Staffs & Worcs height restrictions

[David Mutch]

Hi all. The official C&RT dimensions for the Staffs & Worcs says it has a maximum headroom of 6 feet. I've searched all over, but can't find any information about where the pinch points might be, or even any mention of any particularly low bridges, etc. Anyone out there with local knowledge? Thanks 

Edited February 2 by David Mutch

[Captain Pegg]

Staffs & Worcs bridges are on the whole quite generous compared to some other narrow canals. They are wider than the Shroppie and taller than the T&M.

 

I can’t immediately think of a specific pinch point. In any case it really depends if your problem is simply overall height (in which case your limiting point is likely to be a flat soffited bridge) or having a cabin that combines both relative weight and height (in which case your limiting point is likely to be an arched bridge). The main risk is many of the arched bridges are relatively wide and flat so you could possibly come into contact with the arch if you go too far out on the offside.

The published craft dimensions were originally derived from the size of boats using the waterway in the 1960s hence they do not directly reflect any specific piece of infrastructure unless a specific need to do so has arisen. The fact there is no specific information for Staffs & Worcs in the CRT dimensions is probably because there aren’t any known problems with headroom.

 

 

 

Edited February 3 by Captain Pegg

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

Staffs & Worcs bridges are on the whole quite generous compared to some other narrow canals. They are wider than the Shroppie and taller than the T&M.

 

I can’t immediately think of a specific pinch point. In any case it really depends if your problem is simply overall height (in which case your limiting point is likely to be a flat soffited bridge) or having a cabin that combines both relative weight and height (in which case your limiting point is likely to be an arched bridge). The main risk is many of the arched bridges are relatively wide and flat so you could possibly come into contact with the arch if you go too far out on the offside.

The published craft dimensions were originally derived from the size of boats using the waterway in the 1960s hence they do not directly reflect any specific piece of infrastructure unless a specific need to do so has arisen. The fact there is no specific information for Staffs & Worcs in the CRT dimensions is probably because there aren’t any known problems with headroom.

 

 

 

Oops. Left it too late to edit but obviously ‘weight’ should read ‘width’ in the above.

[Stroudwater1]

I agree, Cookley tunnel possibly could be the lowest but still not anything significant. That maybe because the overall fit feels restricted with the towpath railings and sensation of a house on top of you in a tight space. 
 

Worth remembering that Dawncraft boats with fairly high headroom were mainly manufactured at Kinver. Canal Pleasurecraft boats at Stourport were designed to go under all navigable canal bridges in the 70s. Only the bridge into Bancroft basin on the Stratford and Harecastle then were a really tight fit. (Later Leek tunnel on the Caldon and Dudley weren’t navigable) 

[BEngo]

Some of the lock tail bridges are low, particularly the flat cantilever ones where BW added railings with supports below the bridge.

[David Mutch]

2 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

Staffs & Worcs bridges are on the whole quite generous compared to some other narrow canals. They are wider than the Shroppie and taller than the T&M.

 

I can’t immediately think of a specific pinch point. In any case it really depends if your problem is simply overall height (in which case your limiting point is likely to be a flat soffited bridge) or having a cabin that combines both relative weight and height (in which case your limiting point is likely to be an arched bridge). The main risk is many of the arched bridges are relatively wide and flat so you could possibly come into contact with the arch if you go too far out on the offside.

The published craft dimensions were originally derived from the size of boats using the waterway in the 1960s hence they do not directly reflect any specific piece of infrastructure unless a specific need to do so has arisen. The fact there is no specific information for Staffs & Worcs in the CRT dimensions is probably because there aren’t any known problems with headroom.

 

 

 

Thanks. That's in one way reassuring and in another worrying, as now it seems I can't rely on C&RT's official dimensions! For example, they quote 6 foot headroom for the Stourbridge canal too, and don't give any specific pinch points, although I believe there is one at Brettell Lane bridge. 

48 minutes ago, BEngo said:

Some of the lock tail bridges are low, particularly the flat cantilever ones where BW added railings with supports below the bridge.

Thanks. That's worth being aware of. Nearly lost a chimney a few times that way!

[David Mack]

What type/size of boat are you wanting to take up the S&W? 

[David Mutch]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

What type/size of boat are you wanting to take up the S&W? 

A 50' narrowboat

[Rob-M]

1 hour ago, David Mutch said:

Brettell Lane bridg

We've had a few close scrapes with the working boats on that bridge.

[dave moore]

Last time I went under was with the unconverted Josher Crane. The top mast and Luby had to be removed to ensure clearance. Even then, there was only an inch or so of clearance between bridge arch and cratch. Fun and games!

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, David Mutch said:

A 50' narrowboat

As long as you don't have anything high on the roof you should be fine.

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, David Mack said:

As long as you don't have anything high on the roof you should be fine.

 

One man's high is another man's low.

[Split Pin]

The tightest bridge is probably Whittington Horse Bridge, doesn't help that its not square to the canal so has to be steered through.

[David Mack]

27 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

One man's high is another man's low.

Thousands of narrow boats pass along the Staff & Worcs every year without problems. Why is the OP concerned?

[Alan de Enfield]

3 hours ago, David Mack said:

Thousands of narrow boats pass along the Staff & Worcs every year without problems. Why is the OP concerned?

 

Maybe his air draft is 6 foot (ish) so C&RT have basically told him he cannot 'fit' on the S&W.

 

He boat is based on the K&A so maybe he has logs, a bicycle, 20 bags of coal and a wheelbarrow on his roof ?

Edited February 3 by Alan de Enfield

[Mike Todd]

On 03/02/2024 at 13:45, Alan de Enfield said:

 

One man's high is another man's low.

Yup - when you get under you are low and when you don't , you are high!

[David Mutch]

On 03/02/2024 at 17:17, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Maybe his air draft is 6 foot (ish) so C&RT have basically told him he cannot 'fit' on the S&W.

 

He boat is based on the K&A so maybe he has logs, a bicycle, 20 bags of coal and a wheelbarrow on his roof ?

 

For those who are interested, we got through Brettell Lane. I measured clearance from the water to the channel marker on the towpath side of the bridge at ~78" (6'6"), although the inside of the tunnel isn't at all uniform, so it could vary a few inches in either direction. The water level couldn't have been any higher without going over the towpath, so I don't think it gets tighter than that. Had to take the chimney off to get through, but thankfully the roof boxes, at ~76", got through in situ. There's been a couple on the Staffs and Worcs where the chimney had to come off, but nothing quite as tight as Brettell lane.