March of the Widebeams

[Alan de Enfield]

25 minutes ago, Clodi said:

There's a piece about Widebeam boats on Radio 4 at the moment with a truck driver who has one and a spokesman from the CRT about the increase in fees starting in 2020.

 

The extra few % added to the licence is a drop in the ocean compared to the purchase price of a 'fatty' and I would suggest that even doubling the licence fee will have little effect on the numbers of fat-boats.

 

Generally (bound to get shot down) fat-boats are shorter than NBs so the licence is a fair bit lower than an equivalent area NB.

 

The licence for my 36' x 14' foot (504 square feet) is £686 (Although it is actually only £411 as I stay on the rivers, few canals are fit for 14' wide boats)

The licence for a 67' x 7' foot (469 square feet) is £1020

 

I would not be worried if they introduced a 'square footage' charge such that irrespective of dimensions a boat with X square feet paid the same as any other boat with X square feet.

That would appear to be fair.

The other way of looking at it is 'mooring space taken', where 36 foot boat takes half the length of mooring pontoon than a 72 boat does - should they therefore pay only half the fee ?

Should it be made compulsory for NBs to breast-up ?

 

Following the phased introduction of the fat-boat surcharge (in 2023) I will be paying an additional 20% above a NB licence cost, which (at current rates for comparison) means I would be paying :

 

36' x 14' = £823

64' x 7' = £1010

 

With similar square footage to an 'long' narrowboat I am still paying considerably less.

I really do not understand what the problem is that folks are having -  "short and fat is cheaper than long & thin".

Edited July 12, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[cuthound]

54 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The extra few % added to the licence is a drop in the ocean compared to the purchase price of a 'fatty' and I would suggest that even doubling the licence fee will have little effect on the numbers of fat-boats.

 

Generally (bound to get shot down) fat-boats are shorter than NBs so the licence is a fair bit lower than an equivalent area NB.

 

The licence for my 36' x 14' foot (504 square feet) is £686 (Although it is actually only £411 as I stay on the rivers, few canals are fit for 14' wide boats)

The licence for a 67' x 7' foot (469 square feet) is £1020

 

I would not be worried if they introduced a 'square footage' charge such that irrespective of dimensions a boat with X square feet paid the same as any other boat with X square feet.

That would appear to be fair.

The other way of looking at it is 'mooring space taken', where 36 foot boat takes half the length of mooring pontoon than a 72 boat does - should they therefore pay only half the fee ?

Should it be made compulsory for NBs to breast-up ?

 

Following the phased introduction of the fat-boat surcharge (in 2023) I will be paying an additional 20% above a NB licence cost, which (at current rates for comparison) means I would be paying :

 

36' x 14' = £823

64' x 7' = £1010

 

With similar square footage to an 'long' narrowboat I am still paying considerably less.

I really do not understand what the problem is that folks are having -  "short and fat is cheaper than long & thin".

 

Indeed, people buy widebeam on inappropriate canals simply for the additional living space, so charging by area is far more logical as it is demonstrably fair to all, whatever the width or length of your boat.

 

The only losers will be the owners of tugs and those traditional boats with dedicated engine rooms, both of which take up living space compared to less traditional designs. However as they look & sound better than modern designs, I suspect the owners would be happy to pay the premium. ?

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

 

The only losers will be the owners of tugs and those traditional boats with dedicated engine rooms, both of which take up living space compared to less traditional designs. 

I don't consider I lose space by having an engine room, there is so much crap in there its hard to find the engine, where else would I store it all?

[Lily Rose]

This was a couple of weeks ago so it may have been moved by now.

 

Returning up the Oxford South from our recent Thames trip we passed this beauty thoughtfully parked near a bend, and near overhanging offside vegetation, between the entrance to Napton Marina and Napton Junction.

 

Must have been causing fun and games at busy times such as when the Napton and Black Prince boats set out.

 

As far as I know it would not have been able to go any further south, nor have anywhere to turn, so presumably it will have to, or would have had to, reverse back round the bend to the junction.

 

 

 

[Athy]

Unless I'm mistaken, it could indeed progress further South, as there is a winding hole shortly before the bend which leads to Napton locks.

Perhaps the camera angle is misleading; there appears to be ample space to pass it at that point.

Not sure if it's a beauty, though I like the Springer-style moustaches.

[Lily Rose]

1 minute ago, Athy said:

Unless I'm mistaken, it could indeed progress further South, as there is a winding hole shortly before the bend which leads to Napton locks.

Perhaps the camera angle is misleading; there appears to be ample space to pass it at that point.

Not sure if it's a beauty, though I like the Springer-style moustaches.

 

There is/was ample space to pass but only if no-one is coming the other way round the nearby blind bend.

 

There is a winding hole just before The Folly, as well as a smaller one by the old Bridge Inn, but I don't think it could get that far. There are a pair of bridges just south of the Napton hire base, as well as at least one more further on, some or all of which I recall as being too narrow for a widebeam, though I could be misremembering.

 

 

[Athy]

Just now, Lily Rose said:

 

There is/was ample space to pass but only if no-one is coming the other way round the nearby blind bend.

 

There is a winding hole just before The Folly, as well as a smaller one by the old Bridge Inn, but I don't think it could get that far. There are a pair of bridges just south of the Napton hire base, as well as at least one more further on, some or all of which I recall as being too narrow for a widebeam, though I could be misremembering.

 

 

...as could I. I suppose it depends how wide the widebeam is - that one looks about 10 or 11 feet across at a guess. I'm almost sure that I have seen one on the straight stretch leading to the Folly bend, and no, I hadn't been in the Folly beforehand.

[roland elsdon]

Still there 2 weeks ago. another one on the narrows beyond the junction. Good collection of removal/ awareness tags on both. 

Still there yesterday when i rode past looking for grumpy boatowners to upset by legally  riding to my boat.

Both full fart sorry fat

[nbfiresprite]

On 12/07/2018 at 16:26, ditchcrawler said:

I don't consider I lose space by having an engine room, there is so much crap in there its hard to find the engine, where else would I store it all?

Get yourself a second boat to tow behind you, Not only will you have somewhere to store your crap, You have somewhere to hide when the Misses is in full rolling pin mode.

[matty40s]

It's one a week in the Grand Union at the moment, last week a sail away 60x12ft, this week what looks like a 70x12ft down from the Soar.

Last week's one used the piled bank to go round the bend, hope they worked out how to get to the centre channel before they met a moored boat! !

[Dr Bob]

Listening to one of the latest 'Cruising the Cut' vlogs, David John was talking about a fat boat coming the other way to him and taking 2 hrs to get through the Braunston Tunnel rather than the normal 15-20 mins. Yep, sounds about right.

[peterboat]

On 16/09/2018 at 17:24, Lily Rose said:

This was a couple of weeks ago so it may have been moved by now.

 

Returning up the Oxford South from our recent Thames trip we passed this beauty thoughtfully parked near a bend, and near overhanging offside vegetation, between the entrance to Napton Marina and Napton Junction.

 

Must have been causing fun and games at busy times such as when the Napton and Black Prince boats set out.

 

As far as I know it would not have been able to go any further south, nor have anywhere to turn, so presumably it will have to, or would have had to, reverse back round the bend to the junction.

 

 

 

I think you could easily get anothe widebeam past it and it looks a long way to the bend

[Victor Vectis]

Perhaps.

 

(But it's still fugugly, though)

[X Alan W]

That fore end is a Classy lock gate ripper without a fender

[mrsmelly]

10 hours ago, peterboat said:

I think you could easily get anothe widebeam past it and it looks a long way to the bend

Peter as you know I love wide beams and they are without doubt better boats in most ways than skinny uncomfortable narrow boats BUT I also passed this particular idiot which thankfully has now moved and it completely blocked the view for boats in both directions and I had about sixty foot of my boat thro the other side of the tree before I got a decent view. This is precisely the problem, whilst wide beams are superior boats too many of them are owned by eejuts Like I am ok Lycra cyclist type. They are used/moored on small waterways by flipping numpties. This was a prime example. Edit to add this foto fails to show the large willow tree and doesn't justify just how crap a piece of parking it was.

Edited September 18, 2018 by mrsmelly

[Lily Rose]

Thanks Tim, I'm glad it wasn't just me that thought this was stupidly and inconsiderately moored in a completely inappropriate place.

 

[Athy]

7 minutes ago, Lily Rose said:

Thanks Tim, I'm glad it wasn't just me that thought this was stupidly and inconsiderately moored in a completely inappropriate place.

 

Some people seem to be good at it. I'm often baffled when I see, at the end of a hundred-foot long , dead straight, piled length of towpath where the canal is thirty feet wide, a boat moored on the bend beyond it where the cut narrows to 20 feet and there's an overhanging offside tree. It could be, of course, that when the boat moored there the straight section was full of other moored craft which have since moved on - but surely not always. 

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Athy said:

Some people seem to be good at it. I'm often baffled when I see, at the end of a hundred-foot long , dead straight, piled length of towpath where the canal is thirty feet wide, a boat moored on the bend beyond it where the cut narrows to 20 feet and there's an overhanging offside tree. It could be, of course, that when the boat moored there the straight section was full of other moored craft which have since moved on - but surely not always. 

Or maybe whilst they were moored the tree grew and blocked the view around the corner (WBs don't move much do they !!)

Edited September 18, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[Athy]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Or maybe whilst they were moored the tree grew and blocked the view around the corner (WBs don't move much do they !!)

Ooooooh!

I suppose they move as much as narrowboats do on average - but, as all our boating this year has been on various parts of the Oxford, my reference was to narrowboats.

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

Peter as you know I love wide beams and they are without doubt better boats in most ways than skinny uncomfortable narrow boats BUT I also passed this particular idiot which thankfully has now moved and it completely blocked the view for boats in both directions and I had about sixty foot of my boat thro the other side of the tree before I got a decent view. This is precisely the problem, whilst wide beams are superior boats too many of them are owned by eejuts Like I am ok Lycra cyclist type. They are used/moored on small waterways by flipping numpties. This was a prime example. Edit to add this foto fails to show the large willow tree and doesn't justify just how crap a piece of parking it was.

From the picture it didnt look bad, as you know Tim I am all for widebeams on waterways designed for them which is why I am up north

[mrsmelly]

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

From the picture it didnt look bad, as you know Tim I am all for widebeams on waterways designed for them which is why I am up north

This is the trouble innitt. Having done both the gu and the k and a this summer to Bristol, both relatively small canals and both now with loads of these totaly inappropriate craft!! Bloomin eejuts.

[Bee]

Most 'boatbuilders' are really just happy to weld great slabs of flat steel together and never give any thought to what happens when the ugly lump leaves the yard.

if the things were built with some sort of decent chine(s) then they could at least get over a bit when passing and moor up against the bank but no, build it like a skip, vertical sides and 12' across the bottom. And why not use some of that width to put in decent side decks?, and if you do that then give the blasted thing some sheer, the rest of the world has to look at it. And a transom stern ? really? Don't they have any pride at all in the product? I despair. Really I do. Rant over (But it wouldn't take much to get me going again)

[dmr]

5 minutes ago, Bee said:

Most 'boatbuilders' are really just happy to weld great slabs of flat steel together and never give any thought to what happens when the ugly lump leaves the yard.

if the things were built with some sort of decent chine(s) then they could at least get over a bit when passing and moor up against the bank but no, build it like a skip, vertical sides and 12' across the bottom. And why not use some of that width to put in decent side decks?, and if you do that then give the blasted thing some sheer, the rest of the world has to look at it. And a transom stern ? really? Don't they have any pride at all in the product? I despair. Really I do. Rant over (But it wouldn't take much to get me going again)

In general fat narrowboats are built for living on, not for boating, so maximising the internal space is what its all about, in some cases this means a tiny front deck with the cabin turning in at the bow, narrow gunnels and zero tumblehome. Cant blame the builders, they are giving the customers the big square box that they want..

 

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

[mrsmelly]

10 minutes ago, dmr said:

In general fat narrowboats are built for living on, not for boating, so maximising the internal space is what its all about, in some cases this means a tiny front deck with the cabin turning in at the bow, narrow gunnels and zero tumblehome. Cant blame the builders, they are giving the customers the big square box that they want..

 

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

Precisely. It's called business. There are businesses that make quorn an inedible processed food. There are German car manufacturers turning out junk cars. Ridiculous televisions five feet across etc etc etc etc so the yards that turn these boats out obviously have a market.

[peterboat]

55 minutes ago, Bee said:

Most 'boatbuilders' are really just happy to weld great slabs of flat steel together and never give any thought to what happens when the ugly lump leaves the yard.

if the things were built with some sort of decent chine(s) then they could at least get over a bit when passing and moor up against the bank but no, build it like a skip, vertical sides and 12' across the bottom. And why not use some of that width to put in decent side decks?, and if you do that then give the blasted thing some sheer, the rest of the world has to look at it. And a transom stern ? really? Don't they have any pride at all in the product? I despair. Really I do. Rant over (But it wouldn't take much to get me going again)

Same as some narrowboats then? Mine has decent side decks, has a good rear deck with a wheelhouse, has a biggish well deck has big swims and the at the stern it lifts up like a trad does to give it shape. All this costs a great deal of money because curves cost money to quote Johnathon Wilson, So the average customer for a widebeam is like the average customer for a narrowboat they want them cheap  and you get what you stated slab side ugly etc