Fully Laden Working Boats On Pontcysyllte Aqueduct.

[spadefoot]

I was reading the June edition of Towpath Talk the other day. There was a lovely letter from a guy concerning a fully-laden working boat crossing the Pontcysyllte Aqueduct. It seems that the chap is worried as to whether this marvellous old structure can take the weight of such a boat.

Well I'm not taking any chances, so when I cross the Dundas tomorrow, I'm going to make the missus get off & walk over alongside, carrying as much stuff as she can. You can't be too careful.

[IanM]

It would still weigh the same regardless of how much weight the boat was carrying

 

I think...

[nicknorman]

You'll have eureka moment in a minute...

[bottle]

Yes, saw that and thought shall I e-mail a reply but then again I expect so many others will, so did not bother.

[gazza]

And when you have had your eureka moment, take a minute to consider the question 'I'm am traveling at the speed of light in a vehicle with its head lifts switched on, can I see them?'

 

[billS]

And when you have had your eureka moment, take a minute to consider the question 'I'm am traveling at the speed of light in a vehicle with its head lifts switched on, can I see them?'

 

 

They might appear to flicker a bit...

[David Schweizer]

I was reading the June edition of Towpath Talk the other day. There was a lovely letter from a guy concerning a fully-laden working boat crossing the Pontcysyllte Aqueduct. It seems that the chap is worried as to whether this marvellous old structure can take the weight of such a boat.

Well I'm not taking any chances, so when I cross the Dundas tomorrow, I'm going to make the missus get off & walk over alongside, carrying as much stuff as she can. You can't be too careful.

 

Was this an Historical Working boat, or a modern replica. We tried to get onto the Llangollen canal last week and could not get into Hurlestone bottom Lock, our boat is a tad under 7ft wide and most historic working boats are a bit wider than that.

Edited June 24, 2015 by David Schweizer

[IanM]

Mountbatten is now doing a coal run up there so I imagine it was them.

[billS]

 

Was this an Historical Working boat, or a modern replica. We tried to get ont the Llangollen canal last week and could not get into Hurlestone bottom Lock, our boat is a tad under 7ft wide and most historic working boats are a bit wider than that.

 

Doesn't being laden help in some cases by pulling the sides in a bit? If so - it could create an interesting situation if he unloads prior to returning.

[spadefoot]

Well I was impressed that not only did the chap think about it (tho' not quite enough) but wrote the letter & the paper published it with no comment.

Mind you, the chap is involved in some horse-drawn boat venture, and in my experience, horses are rubbish at drawing and they're not even any good at colouring-in.

[DHutch]

Well I was impressed that not only did the chap think about it (tho' not quite enough) but wrote the letter & the paper published it with no comment.

Indeed

horses are rubbish at drawing and they're not even any good at colouring-in.

And, they stand on the towpath, adding load to aqueducts!

 

 

Daniel

[David Schweizer]

Mountbatten is now doing a coal run up there so I imagine it was them.

 

Ah Yes, Mounbatten was one of the last working boats to be built for BW in 1960, and I believe is only 6ft 10 in wide, built to that width in order to cope with the bulging Cheshire locks, of which Hurlestone bottom is the norrowest.

Edited June 24, 2015 by David Schweizer

[gazza]

Well I was impressed that not only did the chap think about it (tho' not quite enough) but wrote the letter & the paper published it with no comment.

Mind you, the chap is involved in some horse-drawn boat venture, and in my experience, horses are rubbish at drawing and they're not even any good at colouring-in.

I wonder what happened to that horse that could count? He appeared on BBC's that's life! Some years ago.

At least he had one more talent than crapping on the racing line.

 

Guess must have gone to the glue factory by now?!

[SamKingfisher]

I make the horse get in the boat before any aqueduct. It's cosy.

[Delta9]

I make the horse get in the boat before any aqueduct. It's cosy.

I make mine take the tiller so I can relax on the roof drinking gin.

 

Edited June 24, 2015 by Delta9

[Arthur Marshall]

And when you have had your eureka moment, take a minute to consider the question 'I'm am traveling at the speed of light in a vehicle with its head lifts switched on, can I see them?'

 

No, because you'll be making a breaking wave. Or particle.

[Laurence Hogg]

Mountbatten is now doing a coal run up there so I imagine it was them.

 

The Yarwoods Admiral class boats of which Mountbatten is one are a tad under 6ft 10" as built, the width was to allow passage through bad locks at the time.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Laurence Hogg

[b0atman]

Tow path talk this month £84 million to put floating pontoons in at Macclesfield front page story wow thankfully it only cost £130,000 which seems way over the top for floating structures tied to the bank.

[ditchcrawler]

It would still weigh the same regardless of how much weight the boat was carrying

 

I think...

But if the wife is walking on the tow path it will be more

[NB Alton]

 

Ah Yes, Mounbatten was one of the last working boats to be built for BW in 1960, and I believe is only 6ft 10 in wide, built to that width in order to cope with the bulging Cheshire locks, of which Hurlestone bottom is the norrowest.

Hurleston may be in Cheshire, but I've never heard of them being described as part of the "Cheshire Locks", which are generally considered to be the locks from Hardingswood Junction to Wheelock (or some folk say even down to Middlewich). But yes Hurleston bottom is generally considered to be one of the narrowest narrow locks.

 

Cheers, Brian

[Wanderer Vagabond]

I too laughed at the letter but then got to thinking of the related science, not a good move since it baffles wonderfully . To pose the question I was considering:- If the aqueduct was closed off at each end (stop boards) would the load on the structure be more if it were only holding water with no boats in it? or would it be more if there were several boats? My thoughts are that it would have the greatest loading when it just contained water since by putting boats in there they must displace an equivalent amount of water (yes I know about Archimedes but bear with me!) but those boats must weigh less than the displaced water otherwise they wouldn't float (would they?). So to reduce the overall loading on the aqueduct we need to pack as many boats as we can on it (don't we? ). Just thought I'd ask??

Edited June 24, 2015 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Tam & Di]

oats? My thoughts are that it would have the greatest loading when it just contained water since by putting boats in there they must displace an equivalent amount of their own weight in water (yes I know about Archimedes but bear with me!) but those boats must weigh less than the displaced water otherwise they wouldn't float (would they?).

 

You must have bunked off school the day Archimedes' principle was discussed

(my amendment to WV's post)

[Mrs Tawny Owl]

I too laughed at the letter but then got to thinking of the related science, not a good move since it baffles wonderfully . To pose the question I was considering:- If the aqueduct was closed off at each end (stop boards) would the load on the structure be more if it were only holding water with no boats in it? or would it be more if there were several boats? My thoughts are that it would have the greatest loading when it just contained water since by putting boats in there they must displace an equivalent amount of water (yes I know about Archimedes but bear with me!) but those boats must weigh less than the displaced water otherwise they wouldn't float (would they?). So to reduce the overall loading on the aqueduct we need to pack as many boats as we can on it (don't we? ). Just thought I'd ask??

No don't think that's right.

 

The boat does weigh the same as the water it displaces. It floats because the water level after it settles is below the top of the boat. Therefore the aquaduct has the same weight with or without boats.

 

If you sealed the ends off, then craned the boats in that would increase the weight, unless the stop planks were exactlyat the top of the water, in which case the water would flow out maintaining the weight.

 

Now if the boat was made of eg lead and sunk, then the boat would weigh more than the water it displaces. You could keep adding weight and not displace any more water. Therefore allowing submarines, and lead filled boats dragged along the bottom would increase the weight on the aquaduct and be a BAD THING!

 

I think that's all correct.

 

Sue

[dmr]

The good members of the forum are demonstrating their knowledge of Archimedes but are limiting themselves to the static case.

The gentleman who wrote the letter is obviously an engineer who understands something of dynamics and he is correct.

 

A fully laden working boat will be deep in the water and like most working boats will be well over 6 foot 10 wide so will fill the aqueduct channel. When heading upstream and a little way onto the aquaduct the flow of water will struggle to pass the boat and the level will thus rise which will indeed increase the loading on the aquaduct!

 

We are only about 32 inches deep and 6 foot 11 (and a half) wide and we had a real struggle fighting the water flow

 

.............Dave

[john6767]

The good members of the forum are demonstrating their knowledge of Archimedes but are limiting themselves to the static case.

The gentleman who wrote the letter is obviously an engineer who understands something of dynamics and he is correct.

 

A fully laden working boat will be deep in the water and like most working boats will be well over 6 foot 10 wide so will fill the aqueduct channel. When heading upstream and a little way onto the aquaduct the flow of water will struggle to pass the boat and the level will thus rise which will indeed increase the loading on the aquaduct!

 

We are only about 32 inches deep and 6 foot 11 (and a half) wide and we had a real struggle fighting the water flow

 

.............Dave

Sorry, Mr Telford thought of that. The aquaduct channel is 10ft wide, the towpath is cantilevered over the channel. So I am with Sue on this one.