Draught of a canoe or paddleboard

[magpie patrick]

This question is, to some extent, hypothetical, but not entirely. It's a canal restoration scenario 

 

Imagine two adjacent water bodies in seperate ownerships - for reasons of liability we can't link them - perhaps different landowners. But the risk, or at least the risk the landowners won't live with, is limited. In effect it's the risk of one length draining the other. For a variety of reasons full depth navigation isn't required and until the liabilities are sorted out it won't be possible. 

 

Could we seperate the two with a low wall (or even just stop planks) say 6 inches below the surface? Would a canoe or a paddleboard get over that? The length subect to this depth would probably be no more than a foot in total, so there would be no need to paddle for that distance, just drift over it? 

Any problems I haven't thought of? 

Thanks in anticipation!

[max's son]

Depends on the bow shape of the canoe or kayak 

whether it has a rudder same with a paddle boards skeg

 

what it is made of, plastic canoes can take more of a hammering compare to Fibre glass or inflatable

 

I assume the weight of the paddler, whether single or multiple occupants 

[Chewbacka]

If the risk after full connection is one side draining the other, then there will be a level difference and your stop planks will simply act as a weir.

Assuming levels are similar then In times of low rain etc, the water levels will drop reducing the depth over your difficult to see stop planks.  I would make sure it is very visibly marked or you will get damage claims, maybe injuries from falling from sudden stoping of paddle boards etc.

[Jen-in-Wellies]

A very small stop lock?!

Operable from onboard the canoe, or paddle board. Rising quadrant gates, by levers perhaps, Mechanical interlocking to prevent both being open at the same time. Can't think of anything like it anywhere, so it is either a terrible, completely impractical idea, or an innovative, award winning solution to your problem. Take your pick!

Jen

Edited September 9, 2022 by Jen-in-Wellies

[GUMPY]

In order to prevent one draining the other surely a stop lock with guillotine gates is the answer.

 

Now where have I seen this somewhere before 

 

In todays world the gates should be motorised and have the option to be  worked from an app on the phone so paddlers don't have to get out of the canoe

 

 

Arrrgh beaten to it.

 

 

A set of boat rollers might work as well and would be cheaper

Edited September 9, 2022 by Loddon
-

[Alan de Enfield]

Why can they not just lift out their paddle board / kayak walk across the dividing bank and re-insert said watercraft into 'the other side'. ?

 

All such water users do exactly that on C&RT waters when they come up to a lock

 

Portage or portaging (Canada: /pɔːrˈtɑːʒ/; US: /ˈpɔːrtɪdʒ/) is the practice of carrying water craft or cargo over land, either around an obstacle in a river, or between two bodies of water.

Edited September 9, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[PD1964]

 The problem you haven’t thought of is why should Narrowboat owner’s be bothered about this hypothetical scenario on a Canal restoration when your interested in the use for canoeing and paddle borders and not Canal boats? Why not just go on a Canoe forum and ask there? 
 As @Alan de Enfield says why can’t they just get out and portage over?
 
 

Edited September 9, 2022 by PD1964

[Tam & Di]

I think you are probably misreading magpie's post, or attributing incorrect assumptions for its reason.

 

Tam

[PD1964]

Just now, Tam & Di said:

I think you are probably misreading magpie's post, or attributing incorrect assumptions for its reason.

 

Tam

Not really, why does he not just go on a Canoe Forum and ask there?

 Is this really a Hypothetical question or from a real Canal restoration group, who realise their Canal may be better funded as a Watersport canal then a boating one? Seams a strange hypothetical question to think of.

[Stroudwater1]

21 minutes ago, PD1964 said:

Not really, why does he not just go on a Canoe Forum and ask there?

 Is this really a Hypothetical question or from a real Canal restoration group, who realise their Canal may be better funded as a Watersport canal then a boating one? Seams a strange hypothetical question to think of.

It seems likely  an ownership/water rights type issue that’s being resolved perhaps bit by bit navigation wise?
 

wedges can start thin too.

Restoration answers come in all shapes sizes sweetners carrots or sticks. It depends how you paddle your canoe. 

Edited September 9, 2022 by Stroudwater1

[PD1964]

1 hour ago, Stroudwater1 said:

It seems likely  an ownership/water rights type issue that’s being resolved perhaps bit by bit navigation wise?
 

wedges can start thin too.

Restoration answers come in all shapes sizes sweetners carrots or sticks. It depends how you paddle your canoe. 

We don’t know if it is a genuine restoration scenario, as it’s only hypothetical. Maybe the restoration funding is going slow with regards to boating, so they’re looking at a different approach through canoeing, paddle boarding and wellness by the water, as this seams to be what CaRT are interested in. So may get a tick in the box with it, maybe more so then they would just concentrating on the boating approach. 

Edited September 9, 2022 by PD1964

[oboat]

5 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

This question is, to some extent, hypothetical, but not entirely. It's a canal restoration scenario 

 

Imagine two adjacent water bodies in seperate ownerships - for reasons of liability we can't link them - perhaps different landowners. But the risk, or at least the risk the landowners won't live with, is limited. In effect it's the risk of one length draining the other. For a variety of reasons full depth navigation isn't required and until the liabilities are sorted out it won't be possible. 

 

Could we seperate the two with a low wall (or even just stop planks) say 6 inches below the surface? Would a canoe or a paddleboard get over that? The length subect to this depth would probably be no more than a foot in total, so there would be no need to paddle for that distance, just drift over it? 

Any problems I haven't thought of? 

Thanks in anticipation!

This was a device often used in landscaped design on large estate lake systems to maintain an illusion of one large body of water where maintaining a water supply could not be guaranteed. 
Work punts would just drift over or be man-handled over the device as necessary. 
Also used between large park or estate lakes and adjacent ornamental lily ponds. 
The Basingstoke did have several feeding from its adjacent lakes and may still have. 
On the Thames I understand just such a device was built by the EA on St Patricks Stream (but I haven’t seen it) some time ago after a drought. They are also used on tidal river systems for flood control, R Crain (back channel) London. A sort of half tide weir.
In a modern context, canoe groups also build similar devices (often under a bridge) where river flow is restricted to the width of a canoe creating a mini weir or narrow deep channel. Some fishermen get very upset about them. 

The only potential problems I would see are related to the use of a fin or fins on a board or ruder on a canoe or boat. 
My 16’ x 4’-6” ply Phil Bolger with the 15hp outboard up would just drift through 9” depth depending on load. 

[PD1964]

1 hour ago, Stroudwater1 said:

It seems likely  an ownership/water rights type issue that’s being resolved perhaps bit by bit navigation wise?
 

wedges can start thin too.

Restoration answers come in all shapes sizes sweetners carrots or sticks. It depends how you paddle your canoe. 

 We will probably never know as it seams only a hypothetical question in a canal restoration scenario.

 Maybe the canal restoration society are looking at a different approach for funding, maybe down the road of wellness by the water with Canoeing and Paddle-boarding, instead of just the boat approach. CaRT may favour the Wellness route, as they’re very keen at pushing this at the minute, so may get a better response then using a canal for boating.

[magpie patrick]

In answer to PD - I'm dealing with a few instances where one of two situations prevails - one is a fear of a breach draining an adjacent length of canal - both sections are currently dry but one has breached in the past, the other is where the canal, as yet unrestored, is in different ownerships but whilst individual land owner agreements are available there isn't as yet one covering risks between landowners.

 

In both cases the issue is the same - some risk is acceptable but not total loss and a possible outcome (indeed quite a likely one) is that there will be bunds across the canal. The upshot of that is that restoration may not occur at all.

 

It's hypothetical because I had an idea and no one other than me is proposing it - I'm exploring ideas. Any solution would be temporary until agreements could be reached. At it's simplest I'd envisage stop planks left in except for the top couple - it could even be the rest were removed for event days and put back afterwards - it's not a long term proposal for a canoe canal. 

 

Incidentally this is a canal discussion forum - people do canoe and paddle on canals. 

[oboat]

34 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

In answer to PD - I'm dealing with a few instances where one of two situations prevails - one is a fear of a breach draining an adjacent length of canal - both sections are currently dry but one has breached in the past, the other is where the canal, as yet unrestored, is in different ownerships but whilst individual land owner agreements are available there isn't as yet one covering risks between landowners.

 

In both cases the issue is the same - some risk is acceptable but not total loss and a possible outcome (indeed quite a likely one) is that there will be bunds across the canal. The upshot of that is that restoration may not occur at all.

 

It's hypothetical because I had an idea and no one other than me is proposing it - I'm exploring ideas. Any solution would be temporary until agreements could be reached. At it's simplest I'd envisage stop planks left in except for the top couple - it could even be the rest were removed for event days and put back afterwards - it's not a long term proposal for a canoe canal. 

 

Incidentally this is a canal discussion forum - people do canoe and paddle on canals. 

Excellent solution. Agree a bund would not be the way to go.
Depending on funds a single guillotine within a simple frame would provide both a simple solution and a feature of interest.

A more interesting solution and potentially permanent feature of interest could be a "Public Art" sculpture manifesting itself as a lifting gate.

[PD1964]

58 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

In answer to PD - I'm dealing with a few instances where one of two situations prevails - one is a fear of a breach draining an adjacent length of canal - both sections are currently dry but one has breached in the past, the other is where the canal, as yet unrestored, is in different ownerships but whilst individual land owner agreements are available there isn't as yet one covering risks between landowners.

 

In both cases the issue is the same - some risk is acceptable but not total loss and a possible outcome (indeed quite a likely one) is that there will be bunds across the canal. The upshot of that is that restoration may not occur at all.

 

It's hypothetical because I had an idea and no one other than me is proposing it - I'm exploring ideas. Any solution would be temporary until agreements could be reached. At it's simplest I'd envisage stop planks left in except for the top couple - it could even be the rest were removed for event days and put back afterwards - it's not a long term proposal for a canoe canal. 

 

Incidentally this is a canal discussion forum - people do canoe and paddle on canals. 

Thank you for responding and clarifying the situation a bit more, good luck with your plans.