Jump to content

Boat&Bikes

Featured Posts

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

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.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Robbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :cheers:

Jen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :cheers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 by Goliath
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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.