Wide locks Built for ?

[Paul C]

 

Yes, I've always found it highly amusing when passing other widebeams without any problem at all.

 

Hiya Blackrose, we passed your boat earlier today. Which canals do you regularly cruise? Or is it just rivers? We worked out, you could do half the Droitwich, or use the tidal Severn to get to the K&A etc.

[Theo]

That's why it is there then, not a great place to be they must be sat on the bottom half the time, it is very shallow over that side.

They were certainly there when I saw them. There were 3 or 4 standing on the stern having a chat and watching the water draining away while a hire boat tried to go through the lock with top and bottom paddles up. I would have thought that enlightened self interest would have persuaded them to offer helpful advice. Mind you, it gave me the chance to play with huge quantities of water while I filled up the pound.

 

Nci

[blackrose]

Hi Paul. I've been down the complete length of the K&A from Reading to Bristol on my 57 x 12ft widebeam without any problem at all. I used to moor on the GU but only went up as far as Marsworth. I went up as far as Daventy on my old narrowboat. I've been down the Paddington arm from Bulls Bridge to Limehouse a couple of times on my widebeam.

 

Where are you moored?

Edited August 22, 2014 by blackrose

[magpie patrick]

If you go back to early canal company minutes, it is usually very clear which size of boats they were expecting to use the canal. There were long discussions on the L&LC and the Rochdale Canal as to whether to build a narrow or broad canal. They chose the later as it meant that transhipping was not needed. Some people seemed to think that water requirements for a narrow canal were less, but they are the same for similar tonnages of traffic. Most British canals were built by private groups who were concerned about cost. Some, like the L&LC, decided the extra cost brought worthwhile benefits, other, such as the T&MC, decided that they couldn't afford a wide canal, so built a canal suitable for the narrow boat, examples of which were already in operation carrying coal from the Worsley mines to Manchester.

 

Mike, I appreciate cost is an item you cover, but I wonder how far the cost and difficulty of single big item, Harecastle Tunnel, led to the T&M's choice of narrow beam.

 

Also, in the south of England canal (and river) gauge was all over the place (cue comments about clueless southerners!) even where continuity might, at face value, have seemed obvious: the Wey and Arun locks are shorter and narrower than those on the Godalming Navigation, but not to any sensible degree, just about 2 foot all round. The Thames and Severn's attempts to have two standards backfired badly, and the Kennet and Avon was a law unto itself.

 

The coal canal nearly ended up as a tub boat canal, the Dorset and Somerset had definite ideas of 30 foot "narrow" boats as their lifts wouldn't handle full size ones.

 

One of the oddest locks of all must have been on the Chard Canal at Beer Mills, designed to take two tub boats in one locking: it is believed to have been 52 feet long by 6 foot 6 inch beam...

[Paul C]

Hi Paul. I've been down the complete length of the K&A from Reading to Bristol on my 57 x 12ft widebeam without any problem at all. I used to moor on the GU but only went up as far as Marsworth. I went up as far as Daventy on my old narrowboat. I've been down the Paddington arm from Bulls Bridge to Limehouse a couple of times on my widebeam.

 

Where are you moored?

 

Currently in Evesham town centre.

[alan_fincher]

 

Just look at the chaos I caused going along the Tring summit...

 

 

If there's any chaos it's the fault of the owner, not the boat. I went along here at about 5am to avoid any other boats. On my return journey I met a group of Sea otter boats coming the other way, so I just got over into the bushes and let them pass. No chaos...

 

Yes, but there is only one of you, you are lightly draughted, you are not 14 feet wide, and you are only passing a narrow boat.

 

To pass two 14 foot barges, loaded, on Tring summit, would require a channel at least 4 feet deep, and at least 28 feet wide, (or at least some regular passing places that matched these dimensions). It simply ain't anything like that big - and never was.

 

Nobody is arguing about the ability of a (say) 12 foot wide leisure boat to pass a 7 foot wide leisure boat, if neither is much over a couple of feet draught.

 

That isn't even close to a comparison with two fully loaded full width barges.

 

But then if you think about it, I'm sure you know that!

[John V]

 

 

Also, in the south of England canal (and river) gauge was all over the place (cue comments about clueless southerners!) even where continuity might, at face value, have seemed obvious: the Wey and Arun locks are shorter and narrower than those on the Godalming Navigation, but not to any sensible degree, just about 2 foot all round. The Thames and Severn's attempts to have two standards backfired badly, and the Kennet and Avon was a law unto itself.

 

 

 

I can see it all clearly now.............Mr Duckett wandering in to the gate building yard and being met by the owner Mr Wainright (Aunty Wainright's great great grandad)...."Hello George I've got a really special deal for you.....a set of gates the apprentices have been making....very cheap silly bugger hadn't noticed the bit broken off the end of the measuring stick....I'm quite sure no one will notice....no only a tiny bit smaller.....get stuck ? no way only if some silly bugger tries to take a 14' fat boat up to Bishops Stortford"

[Up-Side-Down]

Interesting, but hard to read, needs a bit of air round the text.

 

Copy and paste into a word document and it becomes eminently readable - thanks Pluto, very interesting.

[Tam & Di]

But you're talking about how things developed, rather than what was intended.

If the locks had been built, as you say, so that they could be shared by two narrow boats, why then go to the huge expense of making all the bridges wider than they needed to be.

Also, they could have made the tunnels smaller too and saved an incredible amount in building costs.

 

On the G.U. narrowboats could pass each other in bridgeholes and in the tunnels. The reason Progress was a failed prototype was because it was NOT possible to pass another craft in these places, which slowed down the overall traffic movements to an extent that was unacceptable. This would obviously be the case on any narrow canal, but the Grand Junction route between London and Birmingham relied upon rapid transit, and was still able to compete with road and rail at the time Progress and Pioneer were built.

[Steilsteven]

 

On the G.U. narrowboats could pass each other in bridgeholes and in the tunnels. The reason Progress was a failed prototype was because it was NOT possible to pass another craft in these places, which slowed down the overall traffic movements to an extent that was unacceptable. This would obviously be the case on any narrow canal, but the Grand Junction route between London and Birmingham relied upon rapid transit, and was still able to compete with road and rail at the time Progress and Pioneer were built.

I thought it was due to them not being able to get further than Knowle, because of a narrow bridge there?

How often do/did narrow boats pass in bridge holes? I find it astonishing that two separate carrying companies would go to the expense of having a boat built and then both go Oh, they won't be able to pass each other should they meet!

 

Keith

[Tam & Di]

I thought it was due to them not being able to get further than Knowle, because of a narrow bridge there?

How often do/did narrow boats pass in bridge holes? I find it astonishing that two separate carrying companies would go to the expense of having a boat built and then both go Oh, they won't be able to pass each other should they meet!

 

Keith

 

As I said in an earlier post we took Progress to Braunston many times and to Camp Hill twice, and the only iffey place at the time was Leamington but that was due to our conversion which raised the coamings about 9-10" - I have photos of her having swung at Camp Hill and pretending to come out of a 7' wide lock.

 

I've not looked at the minutes of GUCC discussions about the build, but I can quite imagine no-one considered the actual implications of holding up the existing narrowboat traffics. There would also be the fact of Progress being slower than a pair of boats and the cost of canal improvements required, probably none of which were accurately assessed when it was built as a prototype. But with the widening of the route and the optimism of the time I can quite see why it was decided to build a prototype to see if it was plausible - it would not cost that much in the grand scheme of things..

 

We were only carriers at the tail end of its existence but we certainly did pass other loaded boats in bridge holes from time to time. With the amount of traffic there was in the heyday it must have been pretty common.

 

Tam

[Pluto]

 

Mike, I appreciate cost is an item you cover, but I wonder how far the cost and difficulty of single big item, Harecastle Tunnel, led to the T&M's choice of narrow beam.

 

Also, in the south of England canal (and river) gauge was all over the place (cue comments about clueless southerners!) even where continuity might, at face value, have seemed obvious: the Wey and Arun locks are shorter and narrower than those on the Godalming Navigation, but not to any sensible degree, just about 2 foot all round. The Thames and Severn's attempts to have two standards backfired badly, and the Kennet and Avon was a law unto itself.

 

The coal canal nearly ended up as a tub boat canal, the Dorset and Somerset had definite ideas of 30 foot "narrow" boats as their lifts wouldn't handle full size ones.

 

One of the oddest locks of all must have been on the Chard Canal at Beer Mills, designed to take two tub boats in one locking: it is believed to have been 52 feet long by 6 foot 6 inch beam...

Interestingly, there was exactly the same problem of variation in lock size on the continent, even where the canals were built under government control. There were about four different boat sizes around Berlin. The reason boat size standardisation was not important then is that canals were built to serve local needs and not as a national system. There was little in the way of interchange in significant tonnages. On the GJC, the majority of traffic was in the London area, with through traffic to the Midlands being less significant.

[Steilsteven]

 

As I said in an earlier post we took Progress to Braunston many times and to Camp Hill twice, and the only iffey place at the time was Leamington but that was due to our conversion which raised the coamings about 9-10" - I have photos of her having swung at Camp Hill and pretending to come out of a 7' wide lock.

 

I've not looked at the minutes of GUCC discussions about the build, but I can quite imagine no-one considered the actual implications of holding up the existing narrowboat traffics. There would also be the fact of Progress being slower than a pair of boats and the cost of canal improvements required, probably none of which were accurately assessed when it was built as a prototype. But with the widening of the route and the optimism of the time I can quite see why it was decided to build a prototype to see if it was plausible - it would not cost that much in the grand scheme of things..

 

We were only carriers at the tail end of its existence but we certainly did pass other loaded boats in bridge holes from time to time. With the amount of traffic there was in the heyday it must have been pretty common.

 

Tam

.

I stand corrected.

 

Love to see those photos, any chance of putting them up?

 

Keith

Edited August 24, 2014 by Steilsteven