  Noticed that the cutting by Br 83 is quite narrow, just about enough room for two narrow boats to pass each other.  

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Tam & Di said:

 

I find this sort of advice very odd. If it is a craft of a size allowed by the canal in the area, why should they give special warning? If it is larger than the dimensions of the canal, why would they allow it to move (or even to moor)? Do they put out notices saying "On Saturday there will be a lot of novices leaving the xx hire base so take extra care whilst navigating through this section of the canal.?"

 

Tam

 

The problem is of CRT's making. When Dunchurch Pools marina was built just a few years ago, CRT entered into a NAA with the owners and appear to have approved not only a 16ft wide marina entrance out onto the cut, but also a number of widebeam moorings without seeming to consider that this is a narrow canal.

 

Now they've created the NAA, they can hardly insist the marina entrance is reduced given they agreed (or possibly even demanded) it in the first place. 

 

I have a vague recollection of discussions at the time that CRT were demanding all new marinas are built with wide entrances, regardless of the width of the connecting canal. Once a wide entrance has been built, it seems the most natural thing in the world (to a non-canal-savvy CRT manager) for the marina to set up some wide moorings as well.

 

 

Edited September 14, 2022 by MtB
Add a bit.

[ditchcrawler]

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

The problem is of CRT's making. When Dunchurch Pools marina was built just a few years ago, CRT entered into a NAA with the owners and appear to have approved not only a 16ft wide marina entrance out onto the cut, but also a number of widebeam moorings without seeming to consider that this is a narrow canal.

 

I don't really see where that comes into it, what if it had been a layby marina/mooring then there is no entrance. Just because someone builds a marina with a wide entrance doesnt mean that CRT should allow oversized boats to access that marina. A few years ago, there was a member who regularly took her fat boat from Branston as far up the N Oxford as possible and did it far more that happens now.

[Tam & Di]

If the North Oxford is defined as a "narrow canal" and C&RT have to issue warnings about the passage of such a vessel, how does that relate to the Canal Bye-Laws which say:

"As to Vessels to be used on Canals

3. No person shall bring use or leave in any canal any vessel which is not in every respect fit for navigation on the canal or part thereof where it is intended to be used."?

 

Tam

[Alan de Enfield]

28 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

If the North Oxford is defined as a "narrow canal" and C&RT have to issue warnings about the passage of such a vessel, how does that relate to the Canal Bye-Laws which say:

"As to Vessels to be used on Canals

3. No person shall bring use or leave in any canal any vessel which is not in every respect fit for navigation on the canal or part thereof where it is intended to be used."?

 

Tam

 

A question oft asked (probably monthly) but as yet, never answered.

 

A similar statement is also in the Licence T&Cs which 'you' agree to before the granting of the licence, hence, there is no excuse "I didn't know" which could (possibly) be said about 57 year old by-laws.

[Tam & Di]

In truth I'm on a dodgy wicket here. We used to own the ex-GUCCC wideboat Progress at 74' x 12' 6" beam and cruised it several times London to Braunston and a couple of times on up to Camp Hill. There were quite a few pairs still trading, particularly Willow Wren with grain to Wellingborough, but we never had any problems to speak of. We originally used to make arrangements with BW about passage of the tunnels, but eventally Di would walk over the top and stop on-coming traffic after a set period and we would come on through. However several things have changed since that time - there are far more boats now, and even discounting hirers many of them are steered by people who are not particularly competent. There is now nothing like the amount of dredging and other maintenance carried out, but more significantly boats are allowed to moor in all sorts of inappropriate places such as bridge approaches and the outside of bends.

 

I would still insist on the right of any craft which fell within the statutary published dimensions to cruise - if structures make that problematic then C&RT need to do something about it, so too if moored boats present a problem for legitimate craft. It's a long time since I was on the North Oxford and I don't really know if the widebeam craft at the marina do cause any serious problems, but C&RT seem to have shot themselves in the foot yet again.

 

Tam

Edited September 14, 2022 by Tam & Di

[roland elsdon]

Yes but progress was 12’6” and built for the company. It had a boat shape and tumblehome. The problem is like the monster in leamington bilge they are 14 foot and have no tumblehome. The marks on the one in leam evidence multiple bridge contacts.

[Orwellian]

3 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I don't really see where that comes into it, what if it had been a layby marina/mooring then there is no entrance. Just because someone builds a marina with a wide entrance doesnt mean that CRT should allow oversized boats to access that marina. A few years ago, there was a member who regularly took her fat boat from Branston as far up the N Oxford as possible and did it far more that happens now.

I agree with this. The control of what boats can navigate a waterway should be by bye- laws or licencing.

[Alan de Enfield]

23 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

I agree with this. The control of what boats can navigate a waterway should be by bye- laws or licencing.

 

 

It already is, it is the enforcement that is lacking.

[Tam & Di]

As Alan says, the regulations are there, but not implemented. BW never did nip the towpath mooring problem in the bud when they could have achieved something and now it is completely out of hand, and as C&RT have implicitly given approval to oversized boats on a narrow canal I guess that will rapidly go the same way.

 

Tam

[Dr Bob]

6 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

 

Well it's not Miles Away. They are still here.

It looks like it is the new Aqualine fat boat that was launched 4-5 weeks ago for commissioning. It has been sat near the slipway since it was put in with the occasional 'visitor' - presumably to kit it out. I've just noticed now that its gone - and was defo there this morning. I would guess therefore that this is a 'once only' transit and it was at Dunchurch just to be launched.

 

 

 

Yep, someone saw it leave this morning crewed by a number of blokes wearing life jackets - looked like a boat moving company I was told. Hopefully one way trip only.

[matty40s]

55 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

 

Yep, someone saw it leave this morning crewed by a number of blokes wearing life jackets - looked like a boat moving company I was told. Hopefully one way trip only.

They need lifejackets as it's only 12 feet wide, easy to fall off in storm conditions on the North Oxford Channel approaching Winter.

 

CRT should use their existing legal and T&C and ban Dunchurch Pools from getting any more widebeams lifted in at their new marina,regardless of whether they are going to moor there or move on when their snagging lists are done...at 1 hours notice. They can just say no.

[Tam & Di]

15 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

A question oft asked (probably monthly) but as yet, never answered.

 

Having an odd hour to spend (waste) I've just read the whole thread and can now understand rather better why people are wound up about  Miles Away and other wide things that C&RT allow to cruise on this section of the North Oxford. Given the arrangement C&RT has come to with the marina it would probably be legally difficult for C&RT to stop him cruising altogether, but they can probably insist that any trips on the N. Oxford section are made at tightly defined specific times, which would make it a less attractive proposition. I can only repeat that C&RT have shot themselves in the foot yet again.

 

However I'd also echo the suggestion that if people are actually concerned then it is far more productive to make reports/complaints direct to C&RT rather than moan about it on CWDF - CWDF has no powers whatsoever to do anything about it.

 

Tam

[Orwellian]

5 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

However I'd also echo the suggestion that if people are actually concerned then it is far more productive to make reports/complaints direct to C&RT rather than moan about it on CWDF - CWDF has no powers whatsoever to do anything about it.

This truism can be applied to countless other complaints about CRT that are discussed at length on this and other similar forums.