MtB Posted August 11, 2017 Report Share Posted August 11, 2017 Looking at googlemaps you are right, I can't imagine how locos were turned around on it. I'm gonna have to go and read the notice again. It's on the footpath around the back of the swingbridge site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_fincher Posted August 11, 2017 Report Share Posted August 11, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said: Well I might be wrong but I'm fairly sure the little notice on the fence by the railway society says it is a turntable as well a s a swing bridge. Or maybe there is a turntable adjacent to the swing bridge... Look at it on the satellite images in Google maps. It isn't am oblong - its ends are not at 90 degrees to the sides, so can only swing one wat....https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Rewley+Road+Swing+Bridge/@51.7554891,-1.2703658,214a,35y,1.28t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x4876c6a2183ce60b:0x2bc6fbf46e257fff!2sRewley+Rd,+Oxford+OX1+2RQ!3b1!8m2!3d51.7549118!4d-1.2691146!3m4!1s0x0:0x75134fe074a72c4d!8m2!3d51.7556381!4d-1.2704605 2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said: Looking at googlemaps you are right, I can't imagine how locos were turned around on it. I'm gonna have to go and read the notice again. It's on the footpath around the back of the swingbridge site. It is also double tracked, so if it could rotate 180 degrees the loco would be delivered back on to a different track to the one it started on! Edited August 11, 2017 by alan_fincher EDit only to acknowlwdge cross posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted August 11, 2017 Report Share Posted August 11, 2017 6 minutes ago, alan_fincher said: Look at it on the satellite images in Google maps. It isn't am oblong - its ends are not at 90 degrees to the sides, so can only swing one wat....https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Rewley+Road+Swing+Bridge/@51.7554891,-1.2703658,214a,35y,1.28t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x4876c6a2183ce60b:0x2bc6fbf46e257fff!2sRewley+Rd,+Oxford+OX1+2RQ!3b1!8m2!3d51.7549118!4d-1.2691146!3m4!1s0x0:0x75134fe074a72c4d!8m2!3d51.7556381!4d-1.2704605 It is also double tracked, so if it could rotate 180 degrees the loco would be delivered back on to a different track to the one it started on! Further, I cannot imagine why locos would need to be turned there. Its through route not a terminus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_fincher Posted August 11, 2017 Report Share Posted August 11, 2017 If you Google it some hits refer to the bridges "turntable" for what it swings on. Maybe this is the confusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted August 11, 2017 Report Share Posted August 11, 2017 5 minutes ago, alan_fincher said: If you Google it some hits refer to the bridges "turntable" for what it swings on. Maybe this is the confusion? Good thinking. I'm sure the notice refers to it as a turntable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tortuga guy Posted August 30, 2017 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2017 WELL SHE'S HOME IN HAREFIELD. MADE IT CROSS THE THAMES FINE , THE ONLY HICCUP WAS, 2 LOCKS BEFORE BULLS BRIDGE WE HAD A DUVET VERY TIGHTLY WRAPPED ROUND OUR PROP , IT ACTUALLY STOPPED THE ENGINE AND TOOK ALMOST 3 HOURS TO REMOVE USING A STANLEY BLADE, A SHARP KITCHEN KNIFE, A SAW AND A SICKLE WHICH A FELLOW BOATER ADVISED US TO USE, BUT I SUPPOSE IT WAS A GOOD LEARNING CURVE, THANK YOU ALL FOR ALL THE CONSTRUCTIVE AND WIITY COMMENTS. HAPPY CRUISING 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter X Posted September 1, 2017 Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 I didn't spot this topic before, or I'm sure I would have commented on it, particularly as I often crew for other people. As has been said, the non-tidal Thames down to Teddington is usually just like being on a wide and deep (and very posh) canal, and really not much to be scared of taking a narrow boat on, so I'm glad to see you went by water. However like any river it would be a whole different story when on red boards. Below Teddington you have to work around the tide times, but there's plenty of advice available about that, and the big boats creating lots of wash are much further down river than Brentford. I have a razor edged sickle which is a very useful gardening tool, and can imagine it would be excellent for cutting junk off a prop. The GU in west London probably has more than its fair share of rubbish, though not as bad as parts of the BCN. One final thought: please use lower case, it's a bit easier on the eye! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scholar Gypsy Posted September 1, 2017 Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 On 11/08/2017 at 23:34, Mike the Boilerman said: Further, I cannot imagine why locos would need to be turned there. Its through route not a terminus. The swing bridge at Oxford just swung by 90 degrees. It did give access to a terminus, ie the goods yard (what is now the station car park and the Said business school) but only used for shunting operations I think. Here is a video of the bridge in operation. I went though it several times in the 1970s. Anyone recognize the boater?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT9a_UavQrY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dharl Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 On 30/08/2017 at 16:06, tortuga guy said: WELL SHE'S HOME IN HAREFIELD. MADE IT CROSS THE THAMES FINE , THE ONLY HICCUP WAS, 2 LOCKS BEFORE BULLS BRIDGE WE HAD A DUVET VERY TIGHTLY WRAPPED ROUND OUR PROP , IT ACTUALLY STOPPED THE ENGINE AND TOOK ALMOST 3 HOURS TO REMOVE USING A STANLEY BLADE, A SHARP KITCHEN KNIFE, A SAW AND A SICKLE WHICH A FELLOW BOATER ADVISED US TO USE, BUT I SUPPOSE IT WAS A GOOD LEARNING CURVE, THANK YOU ALL FOR ALL THE CONSTRUCTIVE AND WIITY COMMENTS. HAPPY CRUISING Glad you made it ok. Now that you have had to sort out "non-weeds" from your weed hatch you are a proper boater! I Once pulled a bra and knicker set out of a weed hatch, not close to Ann Summners but as moored by Bath Rugby Club I suspect that might have been the source...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dharl Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 On 11/08/2017 at 19:35, Mike the Boilerman said: ..... a cuboid of water 46ft x 2ft x 7ft is the maximum a boat of your dimensions can displace. This is approximately 18 cubic metres so the maximum possible weight of your boat is 18 tonnes. ....... slight point of order M'Lud, but that would be the displacement weight of the vessel (amount of water you push out of the way) rather than how much steel, contents of tanks etc was used to made the vessel, contents etc. That will be the Deadweight, howeevr you are correct in assumption that you will never weigh more than the displacement, otherwise your boat turns into a submarine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 2 hours ago, Dharl said: slight point of order M'Lud, but that would be the displacement weight of the vessel (amount of water you push out of the way) rather than how much steel, contents of tanks etc was used to made the vessel, contents etc. ConfusedRus. Shirley the deadweight is the same as the displacement weight. Or is there some monumental splitting of hairs going on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan de Enfield Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said: ConfusedRus. Shirley the deadweight is the same as the displacement weight. Or is there some monumental splitting of hairs going on? I know there is a difference between displacement and 'gross tonnage'. From Google - Deadweight: You have a 'light' displacement which is the weight of water displaced when your boat is empty. You have a 'loaded' displacement which is the weight of water displaced when your boat is full. Deadweight is the difference between the two, ie the amount a vessel can carry. Edited September 4, 2017 by Alan de Enfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dharl Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 Alan got it right, I made a total Balls up of explaining the difference if the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 8 minutes ago, Dharl said: Alan got it right, I made a total Balls up of explaining the difference if the two. Lol, and your bote is SO much bigger than any of ours! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dharl Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 Lol yep, you would think I get it right at least some of the time ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter X Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 The loaded displacement could be a bit variable depending on how much cargo a boat dares to carry? I suppose on marine vessels that's what the Plimsoll line markings are for, and that would be how it's defined? Most canal boats have no such markings, and old photos and paintings of working boats very low in the water suggest to me that people would push their luck in order to carry more goods. If they tried that nowadays they might well end up grounded due to lack of dredging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dharl Posted September 5, 2017 Report Share Posted September 5, 2017 Yes thats the whole purpose of the Plimsol Mark in order to stop over loading of the vessel. Prior to 1830's there was no hard and fast rule as to how much cargo a sea going vessel could carry and so there was a number of ships sinking due to being overloaded! Lloyds of London (not the bank :-) ) formulated a rule for the calulation of a safe freeboard of vessels, as they are marine insurerers they wanted to stop paying out! During the 1860-1870's Samual Plimsol, MP headed the Royal Commison in to this matter and from that the Merchant Shipping Act (1876) which included offical Load Line Marks (ie Plimsol Lines) was forumlated. Inland waterways where not covered by this act and certainly the risk of total loss was much less, so you often see canal boats with much lower freeboard! As stated you are more likely to meet the bottom of the canal before your gunnel meets the top of the water these days..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nbfiresprite Posted November 25, 2017 Report Share Posted November 25, 2017 On 11/08/2017 at 23:34, Mike the Boilerman said: Further, I cannot imagine why locos would need to be turned there. Its through route not a terminus. The bridge was for access to the old London North Western Oxford Rewley Road station which was the termius of the Varsity Line from Cambridge. The station closed in 1951 since then the building has been moved and relocated at the Buckingham Railway Centre. The bridge was last used for rail traffic in 1994. The deck cannot turn 180 degrees, the deck ends at angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchcrawler Posted November 26, 2017 Report Share Posted November 26, 2017 On 04/09/2017 at 23:39, Peter X said: The loaded displacement could be a bit variable depending on how much cargo a boat dares to carry? I suppose on marine vessels that's what the Plimsoll line markings are for, and that would be how it's defined? Most canal boats have no such markings, and old photos and paintings of working boats very low in the water suggest to me that people would push their luck in order to carry more goods. If they tried that nowadays they might well end up grounded due to lack of dredging. I think very few canal boats took a load from Brownsover to the Med Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now