Rochdale Canal reduced dimensions

[Adam]

Flicking around the CRT website I noticed they have the published width on the Rochdale as 9ft6 now, I was aware it was never restored to the full 14ft but used to be 13ft2 or so?

 

Is there a single particular restriction that reduces the dimension significantly, and is it a temporary measure? I assume not given that's now it's published dimension.

 

 

[magnetman]

That is interesting. The Boat I am sitting in now was built on the Rochdale canal and is 9ft wide. 1996.

 

Maybe they knew something about a structure somewhere. 

 

Needs checking with the CRT. 

 

 

Google search comes up with 9ft5ins at the top of the page so it does seem to be an official published dimension. 

 

 

(I asked for rochdale canal dimensions canal trust). If one just asks for Rochdale canal dimensions it says 14ft. Big diffference. 

Curiously the CRT .pdf on the matter says this... 

3ft9 seems nice and deep.

But how can a 'pinch point' be 4 feet wider than the maximum beam??

 

Someone has inputted incorrect data I think. 

[Alway Swilby]

Is that the moveable towpath underthe M62 is no longer moveable?

[pearley]

Original dimensions as far as I can tell were 14ft 2ins.

 

Canalplan lists it as 13ft 2ins which probably reflects the couple of locks on the Western side which are signed as one boat only.

 

The width as you drop down into Manchester was restricted as it was never dredged back to full width. Perhaps this narrower dimension reflects the lack of dredging since reopening.

[dmr]

8 minutes ago, Alway Swilby said:

Is that the moveable towpath underthe M62 is no longer moveable?

 

I would think the metal towpath resticts things to much less than 9 foot, its quite a squeeze getting a narrowboat through.

I think the concrete posts supporting a building right at the Manchester end are the limit, but these are more than 9 foot.

I know of one widebeam that gets through quite often and I think its 10 foot.

I suspect the 6 foot 6 is an error, but I also suspect that a deeper widebeam would really struggle with the "Newton Heath Narrows" so maybe this is CRT suggesting that wider boats are probably not guaranteed to get through.

[David Mack]

7 hours ago, dmr said:

 

I think the concrete posts supporting a building right at the Manchester end are the limit

The columns under what I still think of as Rodwell Tower (although it has been renamed a couple of times since), below the top lock of the Nine, only slightly restrict the maximum width. They are also quite gouged by passing boats. I would think some of the narrowed locks to the west are a greater constraint.

7 hours ago, dmr said:

but I also suspect that a deeper widebeam would really struggle with the "Newton Heath Narrows" so maybe this is CRT suggesting that wider boats are probably not guaranteed to get through.

Most "widebeam narrow boat" type wide boats are pretty shallow drafted, so would probably be able to get through this section as well as deeper drafted narrow boats. As would widebeam craft with more rounded or V-shaped hulls.

[Ian Mac]

Rochdale width limits.
9ft 6 is the max width that can traverse the canal without booking a passage under the M62 Motorway below Castleton  between locks 52 & 53.
13ft2 is the limit imposed by the out of line car park support for Rodwell Tower 111 Piccadilly, between locks 85 & 84 and is absolute. We will have to wait for the area to be redeveloped, it will happen!.
There are several locks where two narrow boats do not fit side by side, and therefore have to single out, unfortunately they are mostly on the run up and over the summit.

Locks 34, 40, 47 spring instantly to mind but I think there are others 37 west summit can be over tight for two historics. However you would get a 13ft 2" boat through them all. 

 

I have personally help to take a 12ft boat across from Lancashire and then he came back again, too long for the Hebble Locks. But he did know that before he got very far. Crap hull design, so he picked stuff up on the blades for fun! We must have spent significantly more time down the weed hatch on the Manchester 18 than boating, which given it sat on the surface was a surprise to start with.

--

Cheers Ian Mac

[dmr]

Is it really 9 foot 6 under the M62 below Rochdale? It always feels really tight, I will check next time we go down there.

Both the Punchbowl locks are subsided, and also lock 7? at Mytholmroyd. We have taken two boats through lock 34 many times, but one has to be 57 foot or less, and I believe boats have shared most of the other subsided locks, but there have also been a few mishaps too. I suspect it would be just too risky for CRT to say fenders up and take care 😀.

Realistically I can't see any prospect of these locks even getting fixed, its going to be a challenge just to keep the Rochdale open.

There can't be many widebeams over 12 foot 6 that would want to tackle the Rochdale though I have heard that one of the big residential boats just below Hebden Bridge is effectively trapped.

The Newton Heath Narrows do appear to upset a lot of visiting boats but are a part of the canal character and history so it would be quite sad to fix them, but it would be great if the channel was a bit deeper.

 

[Midnight]

Rumours abound (from a good source) C&RT will find a major defect and close the Rochdale Summit. Seems they can't close the Huddersfield because the tunnel is a heritage site. Some Yorkshire folk would say they already closed it.

[dmr]

3 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Rumours abound (from a good source) C&RT will find a major defect and close the Rochdale Summit. Seems they can't close the Huddersfield because the tunnel is a heritage site. Some Yorkshire folk would say they already closed it.

 

They have just done a lot of work on Longlees (Eastern Summit) lock so this would show a lack of clear thinking.

If things are really bad then I can see that closing the Rochdale from maybe Littleborough to Manchester would be tempting, there are a lot of lock gates all coming up to 25 years old. But the Rochdale is a good Pennine route and can potentially take widebeams. The HNC is not really a good trans-pennine route, its narrow and has a lot of problems. I would think that closing that would make more sense, and just keeping the tunnel open for the trip boat.

The L&L is a long canal and has as many problems as the Rochdale, if not more, so again is far from a good cross pennine route.

 

My own plan for keeping things open on a reduced budget would be to make the Rochdale a winter route, when it has plently of water, and close it late summer to get the stoppages done when it likely runs out of water anyway. CRT should be looking seriously at doing a lot more work in the summer when the weather and daylight are more favourable, and only limiting themselves to winter stoppages on the popular holiday canals.

An increasing number of new boaters are "minimum distance CCers" and these love a good stoppage, they can both moan about it and stay still for a long time. 😀

[Midnight]

2 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

They have just done a lot of work on Longlees (Eastern Summit) lock so this would show a lack of clear thinking.

If things are really bad then I can see that closing the Rochdale from maybe Littleborough to Manchester would be tempting, there are a lot of lock gates all coming up to 25 years old. But the Rochdale is a good Pennine route and can potentially take widebeams. The HNC is not really a good trans-pennine route, its narrow and has a lot of problems. I would think that closing that would make more sense, and just keeping the tunnel open for the trip boat.

The L&L is a long canal and has as many problems as the Rochdale, if not more, so again is far from a good cross pennine route.

 

My own plan for keeping things open on a reduced budget would be to make the Rochdale a winter route, when it has plently of water, and close it late summer to get the stoppages done when it likely runs out of water anyway. CRT should be looking seriously at doing a lot more work in the summer when the weather and daylight are more favourable, and only limiting themselves to winter stoppages on the popular holiday canals.

An increasing number of new boaters are "minimum distance CCers" and these love a good stoppage, they can both moan about it and stay still for a long time. 😀

 

C&RT "clear thinking" ?????

[Adam]

Response from CRT... I have asked for clarification, it seems that's the "I haven't actually checked what you asked" response 

 

Thank you for contacting Canal and River Trust. 

 

The waterway dimensions listed on the website are not temporary. If a canals maximum dimensions vary this will be noted so boaters know how far they will be able to travel along the navigation. 

 

[IanD]

21 minutes ago, Adam said:

Response from CRT... I have asked for clarification, it seems that's the "I haven't actually checked what you asked" response 

 

Thank you for contacting Canal and River Trust. 

 

The waterway dimensions listed on the website are not temporary. If a canals maximum dimensions vary this will be noted so boaters know how far they will be able to travel along the navigation. 

 

Going by the response from @Ian Mac it looks as if the 2.3m/9'5" width is correct for routine boat passages *unless* you specifically book for the walkway under the M62 to be removed -- so given that CART don't want wider boats turning up and finding they can't get through, that would explain why they don't list the width as 13'2". Presumably any widebeam owners would then be aware of the need to book the walkway removal.

 

It would be helpful if they made this clearer though...

Edited January 4 by IanD

[Jen-in-Wellies]

32 minutes ago, IanD said:

Going by the response from @Ian Mac it looks as if the 2.3m/9'5" width is correct for routine boat passages *unless* you specifically book for the walkway under the M62 to be removed -- so given that CART don't want wider boats turning up and finding they can't get through, that would explain why they don't list the width as 13'2". Presumably any widebeam owners would then be aware of the need to book the walkway removal.

 

It would be helpful if they made this clearer though...

Which is inconsistent with what they say for the Grand Union. This gives a boat width of 12'6", but you can only go through Blisworth Tunnel with a CaRT booking. Still, it is CaRT, so we don't expect the left hand to know what the right is doing.

[dmr]

I have heard that shifting the walkway gave a lot of trouble a while ago, so maybe CRT are no longer willing to guarantee passage for widebeams. This is sad but times are hard and maintaining the moveble walkway just for the one or two widebeams that us it each year is probably not the best use of funds. CRT have reduced the navigable width of the GU recently so are obviously prepared to do this.

As IanD points out, CRT really don't want boats just turning up at awkward times and demanding passage, though I am still amazed at the number of boats that set of on a big journey without doing even basic research of what might lie ahead. 

[magpie patrick]

19 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Which is inconsistent with what they say for the Grand Union. This gives a boat width of 12'6", but you can only go through Blisworth Tunnel with a CaRT booking. Still, it is CaRT, so we don't expect the left hand to know what the right is doing.

 

a 12 foot 6 beam will physically fit through the GU tunnels, it just needs managing, whereas a wide beam turning up at the narrows on the Rochdale won't get through at all, even unoficially

 

There is probably also the matter of the 1968 Transport Act on the GU, as ISTR this specifies that cruising waterways must be maintained for craft typically navigating in 1967 (or something like that) whereas the Rochdale is a remainder waterway. 

 

 

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Which is inconsistent with what they say for the Grand Union. This gives a boat width of 12'6", but you can only go through Blisworth Tunnel with a CaRT booking. Still, it is CaRT, so we don't expect the left hand to know what the right is doing.

 

 

True, but AFAIK the big difference is that for Blisworth nothing has to be physically done to let the widebeam through, just a notification to other boats not to use the tunnel at this time. And presumably a sneaky (or stupid) widebeam could ignore all this and either take a chance or go through at night when nobody else is likely to be doing the same... 😉

 

For the M62 CART staff have to turn up and unlock and remove the walkway and then put it back afterwards -- which is a good reason for saying 9'5" is the maximum width, whether they still do this or not.

 

Don't think it's anything to do with left-hand/right-hand or CART incompetence, just different circumstances.

[___]

The notice for booking of passage of the moveable towpath is still current.

 

Although as 9’ 5” constitutes a wide beam craft it’s difficult to deduce exactly what width of craft CRT think can navigate the Rochdale yet still need the towpath to be removed.

The GU case is most definitely temporary (at least officially) and relates to the bridge below Shop Lock. There is a legal requirement to maintain that waterway fit for boats of 12’ 6” beam.

 

Previous threads have shown CRT’s grasp on their own published dimensions can be tenuous. As with all things CRT this is more likely cock-up than conspiracy and I think perhaps stems from the maintenance of the published dimensions by operational staff concerned with real time issues rather than asset management staff with an understanding of the legal requirements and longer term strategy.

 

Just to prove the point while the GU between Whilton and Camp Hill accommodates 12’ 6” craft the Oxford between Napton and Braunston is 7’ maximum beam.

 

[magnetman]

Just now, IanD said:

 

(or stupid) widebeam could ignore all this and either take a chance or go through at night when nobody else is likely to be doing the same... 😉

 

 

When I was Boating on the Grand Union a lot with a narrow Boat I often went through the tunnel when it was getting dark. Its quite an efficient use of time. There were reliable moorings each side so no need to go particularly far. 

 

This was before the wide beans became common. In fact there were virtually none of them at all. There was a big one at Bulbourne near the dry dock on a mooring but very few others. 

The only time I recall the tunnel being stopped for a wide bean it turned out to be a 9ft wide GRP Seamaster 25. 

 

 

[dmr]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

True, but AFAIK the big difference is that for Blisworth nothing has to be physically done to let the widebeam through, just a notification to other boats not to use the tunnel at this time. And presumably a sneaky (or stupid) widebeam could ignore all this and either take a chance or go through at night when nobody else is likely to be doing the same... 😉

 

For the M62 CART staff have to turn up and unlock and remove the walkway and then put it back afterwards -- which is a good reason for saying 9'5" is the maximum width, whether they still do this or not.

 

Don't think it's anything to do with left-hand/right-hand or CART incompetence, just different circumstances.

 

It would be interesting to know the history of this. There is a road under the M62 only about 100m away from the canal so with a bit of volunteer effort, and assuming no land ownership issues, a towpath diversion is quite possible and so the walkway could be removed. This is what happens just a bit further up where the canal goes under the A664.

[magnetman]

Just now, dmr said:

 

 assuming no land ownership issues,

Maybe there is a land ownership issue. 

[Stroudwater1]

27 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

True, but AFAIK the big difference is that for Blisworth nothing has to be physically done to let the widebeam through, just a notification to other boats not to use the tunnel at this time. And presumably a sneaky (or stupid) widebeam could ignore all this and either take a chance or go through at night when nobody else is likely to be doing the same... 😉

 

For the M62 CART staff have to turn up and unlock and remove the walkway and then put it back afterwards -- which is a good reason for saying 9'5" is the maximum width, whether they still do this or not.

 

Don't think it's anything to do with left-hand/right-hand or CART incompetence, just different circumstances.

Theres no reason why this couldn’t be a volunteer to do this locking and unlocking though? I understand it’s volunteers that oversee the tunnel passages on the GU? 
 

 

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Theres no reason why this couldn’t be a volunteer to do this locking and unlocking though? I understand it’s volunteers that oversee the tunnel passages on the GU? 
 

 

It's not just unlocking, the (heavy) pontoons have to be physically dragged out from the underpass to the wider section outside it and secured there, presumably with plenty of opportunity for shenanigans like falling in, squashed fingers, damaged boats. It's not just watching/checking like with tunnel passages...

Edited January 4 by IanD

[dmr]

1 minute ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Theres no reason why this couldn’t be a volunteer to do this locking and unlocking though? I understand it’s volunteers that oversee the tunnel passages on the GU? 
 

 

 

Its a big hefty structure with various legs which are mechanically or possibly hydraulically operated and then the structure moved out of the tunnel into a little layby. I suspect big training and insurance issues for volunteer operation. There is also the danger of daft cyclists not noticing that the structure has moved and cycling into the cut. I believe this happened recently.

[Ian Mac]

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

Maybe there is a land ownership issue. 

As the land agent from Transco told me "the ownership in that area is the ultimate nightmare". Just to the north a fully euro spec roadbridge had to be installed, at vast additional expense, during restoration, at the adjoining landowners insistence. Originally the crossing here was a lift bridge, which gave access to the towpath on the Heywood arm as its main purpose. I believe he had improved this by some dubious means, when the motorways was built and thus was able to claim he had an unimpeded right of access to his land, which historically it never had, from the Manchester Rd side.
The route under the motorway that the canal now takes was originally provided to provide an access for the farm on the south side and to the east of the original canal line. I do not know the history of what happened here, but the farmer was very upset by the changes, and as I understand it ended up getting a custodial sentence for criminal damage to the new canal and lock. This problem or whatever, seems to be still simmering away.
Due to this and practicality, a minimum of two people are required to move the pontoon out from under the motorway. I have helped do this once. It is not a regular event.  There is no reason why a pair of trained volunteers could not do this task.  However there are not that many volunteer lock keepers on the west side.
To move the pontoon you need a van, because you have to go to the depot (Grove Rd on the HVNC) to get the power pack, and a trolley/wheel barrow to move it. The power pack is a petrol? engined powered hydraulic pump, a set of hoses, and a control lever. You use it to lift the legs of the pontoon one at a time. On arrival you go to the south end and erect a towpath closed sign with diversion route, which means the towpath users will have to walk up to the main road and then under the motorway and back down another track back to the towpath,there is no other route, I am aware of.
One then goes to the north of the motorway, erect another closure sign there , unload the power pack and wheel it down to the pontoon, close the gates detach the pontoon, lift the legs and then pull it out of the way, into its layby, let the boat through, get it back into place (this is harder) drop its legs and lift it into place, attach it, open the gates, reload the power pack into the van, an uphill task, remove the diversion signs and retreat to Grove Rd, to drop off the power pack. Takes about three and a half hours approx. It is normal practice not to start till you can see the white of the eyes of the broad beam boater. There are all sorts of stories and myths of the team moving the pontoon, and then discovering the wide beam broken down in the lock above, etc, etc So now they have to be there waiting when you arrive otherwise, its a no show and you go get on with something else - normally clearing yet another poorly designed by-wash grid.

 

--

cheers Ian Mac
edited in an attempt to fix my dyslexia

Edited January 4 by Ian Mac