Fat boats on the North Oxford

[Tam & Di]

True. I was just feeling rather grumpy having read the whole thread, and its pointlessness. I guess the major thing of CWDF is to be able to moan communally about things

😁

Tam

Edited September 15, 2022 by Tam & Di

[Tacet]

11 hours ago, matty40s said:

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.

Point of order.  I imagine either widebeams are prohibited under the existing rules and regulations or they are not.  Probably more difficult to introduce a new rule, if that is indeed required.

 

But perhaps CRT could require that movements are only made between, say 6.00 and 8.00 am which would reduce conflict with moving boats.  I suppose it would be more annoying for those moored to have early morning disturbance but it might deter regular use too.

[matty40s]

1 hour ago, Tacet said:

Point of order.  I imagine either widebeams are prohibited under the existing rules and regulations or they are not.  Probably more difficult to introduce a new rule, if that is indeed required.

 

But perhaps CRT could require that movements are only made between, say 6.00 and 8.00 am which would reduce conflict with moving boats.  I suppose it would be more annoying for those moored to have early morning disturbance but it might deter regular use too.

 

no chance, thats the best time of day to cruise.😀

[Hudds Lad]

20 hours 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.

According to the Book of Face, CW Boatmover shifted it to Wigrams Turn.

 

”Today I was at Dunchurch pools marina to move a 70ft x 12.6 widebeam to Wigrams Turn Waterside & Marina, it was great fun but not something I would want to do all the time , very very tight in places”

[Mike Todd]

8 hours ago, Tacet said:

Point of order.  I imagine either widebeams are prohibited under the existing rules and regulations or they are not.  Probably more difficult to introduce a new rule, if that is indeed required.

 

But perhaps CRT could require that movements are only made between, say 6.00 and 8.00 am which would reduce conflict with moving boats.  I suppose it would be more annoying for those moored to have early morning disturbance but it might deter regular use too.

Sadly the aged nature of the legal framework around canals means mist things are  very farm from black and white clear cut.

 

I suspect CaRT will have taken advice and been warned about the potential costs of a decision not to allow the marina were challenged. 

 

In more cases than some boaters would like, the  context gives CaRT the option  to make a choice by does not require it to do so in a particular way. Such as in the famous phrase regarding  'convincing the Board of a bona fide navigation'.

 

[MtB]

4 hours ago, Hudds Lad said:

According to the Book of Face, CW Boatmover shifted it to Wigrams Turn.

 

”Today I was at Dunchurch pools marina to move a 70ft x 12.6 widebeam to Wigrams Turn Waterside & Marina, it was great fun but not something I would want to do all the time , very very tight in places”

 

It was a 70ft fatty? Far canal!!!

 

Are there now widey berths in Wig Wams? Or was it destined to carry on and struggle down Calcutt locks? 

 

 

[Lily Rose]

7 hours ago, MtB said:

 

It was a 70ft fatty? Far canal!!!

 

Are there now widey berths in Wig Wams? Or was it destined to carry on and struggle down Calcutt locks? 

 

 

There are widebeam berths in Wigrams and have been for many years. Possibly only a handful, you can see at least a couple on the right hand side of the entrance as you go past. One of the staff at Ventnor lived in his 10' wide boat there for 12 years until moving it to Ventnor this summer.

[IanM]

The entrance to Wigrams however is definitely not 14ft wide... 

 

 

 

 

...don't ask me how I know this 🤣

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, IanM said:

The entrance to Wigrams however is definitely not 14ft wide... 

 

 

 

 

...don't ask me how I know this 🤣

 

 

6ft 10in x 2 less half an inch? 

 

 

 

[David Mack]

23 hours ago, Tacet said:

 

But perhaps CRT could require that movements are only made between, say 6.00 and 8.00 am which would reduce conflict with moving boats.  I suppose it would be more annoying for those moored to have early morning disturbance but it might deter regular use too

 

14 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Sadly the aged nature of the legal framework around canals means mist things are  very farm from black and white clear cut

 

I seem to recall that widebeam passages of Braunston and Blisworth tunnels can only be booked first thing in the morning. So why not the same on the North Oxford?

[Dr Bob]

56 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

 

I seem to recall that widebeam passages of Braunston and Blisworth tunnels can only be booked first thing in the morning. So why not the same on the North Oxford?

Well of course they (the CRT) could, but they could also just ban them. What is the CRTs intention? We dont know. When they brought in the restrictions a few years back, the wording says that fat boats can make a passage if they inform the CRT first. I thought at the time I heard that they were trying to discourage fat boats and they would only allow 'essential' trips (ie not lesiure trips). The wording on the restrictions however allows any trip. I have asked the CRT in an email to clarify and they have not responded to me. We need to know their intentions - do they encorage leisure trips or not, up and down the North Oxford?

[Lady M]

In my view, many stretches of the N Oxford can be a bit tight for two narrowboats to pass each other.  I think the least CRT could do, should they persist in allowing widebeam transit, is cut back as much of the offside vegetation as possible.  

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

 

 

I seem to recall that widebeam passages of Braunston and Blisworth tunnels can only be booked first thing in the morning. So why not the same on the North Oxford?

 

Probably because it doesn't require a stoppage for other traffic which the tunnels do. Plus the fact that the tunnels are on a statutory wide canal so there must be a mechanism by which navigation is facilitated. The North Oxford being a narrow canal means all movements are bespoke (and I suspect there is no legal obligation on CRT to permit them).

 

 

2 hours ago, IanM said:

The entrance to Wigrams however is definitely not 14ft wide... 

 

 

 

 

...don't ask me how I know this 🤣

 

I'd hope it's 12' 6" which is the published maximum craft dimension for the GU north of Berkhamsted despite the fact the locks are nominally 14'.

 

[Tam & Di]

Unless the canal between the entrance and the opposite bank is at least 72' the entrance would have to be slighty wider to enable any craft of legal maximum dimensions room to get through at some angle.

 

Tam

Edited September 16, 2022 by Tam & Di

[David Mack]

1 minute ago, Tam & Di said:

Unless the canal between the entrance and the opposite bank is at least 72' the entrance would have to be slighty wider to enable any craft of legal maximum diension room to get through at some degree of angle.

 

Tam

My recollection is that CRT require any marina entrance to be capable of use as a winding hole (notwithstanding that most have 'no turning' notices) which means an entrance which is set back and wider than 7ft is almost a necessity. The Circus Field Basin on the Aylesbury arm has a fairly narrow entrance, as it is equipped with a gate to enable the basin to be kept full when the canal level is down, but there is a widened area alongside the entrance, which on the planning application drawings showed within it at 70ft diameter circle to demonstrate that full length boats can (theoretically) turn here.

[Captain Pegg]

47 minutes ago, David Mack said:

My recollection is that CRT require any marina entrance to be capable of use as a winding hole (notwithstanding that most have 'no turning' notices) which means an entrance which is set back and wider than 7ft is almost a necessity. The Circus Field Basin on the Aylesbury arm has a fairly narrow entrance, as it is equipped with a gate to enable the basin to be kept full when the canal level is down, but there is a widened area alongside the entrance, which on the planning application drawings showed within it at 70ft diameter circle to demonstrate that full length boats can (theoretically) turn here.

 

I exited Circus Field basin in a strong crosswind a few weeks ago under the watch of the owners of the boat concerned as they operated the bridge across the narrows. I first had to reverse from the pontoon and turn inside the basin before exiting. Given the square rather than tapered sides of the basin exit I took a lot of time and a lot of re-adjustment to get the boat lined up to make sure I did not contact the sides as I turned into the narrows. It probably looked like I was making quite a meal of it.

 

 

[magpie patrick]

I've just read Roger Pilkington's "Thames Waters" in which he describes taking "Commodore", with a beam of 10 foot 6 inches, up as far as Calcutt in the 1950s. At Blisworth Tunnel he found there was no mechanism for managing passage of wide boats because, as he observed, none ever did it. He asked the steerer of a northbound pair to warn oncoming traffic not to enter the tunnel unless they had first met Commodore going the other way. When he got to the far end a pair was waiting for him to come out.

 

He also relates how they got jammed at Braunston because the working pairs were breasted up leaving a gap just less than 10 foot 6....

Edited September 18, 2022 by magpie patrick

[Allan(nb Albert)]

12 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

I've just read Roger Pilkington's "Thames Waters" in which he describes taking "Commodore", with a beam of 10 foot 6 inches, up as far as Calcutt in the 1950s. At Blisworth he found there was no mechanism for managing passage of wide boats because, as he observed, none ever did it. He asked the steerer of a northbound pair to warn oncoming traffic not to enter the tunnel unless they had first met Commodore going the other way. When he got to the far end a pair was waiting for him to come out.

 

He also relates how they got jammed at Braunston because the working pairs were breasted up leaving a gap just less than 10 foot 6....

 

... but by 1967, it would appear the craft of 12' 6" were "customarily" using this part of the Grand Union. Just as wider boats are now "customarily" using the Northern Oxford. ...

 

 

Edited September 18, 2022 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Tacet]

12 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

I've just read Roger Pilkington's "Thames Waters" in which he describes taking "Commodore", with a beam of 10 foot 6 inches, up as far as Calcutt in the 1950s. At Blisworth he found there was no mechanism for managing passage of wide boats because, as he observed, none ever did it. He asked the steerer of a northbound pair to warn oncoming traffic not to enter the tunnel unless they had first met Commodore going the other way. When he got to the far end a pair was waiting for him to come out.

 

He also relates how they got jammed at Braunston because the working pairs were breasted up leaving a gap just less than 10 foot 6....

A northbound boat at Blisworth would not be heading for the tunnel.

 The book is clearly a work of fiction!

 

[magpie patrick]

41 minutes ago, Tacet said:

A northbound boat at Blisworth would not be heading for the tunnel.

 The book is clearly a work of fiction!

 

A northbound boat at Blisworth Tunnel south portal would be! I paraphrased Pilkington's words in the book, the travels were real enough and whilst it's written as a travelogue the details of his own experiences are accurate.

 

I've added the word "Tunnel" to my post to ward off pedants...  😉 

58 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 

... but by 1967, it would appear the craft of 12' 6" were "customarily" using this part of the Grand Union. Just as wider boats are now "customarily" using the Northern Oxford. ...

 

 

I think you and I would both doubt this, the last "customary" passage was probably the wide boat Progress in the 1930s. However it's probably a bit late to get the record  changed.

Edited September 18, 2022 by magpie patrick

[matty40s]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 

... but by 1967, it would appear the craft of 12' 6" were "customarily" using this part of the Grand Union. Just as wider boats are now "customarily" using the Northern Oxford. ...

 

 

Along with the 3'10" boats and 8'0" boats...shame you couldnt show us the full details.

[Tam & Di]

46 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

I think you and I would both doubt this, the last "customary" passage was probably the wide boat Progress in the 1930s. However it's probably a bit late to get the record  changed.

 Not exactly. Though I could not swear it was between March - December 1967 we cruised 74' (yes!) x 12' 6" Progress from Cowley nr. Uxbridge to Braunston most years through the 60s, and a couple of times on up to Camp Hill. At that time they were trying to identify which category the various waterways fell into - don't forget that it was passage on the K&A by a kayak that prevented them listing that as a remainder waterway.

 

In that paper they are talking of Private Vessels, so there may have been sundry ex-ship's lifeboat conversion and so on. There were quite a few odd craft of that ilk around then - also several canal size lighters.

 

Tam

Edited September 18, 2022 by Tam & Di

[David Mack]

42 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

I think you and I would both doubt this, the last "customary" passage was probably the wide boat Progress in the 1930s. However it's probably a bit late to get the record  changed.

I'm not so sure about that. In the early-mid 70s there were a couple of widebeam lifeboat conversions on the GU around Knowle, so I can well believe there would have been others on the GU main line. Probably not as wide as 12'6", but certainly more than 7'.

[David Mack]

And not forgetting a few river cruisers from the Thames of perhaps 8-10' beam would have ventured up the lower GU.

Edited September 18, 2022 by David Mack

[magpie patrick]

45 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

 Not exactly. Though I could not swear it was between March - December 1967 we cruised 74' (yes!) x 12' 6" Progress from Cowley nr. Uxbridge to Braunston most years through the 60s, and a couple of times on up to Camp Hill. At that time they were trying to identify which category the various waterways fell into - don't forget that it was passage on the K&A by a kayak that prevented them listing that as a remainder waterway

Fair enough - you owned Progress, you will know better than me!

 

On the kayak, I think you may have confused the Kennet and Avon with the Stratford on Avon - the latter was saved from abandonment by a toll ticket for a canoe, the former became a remainder waterway, indeed Roger Pilkington's book notes that D&IWE executive padlocked it not long after his adventure to Newbury in the early fifties