Jump to content

March of the Wide Beams


rustynewbery

Featured Posts

On 14/01/2018 at 12:20, alan_fincher said:

Not strictly what it actually said, which was......
 


So OK to cruise on it apparently if you could avoid tying up(!)

(It was still on the Nicholson map edition copyright 2006, but I don't have a newer one to check.)

Suggest you read this to fully take on board “established practice & procedure”
These are not urban myths !
Jagrat
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jagrat said:
Suggest you read this to fully take on board “established practice & procedure”
These are not urban myths !
Jagrat

Although you have quoted me, I apologise, but I have no idea what you are trying to tell me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Is Nicholson's the definitive requirement for cruising the inland waterways that one has to comply with?

I hope not.

In some cases the maps have a gap of maybe a quarter of a mile in canals I find essential for through navigation, (where the pages join, a short bit, and maybe even a bridge being missing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

I hope not.

In some cases the maps have a gap of maybe a quarter of a mile in canals I find essential for through navigation, (where the pages join, a short bit, and maybe even a bridge being missing).

Perhaps instead of making these comments you should just read the history relating to Grand Union in Nicholson guide 1 page 25

you could look up Bradshaw’s reference the Grand Junction Canal pages 132/133 ref types of vessels using the navigation 

whilst I have nothing against wide beam boats they should only navigate waterways designed to take that type of vessel 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jagrat said:

Perhaps instead of making these comments you should just read the history relating to Grand Union in Nicholson guide 1 page 25

you could look up Bradshaw’s reference the Grand Junction Canal pages 132/133 ref types of vessels using the navigation

Again what you have quoted isn't connected, I think, to the point you are making - it was a simple light-hearted statement - the Nicholson's sectional maps do omit some very short stretches of some canals (fact).

As to the original more serious point, you appear to have little understanding of how much I know about the history of the Grand Union canal and all its constituent companies.

But I think you have completely misunderstood my previous post, which sought only to correct what the caption in Nicholsons says, (whether I agree with it or not).
 

15 minutes ago, Jagrat said:

whilst I have nothing against wide beam boats they should only navigate waterways designed to take that type of vessel 


Well there you go, then, on this point we agree totally - my previous contributions on this subject (in this thread and elsewhere) say exactly the same.
 

Edited by alan_fincher
To remove shameful rogue apostrophe!
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 14/01/2018 at 19:37, Jagrat said:

Unfortunately, I think your not far from the truth

they CRT are trying to be something they were never intended to be and appear to avoiding taking on the mantle of Navigation Authority 

Also, I’m sure some wide beam owner would challenge any reasonable action taken by CRT to restrict areas of the system they are allowed to cruise

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Cruising between Braunston and Stockton yesterday (Sat 17/2) we caught up with a fatboat squeezing itself thro' bridge 101 and they kindly waved us past once they had made it (they were virtually stationary anyway). At the next bridge - 102 there was another fatboat shell moored quite close to the bridge hole (not a problem for narrowboats but tight for a wide beam to pass) and as I passed the line of moored CCers there, I met a small convoy of oncoming narrowboats to make it potentially more interesting. A little way behind them was another fatboat heading towards the fun.

It occurred to me that widebeams on the North Oxford/GU will be self limiting due to the sheer hassle of moving and that most of the problems of the lack of width and depth in some places and encountering widebeams there will be felt by themselves most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, nikvah said:

Cruising between Braunston and Stockton yesterday (Sat 17/2) we caught up with a fatboat squeezing itself thro' bridge 101 and they kindly waved us past once they had made it (they were virtually stationary anyway). At the next bridge - 102 there was another fatboat shell moored quite close to the bridge hole (not a problem for narrowboats but tight for a wide beam to pass) and as I passed the line of moored CCers there, I met a small convoy of oncoming narrowboats to make it potentially more interesting. A little way behind them was another fatboat heading towards the fun.

It occurred to me that widebeams on the North Oxford/GU will be self limiting due to the sheer hassle of moving and that most of the problems of the lack of width and depth in some places and encountering widebeams there will be felt by themselves most.

We were moored near to bridge 100 yesterday, and went back to Calcutt yesterday afternoon.  The widebeam in primer moored near bridge 102 was in a really inappropriate spot it is too narrow there close to the bridge.  Went we came passed there yesterday afternoon that one had gone, and there was another widebeam, presumably the one that was approaching when you went passed, moored further back in a more suitable location.  Widebeams have in the past been rare here, but it is now getting normal to see at least one on that stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a vote for representatives on CRT (they it would seem have fallen into a Black hole) .It would have been useful for our so called representatives to raise this with CRT and report back the CRT response.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, john6767 said:

  Widebeams have in the past been rare here, but it is now getting normal to see at least one on that stretch.

We go up and down that stretch every few weeks and since the summer there has always been at least one 'shell' there (by bridges 101/102). Never seem to be anyone on board fitting them out but each one seems to stay at least 2-3 weeks. Near to the Flecknoe road so obviously a good place to leave them.....except when parked too near the bridge.

 

12 hours ago, nikvah said:

Cruising between Braunston and Stockton yesterday (Sat 17/2) we caught up with a fatboat squeezing itself thro' bridge 101 and they kindly waved us past once they had made it (they were virtually stationary anyway). At the next bridge - 102 there was another fatboat shell moored quite close to the bridge hole (not a problem for narrowboats but tight for a wide beam to pass) and as I passed the line of moored CCers there, I met a small convoy of oncoming narrowboats to make it potentially more interesting. A little way behind them was another fatboat heading towards the fun.

It occurred to me that widebeams on the North Oxford/GU will be self limiting due to the sheer hassle of moving and that most of the problems of the lack of width and depth in some places and encountering widebeams there will be felt by themselves most.

I am sure they WILL NOT be self limiting. Selfish maybe. They need to go out for a sail, so why not and screw everyone else. The weekends on that stretch are always busy with a boat every minute. Its a good job there are no locks, but the narrow bridges and the odd pinch point near some of the bridges will mean fat boats will cause weekend chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dr Bob said:

We go up and down that stretch every few weeks and since the summer there has always been at least one 'shell' there (by bridges 101/102). Never seem to be anyone on board fitting them out but each one seems to stay at least 2-3 weeks. Near to the Flecknoe road so obviously a good place to leave them.....except when parked too near the bridge.

 

I am sure they WILL NOT be self limiting. Selfish maybe. They need to go out for a sail, so why not and screw everyone else. The weekends on that stretch are always busy with a boat every minute. Its a good job there are no locks, but the narrow bridges and the odd pinch point near some of the bridges will mean fat boats will cause weekend chaos.

Perhaps we should get this chap to torpedo them in a nice wide deep bit so everyone could still pass?

pretend sub.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, b0atman said:

We had a vote for representatives on CRT (they it would seem have fallen into a Black hole) .It would have been useful for our so called representatives to raise this with CRT and report back the CRT response.

If you mean the boater representatives on Council, then several of them are actually far more visible than the previous incumbents in the role when all were IWA "grandees".

Both Stella Ridgway (boaters rep) and Andy Tidy (trade rep) have been known to post updates on progress in various areas, something the previous lot never did in my experience.

Try contacting them, and see if it has been raised, though where it is strictly within the remit of Council I'm not really sure.

Probably more appropriate is the Navigation Advisory Group (NAG).  I'd be surprised if NAG had not raised this given that people like Sue Cawson and Mark Tzzard sit on NAG.  Mark posts on here, so perhaps he will comment.  Alternately the meeting notes from that group should be on te CRT web-site

It has certainly been raised within CRT through the South East Partnership Boaters Subgroup. (Many of the areas affected are within South East waterways).  I understand that the fact that wide-beams in appropriate places has been raised at all has proved unpopular in some places as a result, though not in places I'm in a habit of visiting (!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.