A day Gongoozling at Braunston

[Silent Flight]

Highlights;
 

Exhibition launch.

 

Raymond the working boat.

 

Some wide beams.

 

The rope shop peeps. Watched some fenders made.

 

The lady painting roses and castles. Particularly the old technique of mopping the boat (forgot what it’s called)

 

Finished off with a fryup on the aptly named Gongoozlers rest!

[Hudds Lad]

I do like to pop into Tradline, always ends up costing money though  

[Silent Flight]

1 hour ago, Hudds Lad said:

I do like to pop into Tradline, always ends up costing money though  

Easily done. Impressive Aladdin’s cave of boaty bits n bobs.

 

Nice people too. 

[alan_fincher]

2 hours ago, Owls Den said:

Highlights;
 

Exhibition launch.

 

Raymond the working boat.

 

Some wide beams.

 

The rope shop peeps. Watched some fenders made.

 

The lady painting roses and castles. Particularly the old technique of mopping the boat (forgot what it’s called)

 

Finished off with a fryup on the aptly named Gongoozlers rest!

 

 

A wide beam is surely never a highlight on a waterway that was traditionally never built for such a thing!

If you need to have Braunston Tunnel closed to all other traffic to allow your passage, I would argue the boat simply shouldn't be there.

[Lady M]

I'd say it was very unlikely that any of the widebeam boats in the photos shown by Owls Den will depart Braunston by canal.

[Silent Flight]

21 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

 

A wide beam is surely never a highlight on a waterway that was traditionally never built for such a thing!

If you need to have Braunston Tunnel closed to all other traffic to allow your passage, I would argue the boat simply shouldn't be there.

Well aware of the widebeam stigma after reading a long thread on here.
 

But I’m not getting into that, it was cool to see some newly built boats regardless of the dimensions. 

7 minutes ago, Lady C said:

I'd say it was very unlikely that any of the widebeam boats in the photos shown by Owls Den will depart Braunston by canal.

Would agree with that. Although one is in the water but still has lifting straps round her. Maybe just a test float before going onto a wagon headed to wider climes!

[magnetman]

I think they often do go by water. There was a yard at Warwick Delta marine who used to shift large barges down to civilisation by water rather than toad transport. 

They (Delta) did have collapsible wheelhouses though to be fair. 

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I think they often do go by water. There was a yard at Warwick Delta marine who used to shift large barges down to civilisation by water rather than toad transport. 

They (Delta) did have collapsible wheelhouses though to be fair. 

Wow, you'd need a *lot* of toads to shift a large barge... 😉

[Silent Flight]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

Wow, you'd need a *lot* of toads to shift a large barge... 😉

About 450thp 

 

That’s four hundred and fifty toad hop power 

[Mike Tee]

re the mop - wasn't it 'tingling'?

[Silent Flight]

That’s it. Was given a demonstration and told how they are made!

 

Learn something new everyday.

[Captain Pegg]

7 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

 

A wide beam is surely never a highlight on a waterway that was traditionally never built for such a thing!

If you need to have Braunston Tunnel closed to all other traffic to allow your passage, I would argue the boat simply shouldn't be there.

 

The Grand Junction canal with a nominal design channel width of 42', a minimum width of 14' at all structures, a documented history of commercial carrying using broad beam craft throughout it's length, and a legal requirement to be maintained to never less than 12' 6" width at any point based upon recorded usage in 1968?

 

 

Edited April 25, 2023 by Captain Pegg

[alan_fincher]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

The Grand Junction canal with a nominal design channel width of 42', a minimum width of 14' at all structures, a documented history of commercial carrying using broad beam craft throughout it's length, and a legal requirement to be maintained to never less than 12' 6" width at any point based upon recorded usage in 1968?

 

That Grand Junction canal???

 

Well there is of course both the theory and the actual reality.

 

It would be very hard to argue that the cutting sections of Tring summit ever had a design channel width of anywhere near to 42 feet.

I don't recall ever having seen old photos of wide beam working boats in or around Braunston.

 

[Captain Pegg]

4 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

Well there is of course both the theory and the actual reality.

 

It would be very hard to argue that the cutting sections of Tring summit ever had a design channel width of anywhere near to 42 feet.

I don't recall ever having seen old photos of wide beam working boats in or around Braunston.

 

 

42' is the nominal channel width but for geological/topographic reasons it wasn't achieved everywhere and yes the constraints of Tring cutting and more notably Blisworth and Braunston tunnels were detrimental to the economic viability of using broad craft, not least in relation to the impact it had on other craft.

 

So there is some precedent for your statement, but to claim the canal was never traditionally built for broad craft isn't true. Even Leslie Morton was quoted by David Blagrove as saying the purchase of the GUCCCo fleet of narrow boats was an interim measure but the GU's plans for further expansion never happened. We shouldn't rewrite history because we don't like someone else's boat.

[David Schweizer]

45 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

42' is the nominal channel width but for geological/topographic reasons it wasn't achieved everywhere and yes the constraints of Tring cutting and more notably Blisworth and Braunston tunnels were detrimental to the economic viability of using broad craft, not least in relation to the impact it had on other craft.

 

So there is some precedent for your statement, but to claim the canal was never traditionally built for broad craft isn't true. Even Leslie Morton was quoted by David Blagrove as saying the purchase of the GUCCCo fleet of narrow boats was an interim measure but the GU's plans for further expansion never happened. We shouldn't rewrite history because we don't like someone else's boat.

 

388 new Narrowboats in three years is a pretty adventurous "interim measure"

[Stroudwater1]

Kildare sure needs some paintwork at the fore. It’s hard to understand how it could have lost the paint in the way it has? 

[Captain Pegg]

Just now, David Schweizer said:

 

388 new Narrowboats in three years is a pretty adventurous "interim measure"

 

Not my words. I haven't checked the exact words that were used but it's David Blagrove's account of his conversations with Leslie Morton. Let's face it, he'd be the person to know. The more obvious reason for the GUCCCo purchasing narrowboats at that time was that they hadn't fully completed the widening to Birmingham (and never did) and most of the sources of long distance traffic on the fomer GJC were only directly accessible by narrowboats. They presumably built what they thought they needed for the intended traffic. Over ambitious as it turned out but surely the more critical factor is the intended lifespan (in terms of economic payback as much as physical) of the fleet rather than the size of it. Wide boats would have been potentially economically viable with widening of the Leicester line and the route to the Warwickshire coalfield which was the ambition.

 

Both Thomas Clayton (Paddington) and FMC operated wide boats on the northern GJC in addition to other small private operators. Very small numbers of craft in relation to narrowboats of course.

 

I find it hard to believe I'm telling you or Alan anything you haven't forgotten, I'm sure you've both got - or once had - the same reference material.

 

[IanM]

10 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Kildare sure needs some paintwork at the fore. It’s hard to understand how it could have lost the paint in the way it has? 

 

Kildare???

[Lady M]

In the background of the 7th photo.

[IanM]

Hadn't spotted that!

[Stroudwater1]

11 minutes ago, IanM said:

 

Kildare???

You’ve been out cruising for too long 🤣🤣

Tucked behind Raymond 

 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Stroudwater1

[Lady M]

That's a good close up.  Perhaps it just hasn't been painted for a long time? 

[magnetman]

What's that bar sticking out the side of the stem ?

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

What's that bar sticking out the side of the stem ?

 

It's used as guide to hold the cross straps down so they don't ride up over the stem.

[alan_fincher]

14 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

Both Thomas Clayton (Paddington) and FMC operated wide boats on the northern GJC in addition to other small private operators. Very small numbers of craft in relation to narrowboats of course.

 

I find it hard to believe I'm telling you or Alan anything you haven't forgotten, I'm sure you've both got - or once had - the same reference material.

 

Can you find any historical examples at all of wide beam boats active on the stretch of the GU between (say) Stoke Bruerne & Braunston, (other than dredgers, maintenance craft and tunnel tugs).

 

I'm familiar with one picture of a wide beam horse drawn trading boat in Stoke Bruerne Top Lock, but can't immediately think of any others.

If it were even only a fairly rare practice, I would still expect some more photos to exist depicting it.  My personal take is that if such photos are almost non existent, then it was not likely to have been very commonplace