Boat&Bikes Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 As we cruising today and chatting, my wife asked me why Seven feet had been selected as the width for narrow beam canals. Ali suggested it was a good width for sleeping across. I assume there is a different reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan de Enfield Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, ianali said: As we cruising today and chatting, my wife asked me why Seven feet had been selected as the width for narrow beam canals. Ali suggested it was a good width for sleeping across. I assume there is a different reason? Because the locks are 7' 4" wide (to give them a bit of leeway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boat&Bikes Posted April 17, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 Just now, Alan de Enfield said: Because the locks are 7' 4" wide (to give them a bit of leeway). Thanks for reply Alan. My question should have said then why were narrow locks built at that width? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detling Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 This is Britain all infrastructure has to be built to a miniscule price. It's why we are constantly rebuilding motorways, have roads full of potholes, and have the poorest housing in Europe. They are 7 foot wide cos the locks were cheaper to build. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boater Sam Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 Well, many of them are 7ft 4inches. Been up Hurleston recently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, ianali said: As we cruising today and chatting, my wife asked me why Seven feet had been selected as the width for narrow beam canals. Ali suggested it was a good width for sleeping across. I assume there is a different reason? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_canal_system#Standard_locks For reasons of economy and the constraints of 18th-century engineering technology, the early canals were built to a narrow width. The standard for the dimensions of narrow canal locks was set by Brindley with his first canal locks, those on the Trent and Mersey Canal in 1776. These locks were 72 feet 7 inches (22.12 m) long by 7 feet 6 inches (2.29 m) wide.[15] The narrow width was perhaps set by the fact that he was only able to build Harecastle Tunnel to accommodate 7 feet (2.1 m) wide boats.[15] His next locks were wider. He built locks 72 feet 7 inches (22.12 m) long by 15 feet (4.6 m) wide when he extended the Bridgewater Canalto Runcorn, where the canal's only locks lowered boats to the River Mersey. The narrow locks on the Trent and Mersey limited the width (beam) of the boats (which came to be called narrowboats), and thus limited the quantity of the cargo they could carry to around thirty tonnes. This decision would in later years make the canal network economically uncompetitive for freight transport, and by the mid 20th century it was no longer possible to work a thirty-tonne load economically. Edited April 17, 2018 by Robbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenataomm Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 Somebody realised that a stick had to be shoved in the ground somewhere and probably understood that young men of any era would need to prove their masculinity by jumping a lock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen-in-Wellies Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 I have wondered just how much port James Brindley and the other civil engineers involved in the Trent and Mersey had drunk when they decided that 7' was the ideal width for a boat on their new canal. I would hazard a guess that the fateful meeting took place in a pub. Jen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john6767 Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said: I have wondered just how much port James Brindley and the other civil engineers involved in the Trent and Mersey had drunk when they decided that 7' was the ideal width for a boat on their new canal. I would hazard a guess that the fateful meeting took place in a pub. Jen I am sure I saw somewhere that the meeting that decided on 70ft x 7ft was in Lichfield, but don’t know if it was in a pub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
system 4-50 Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 "What do you mean, 7 feet wide? I clearly told you to build it 7 metres wide!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boater Sam Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 Brindley, & Brunnel had a thing about 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmr Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 Early navigations were based on making rivers navigable so took the dimensions of local boats using those rivers, though I find it interesting that these almost always came out at about 14 feet wide. When there was a plan to cut totally new inland waterways, like the Trent and Mersey, it was realised that something new was required, there were calculations based on building costs against carrying capacity, but mostly it was realised that something unique, British and iconic was required. On a trip to London Brindley was rather taken by the Routemaster double decker bus and realised that something like this on the canals would be a suitable British icon, sadly financial constraints made the upper deck non viable. .............Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerbeerbeerbeerbeer Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 I reckon they did have a thing about 7’. How about: most carriages and wagons had always been about 7’ (ish) wide. So perhaps in their mind set they naturally thought 7’ wide but...10 times long at 70’ ?? Anyway, I can’t imagine the gentry and landowners would have put up with anything more than a narrow channel cut through their land. (Some didn’t and made the companies take the long route around.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerbeerbeerbeerbeer Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 20 minutes ago, dmr said: Early navigations were based on making rivers navigable so took the dimensions of local boats using those rivers, though I find it interesting that these almost always came out at about 14 feet wide. When there was a plan to cut totally new inland waterways, like the Trent and Mersey, it was realised that something new was required, there were calculations based on building costs against carrying capacity, but mostly it was realised that something unique, British and iconic was required. On a trip to London Brindley was rather taken by the Routemaster double decker bus and realised that something like this on the canals would be a suitable British icon, sadly financial constraints made the upper deck non viable. .............Dave But the width ideal. The investors would have wanted a quick return on their money too. The quicker the canals were built the better for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmr Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 25 minutes ago, Goliath said: I reckon they did have a thing about 7’. How about: most carriages and wagons had always been about 7’ (ish) wide. So perhaps in their mind set they naturally thought 7’ wide but...10 times long at 70’ ?? Anyway, I can’t imagine the gentry and landowners would have put up with anything more than a narrow channel cut through their land. (Some didn’t and made the companies take the long route around.) Nice theory about the wagons, not thought of that, you could well be right, but in several places where the cut went through posh peoples land they actually demanded that it was extra wide to look like a little lake. ..............Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sueb Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 The locks on the Basingstoke canal are 13'6" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fu Manchu Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, sueb said: The locks on the Basingstoke canal are 13'6" Really? Two narrowboats normally share the locks. I have known occasions where two old boats have not been able to get in side by side, but those boats were almost certainly more than 7ft wide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmr Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, sueb said: The locks on the Basingstoke canal are 13'6" Which is about 14 foot, and it connects directly to a river, its a river extension rather than a true "inland" waterway? ..............Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick G Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 in 2016 historic narrow boats Beatty and Bath shared all the locks (Ash Lock to Woodham Bottom Lock) on the Basingstoke Canal. However it is worth mentioning that two or three of the locks were very tight for two full length boats in both width and length. The 1904 edition of Bradshaw's Canals & Navigable Rivers gives the maximum size of vessels that can use the navigation as 72 ft. x 13 ft. 9 ins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerbeerbeerbeerbeer Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, dmr said: Which is about 14 foot, and it connects directly to a river, its a river extension rather than a true "inland" waterway? ..............Dave Until someone comes up with a better theory. I’m going with yours. There’s lots of reasons why canals would be narrow, such as technology,expense and the water has to be got from somewhere etc but why 7’ specifically? I’ll go with your theory. Next question is why the width of a train is the width it is? Edited April 17, 2018 by Goliath ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerbeerbeerbeerbeer Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 3 hours ago, ianali said: As we cruising today and chatting, my wife asked me why Seven feet had been selected as the width for narrow beam canals. Ali suggested it was a good width for sleeping across. I assume there is a different reason? It’s so the shiny boats don’t scratch their paint work on the brambles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmr Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, Goliath said: Until someone comes up with a better theory. I’m going with yours. There’s lots of reasons why canals would be narrow, such as technology,expense and the water has to be got from somewhere etc but why 7’ specifically? I’ll go with your theory. Next question is why the width of a train is the width it is? I think that the gauge of 4 foot 11 is believed to relate to the spacing of cart wheels, so I suspect they made the wagons as wide as they dare without a big risk of them falling over. ...........Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerbeerbeerbeerbeer Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 Just now, dmr said: I think that the gauge of 4 foot 11 is believed to relate to the spacing of cart wheels, so I suspect they made the wagons as wide as they dare without a big risk of them falling over. ...........Dave Yes, but why 4’11” and not 5’ or 6’ ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 1 hour ago, dmr said: I think that the gauge of 4 foot 11 is believed to relate to the spacing of cart wheels, so I suspect they made the wagons as wide as they dare without a big risk of them falling over. ...........Dave It's not though, is it? 4ft 7 3/4in springs to mind... 1 hour ago, dmr said: Which is about 14 foot, and it connects directly to a river, its a river extension rather than a true "inland" waterway? ..............Dave I think it connects into an artificial cut, part of the Wey Navigation canal. Then the WNC connects to the River Wey. Checking the googlymap however, it connects int the River Wey. A suspiciously long and straight section of waterway for a river. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizzard Posted April 17, 2018 Report Share Posted April 17, 2018 4ft 8.1/2'' 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