70ft issues

[peterboat]

12 hours ago, MtB said:

 

To be fair much of it is wide enough for two 13ft fatties to squeeze past each other (here at the eastern end anyway). But it just seems so bloody selfish to be grabbing so much 'canal estate' with a boat one third of the width of much the canal.

 

Most of them look totally out of proportion, like when you see a tipper lorry driving up a small residential cul-de-sac. 

 

 

 

(Mebbe that was a bad analogy, lol!)

 

 

Was the canal made for broad beam boats? Everything I read says it was, so who is the interloper?

[magnetman]

Some people argue that use of canals which have wide locks and wide bridgeholes by wide beam craft could cause positive outcomes in terms if maintenance and things like vegetation management. If people moan maybe things get sorted out ? (naive hat on). 

 

Use it or lose it. I'm not that convinced that wide boats are appropriate but in these austere days one could argue that more people using and contributing funds might actually be quite a Good Thing overall regardless of individual gripes around the issues. Did anyone actually get blocked in forever?

 

 

 

 

 

No one died. 

[Mike Adams]

My main gripe with them is that they are primary houseboats yet they sign themselves up as continuous cruisers of which they are neither continuously moving  or using the canals for a leisure experience. They are often left unattended for days and sometimes weeks in the most awkward positions often next to bridgeholes so blocking the line of sight. Since they displace nearly twice the volume of water than a narrow boat they cause much more erosion to the bank  unless they travel at horse drawn speed and no one can pass. They are also built like boxes and tend to cut into the profile the canal bed. Nearly all the the working boats in the south were timber and round bilge so much more sympathetic to the waterway. All in all I would say they are a very bad thing down here in the south.

[kris88]

Oh look another thread bashing widebeams. 

[magpie patrick]

On 09/05/2023 at 23:10, peterboat said:

Was the canal made for broad beam boats? Everything I read says it was, so who is the interloper?

 

Yes but... 

 

The boats were round chined not flat bottomed

There weren't many of them (boats, wide beam of not) 

They weren't motorised

The canal has deteriorated significantly in 200 years, and whilst it has been restored it is by no means "as new"

 

Edited to add the wide beams that find it easiest on the K&A are genuine Dutch barges with round chines and good swims

 

Cries of "what was it built for" can be met with "boats pulled by horses"! 

[Tony Brooks]

18 minutes ago, kris88 said:

Oh look another thread bashing widebeams. 

 

So is it fair to assume that you think those who are warning about the likely problems a novice boater will face on rivers and a particular river system in point are crying wolf. If so, that means that you are trying to tell the OP that they have nothing to worry about. I think you are being terribly irresponsible.

 

The warnings about the time and expense of fitting out are brought to the attention of anyone who asks about how   wise it is, be a wide or narrow beam. In fact, the OP has been encouraged to look at slightly narrower beam boats, as they should be easier to navigate.

 

It also seems clear that the OP had no idea that their chosen waterway was EA controlled rather than CaRT with different rules and regulations, or that it tends to be very fast reacting to rain in its catchment.

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, magpie patrick said:

 

Yes but... 

 

The boats were round chined not flat bottomed

There weren't many of them (boats, wide beam of not) 

They weren't motorised

The canal has deteriorated significantly in 200 years, and whilst it has been restored it is by no means "as new"

 

Edited to add the wide beams that find it easiest on the K&A are genuine Dutch barges with round chines and good swims

 

Cries of "what was it built for" can be met with "boats pulled by horses"! 

At the end of the day its a broad canal for broad boats not narrowboats and should be maintained as that

[Mike Adams]

As one who was involved with the restoration of both the Kennet and Avon and Basingstoke Canal I can say that the profiles of these canals were really only designed for the slow passage of a horse drawn wide beam barge and are not suitable for 14ft square section boxes propelled by a large diesel engine. I would say that generally the profile hasn't changed that much. Just because a boat can fit the theoretical dimensions does not mean that it is a suitable vessel for the canal. 

[David Mack]

5 hours ago, peterboat said:

At the end of the day its a broad canal for broad boats not narrowboats and should be maintained as that

"Should"? Says who?

Regardless, anybody intending to boat on the canal would be well advised to take into account its actual condition, and not some theoretical ideal maintenance scenario.

[dmr]

5 hours ago, peterboat said:

At the end of the day its a broad canal for broad boats not narrowboats and should be maintained as that

 

But even the canals built as broad canals were likely not designed to have huge rows of moored boats, and realistically a lot of dredging is never going to happen so we have to live with what we have now.

[IanD]

38 minutes ago, David Mack said:

"Should"? Says who?

Regardless, anybody intending to boat on the canal would be well advised to take into account its actual condition, and not some theoretical ideal maintenance scenario.

Peter thinks all "broad" canals *should* be like the one he's on, big enough for 2 14' wide square-section fatties to pass moored boats, or the Exol Pride... 😉

Edited May 12, 2023 by IanD

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

But even the canals built as broad canals were likely not designed to have huge rows of moored boats, and realistically a lot of dredging is never going to happen so we have to live with what we have now.

 

 

This is a good point.

 

A row of moored 13ft widebeams being passed by a 13ft widebeam which then meets another one the same coming the other way, requires the canal to be wide enough to fit three 13ft widebeams across it. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2023 by MtB
Fiddle with it...

[magpie patrick]

6 hours ago, peterboat said:

At the end of the day its a broad canal for broad boats not narrowboats and should be maintained as that

 

Fine - broad boats pulled by an 'oss. You can't have it both ways. 

[IanD]

1 minute ago, magpie patrick said:

 

Fine - broad boats pulled by an 'oss. You can't have it both ways. 

And proper boat-shaped wooden boats, not square-section steel boxes... 😉

[sueb]

Basingstoke locks were originally built to 13'10"

[blackrose]

On 08/05/2023 at 12:46, peterboat said:

I have a 57 x 12 and wouldn't contemplate anything larger, we are based in the North with mostly big waterways for big boats. Down south you are going to be deeply unpopular. Think carefully before going that large

 

My boat is the same dimensions and I've taken it all the way along the K&A from Reading to Bristol single handed without any issues. However that was 10 years ago when it was probably less congested. Any widebeam longer than 60ft is asking for trouble on canals.

On 12/05/2023 at 08:16, magpie patrick said:

Edited to add the wide beams that find it easiest on the K&A are genuine Dutch barges with round chines and good swims

 

I'm not sure that's true Patrick. My 12ft widebeam is hard chined but draws only 2ft at the sides (2ft 3in at the skeg) which is less than many narrow boats. I had no issues getting into any moorings on the K&A. Conversely I've seen genuine Dutch barges in trouble on the GU simply because they draw too much along the centre at the stern so I assume they'd have similar problems on the K&A. All other things being equal, if a boat has double or round chines it'll have a deeper overall draught compared to a hard chined, slab sided boat - that's just physics. There's also the high air draught of some genuine Dutch barges, even those with folding wheelhouses, which can have problems with low bridges and curved bridgeholes.

Edited May 14, 2023 by blackrose

[Steilsteven]

On 09/05/2023 at 23:10, peterboat said:

Was the canal made for broad beam boats? Everything I read says it was, so who is the interloper?

The Kennet navigation was originally built for barges 110' x 17' and a few of the locks of this size remain today.

The Kennet and Avon Canal Company's recommended dimensions for barges on their canal was 69' x 12'9'' I seem to remember from the K&ACT website.

A couple of the Kennet Navigation locks were rebuilt to the K&A canal dimensions and during ''restoration'' a number of the locks were resited close to the originals and built from steel pilings and to smaller dimensions, Burghfield lock and Sulhamstead lock were given oversized cills which prevent historic narrow boat pairs from locking down together. 

From a personal viewpoint, 'Petra' being 66' x 12' has proven to be an ideal size for this waterway and preferable ( especially on the Kennet ) than any narrow boat.

 

Keith 

On 12/05/2023 at 08:16, magpie patrick said:

 

Yes but... 

 

The boats were round chined not flat bottomed

There weren't many of them (boats, wide beam of not) 

They weren't motorised

The canal has deteriorated significantly in 200 years, and whilst it has been restored it is by no means "as new"

 

Edited to add the wide beams that find it easiest on the K&A are genuine Dutch barges with round chines and good swims

 

Cries of "what was it built for" can be met with "boats pulled by horses"! 

I agree with all of that and would add that the canal wasn't intended for boats to moor wherever they like along the towpath, the were expected to travel from wharf to wharf. 

 

Keith

On 12/05/2023 at 15:44, magpie patrick said:

 

Fine - broad boats pulled by an 'oss. You can't have it both ways. 

Likewise narrow canals were built for narrow boats pulled by an 'oss.

[Mike Adams]

1 hour ago, Steilsteven said:

The Kennet navigation was originally built for barges 110' x 17' and a few of the locks of this size remain today.

Yes but it was built for 'West Country' Thames barges which were large but had a very very shallow draught and could make their way up the Thames either under sail for by being pulled from the bank before there were all those fancy pound locks on the Thames.

[Tigerr]

On 12/05/2023 at 09:26, peterboat said:

At the end of the day its a broad canal for broad boats not narrowboats and should be maintained as that

Blimey. There speaks a bloke moored in a deep sided canal I think, who knows the K&A like the back of someone else's hand. 

The K&A is a very badly, cheaply built canal, profiled for rounded chine shallow boats, to make quicker profits for the various landowners en route. Not designed to last long, nor ever designed for 'moored boats'.

There are not many mooring places. 

I spent 10 years on it. Even narrow boats of modern square profile don't get near the sides along most of it - because it wasn't designed for boats to stop. Stopped boats were losing money. If the landowners could have seen the future opportunity they'd have built them, but what they built was a freight travel sluice between the thames and bristol. A road.

Thats why mooring is such an issue. Technically you can fit a modern wide-beam into the central channel but only on a one-way system. It's a nightmare either meeting. or following a wide beam on this canal. 

The main problem you will encounter is resentment and hostility from people trying to use the canal as a navigation, to actually go somewhere, regarding your gamed alternative housing solution as a social nuisance. Actually that's people like me. 

You will experience the feeling of being unwelcome, and all that entails. 

 

[ditchcrawler]

11 minutes ago, Tigerr said:

Blimey. There speaks a bloke moored in a deep sided canal I think, who knows the K&A like the back of someone else's hand. 

The K&A is a very badly, cheaply built canal, profiled for rounded chine shallow boats, to make quicker profits for the various landowners en route. Not designed to last long, nor ever designed for 'moored boats'.

There are not many mooring places. 

I spent 10 years on it. Even narrow boats of modern square profile don't get near the sides along most of it - because it wasn't designed for boats to stop. Stopped boats were losing money. If the landowners could have seen the future opportunity they'd have built them, but what they built was a freight travel sluice between the thames and bristol. A road.

Thats why mooring is such an issue. Technically you can fit a modern wide-beam into the central channel but only on a one-way system. It's a nightmare either meeting. or following a wide beam on this canal. 

The main problem you will encounter is resentment and hostility from people trying to use the canal as a navigation, to actually go somewhere, regarding your gamed alternative housing solution as a social nuisance. Actually that's people like me. 

You will experience the feeling of being unwelcome, and all that entails. 

 

I think it was probably the last place I used a gang plank

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think it was probably the last place I used a gang plank

 

Me too. I used one constantly but I always felt the reason I needed to was virtually none of the banks are piling-edged. Just rough unkempt banks six feet high with weeds in a lot of places. Unlike a lot of the rest of the canal system. 

 

 

But I guess this is partly what Tiggerr was saying, just in a different way.

[LadyG]

On 08/05/2023 at 12:46, peterboat said:

I have a 57 x 12 and wouldn't contemplate anything larger, we are based in the North with mostly big waterways for big boats. Down south you are going to be deeply unpopular. Think carefully before going that large

I single hand a 57ft narrow boat, and have sailed longer boats in my salty water days. I now find that I can pretty much judge a gap when mooring up, but I think I would struggle with anything longer, not sure about width from that perspective, but I really would draw the line about 12ft 6 from point of view of aesthetics, and boat handling. I don't think the gain in interior footage would ever compensate. 

 

On 07/05/2023 at 15:10, Alakefic said:

Ha I get it!  You mean we’d be a pain in the a**e.  However, prejudice aside, the question was what problems might we face but thank you for you response

Would being unpopular not be a problem to you? 

[cuthound]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

Me too. I used one constantly but I always felt the reason I needed to was virtually none of the banks are piling-edged. Just rough unkempt banks six feet high with weeds in a lot of places. Unlike a lot of the rest of the canal system. 

 

 

But I guess this is partly what Tiggerr was saying, just in a different way.

 

I was last there in the early 2000's and then it was the only canal with high weeds on the bank.

 

I thin BW then later CRT used this as a prototype for the current vegetation control programme...

[Steilsteven]

Taken from K&ACT website -

 

Working the Canal – The Boats & Barges

Types of craft

Narrow boats and Kennet barges were the primary craft used on the Kennet and Avon Canal.The canal company specified that these had to be of the following dimensions:

• Approved barge (Class A) – 69 feet (21m) long x 5 feet (1.5m) deep x 12ft 4ins (3.8m) beam, with a capacity of 60 tons.
• Approved boat (Class A) – 69 feet long x 4 feet (1.2m) deep x 6 ft 11ins (2.1m)beam with a capacity of 35 tons.
• Non-approved vessels (Class – to the maximum dimensions of 69 feet long x 5 feet deep x 14 feet (4.3m) beam, with a capacity of 70 tons.

The company also approved a boat it called the mule boat (wide boat).This had the same dimensions as the approved barge except that the beam was 10 feet (3m) giving it a capacity of approximately 50 tons. While the cabin of the barge was below the rear deck with access by a companionway, the mule by comparison had the appearance of an over wide narrow boat.

 

The barges indeed may have had rounded chines but they also drew a great deal more than any modern canal pleasure craft today.

 

Keith

Some additional history 

 

https://rbt.org.uk/john-rennie/projects/kennet-avon-canal-overview/