Jump to content

March of the Widebeams


cuthound

Featured Posts

Just now, Loddon said:

If I remember my history correctly the Leicester line ( Old Grand Union) was built to the same dimensions as the GJ as a broad canal.

 

Yes, ditto the Ashby, but the old stop lock at its beginning prevents wide boats from using it.

However, if they'd been craned into the canal, they could happily trundle up and down its 22 miles and, in so doing, conform to CCing guidelines (Snarestone tunnel might be tight, though).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, David Mack said:

But if the wide boat has a home mooring on the Leicester Summit, it isn't required to make a bona fide journey. But it could still be a significant impediment to other boats. So CRT need to be proactive when it comes to approving home moorings for such craft.

I agree - I'm NOT quoting George here - I think this will be the problem that if the marinas allow them in, as clearly they will for commercial viability reasons, unless they are specifically prohibited from doing so via planning or connection consents then these boats aren't CC'ing and they can't be controlled - hence the issues on North Oxford with Dunchurch Pools and indeed I think there is at least one in either Crick and/or Yelvertoft marinas 

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

Yes, ditto the Ashby, but the old stop lock at its beginning prevents wide boats from using it.

However, if they'd been craned into the canal, they could happily trundle up and down its 22 miles and, in so doing, conform to CCing guidelines (Snarestone tunnel might be tight, though).

Shame on you for even mentioning the possibility! ?

AKA "Pound Cruising"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Halsey said:

 

Shame on you for even mentioning the possibility! ?

AKA "Pound Cruising"

It did occur to me that someone at Bosworth Marina might read my post and start making plans!

Nothing wrong with "pound cruising", as some pounds are very long: starting from Hillmorton, how far can you go up the N. Oxford and the Coventry before you meet a lock?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Athy said:

 

Nothing wrong with "pound cruising", as some pounds are very long …………………………….

But surely not for fattys on narrow canals locked in with narrow locks

 

Can I repeat for those who might be getting me wrong I'm NOT anti fattys I just don't want to meet one cruising towards me whilst relaxing on a truly narrow canal - I do and have met them on the North Oxford and whilst I might growl to myself I accept that until a stop lock is fitted in Braunston (or better still a permanent breasted pair) there is nothing any of us can do?.

 

 

Edited by Halsey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is rumoured that there are several CC boats on the 15 mile 'long pound' on the K&A that have never gone through a lock.

 

Acceptance by CRT of this situation is, I suspect, the reason for the '20 miles' thing turning into 20km. 20km is the bit less than 15 miles I would estimate.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Halsey said:

But surely not for fattys on narrow canals locked in with narrow locks

 

 

 

 

I was forgetting the Sutton's Stop lock! But a look at a map suggests that such boats could go, for example, about 29 miles from Hillmorton to there - which is further than our longest trip this year (Cropredy to Thrupp, about 24 miles).

I am not against widebeam boats either - we hire one in France each year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

It is rumoured that there are several CC boats on the 15 mile 'long pound' on the K&A that have never gone through a lock.

 

Acceptance by CRT of this situation is, I suspect, the reason for the '20 miles' thing turning into 20km. 20km is the bit less than 15 miles I would estimate.

12.47 ish miles so quite a bit below 15 miles.   Is the 20Km official i.e. published somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Is the 20Km official i.e. published somewhere.

London Enforcement Manager Simon Cadek sent an email to a boater who was warned that they were on course for failing their six month restricted licence, telling them what they would need to do to 'pass.'

The email is on public record as part of advice to boaters in the London Boaters Facebook group and dates from the end of 2016.


“When we are looking at boat movements we are looking for characteristics of bona fide navigation, these fall roughly into four categories:


· Range: by range we mean the furthest points a boat has travelled on the network, not merely the total distance travelled. While the BW act does not stipulate what that distance is the Trust has previously said that anyone travelling a range of less than say 20 miles (32km) would struggle to satisfy the Trust that they are engaged in bona fide navigation and that normally we would expect a greater range.


. For the avoidance of doubt, a small number of long journeys over a short period of time, followed or preceded by cruising in a small are of the network would not generally satisfy the Trust that you are engaged in bona fide navigation.


· Overstaying: we look to see how often boats overstay, either the 14 day limit on the main length of the canal, or shorter periods where local signage dictates, for example short stay visitor moorings.


While we are flexible with the occasional overstay from most boaters due to breakdown, illness or other emergencies, we will look at the overall pattern balanced with range and movement pattern in order to form a view.


Overstay reminders are issued when a boat is seen in the same area for more than 14 days. While we are unable to say how far you need to travel each time you move, we would advise that you normally travel further than a few km each time.


This will prevent you from getting reminders and depending on the length of other trips you make and how many times you turn back on yourself, should increase your overall range over the course of your licence.


· Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences are intended for bona fide (genuine) navigation around the network, rather than for a boat to remain in one mooring spot, place neighbourhood or area.


We would expect boats on these licences to move around the network such that they don’t gravitate back to favoured areas too often i.e. in a way that it’s clear to us that they’re living in a small area of the waterway.


The basic principle of this is that these licences are not intended for living in an area and if it looks like a boat is habitually returning to a particular part of the waterway then this would not generally satisfy the Trust.


Within an acceptable range we’d expect a genuine movement, so for example it would not satisfy the Trust if a boat went on a 60 mile trip during the course of say two weeks, then returned to cruise in an area of say 5 miles the remainder of the time (figures are examples only).


Generally speaking, the smaller the range the less we’d expect to see boats back at the same locations. Of course people need to turn around and they’re perfectly free to re-visit places they have been to before, it’s living in a small area on this kind of licence that would cause a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

London Enforcement Manager Simon Cadek sent an email to a boater who was warned that they were on course for failing their six month restricted licence, telling them what they would need to do to 'pass.'

The email is on public record as part of advice to boaters in the London Boaters Facebook group and dates from the end of 2016.


“When we are looking at boat movements we are looking for characteristics of bona fide navigation, these fall roughly into four categories:


· Range: by range we mean the furthest points a boat has travelled on the network, not merely the total distance travelled. While the BW act does not stipulate what that distance is the Trust has previously said that anyone travelling a range of less than say 20 miles (32km) would struggle to satisfy the Trust that they are engaged in bona fide navigation and that normally we would expect a greater range.


. For the avoidance of doubt, a small number of long journeys over a short period of time, followed or preceded by cruising in a small are of the network would not generally satisfy the Trust that you are engaged in bona fide navigation.


· Overstaying: we look to see how often boats overstay, either the 14 day limit on the main length of the canal, or shorter periods where local signage dictates, for example short stay visitor moorings.


While we are flexible with the occasional overstay from most boaters due to breakdown, illness or other emergencies, we will look at the overall pattern balanced with range and movement pattern in order to form a view.


Overstay reminders are issued when a boat is seen in the same area for more than 14 days. While we are unable to say how far you need to travel each time you move, we would advise that you normally travel further than a few km each time.


This will prevent you from getting reminders and depending on the length of other trips you make and how many times you turn back on yourself, should increase your overall range over the course of your licence.


· Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences are intended for bona fide (genuine) navigation around the network, rather than for a boat to remain in one mooring spot, place neighbourhood or area.


We would expect boats on these licences to move around the network such that they don’t gravitate back to favoured areas too often i.e. in a way that it’s clear to us that they’re living in a small area of the waterway.


The basic principle of this is that these licences are not intended for living in an area and if it looks like a boat is habitually returning to a particular part of the waterway then this would not generally satisfy the Trust.


Within an acceptable range we’d expect a genuine movement, so for example it would not satisfy the Trust if a boat went on a 60 mile trip during the course of say two weeks, then returned to cruise in an area of say 5 miles the remainder of the time (figures are examples only).


Generally speaking, the smaller the range the less we’d expect to see boats back at the same locations. Of course people need to turn around and they’re perfectly free to re-visit places they have been to before, it’s living in a small area on this kind of licence that would cause a problem.

Thank you.  That is more or less what I understood things to be.   I hadn't seen 20Km anywhere other than the forum and verbal mention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Loddon said:

If I remember my history correctly the Leicester line ( Old Grand Union) was built to the same dimensions as the GJ as a broad canal but with narrow locks.

 

It seems a bit contentious as to what the original intentions were for some of the so-called broad canals -whether they were intended for boats > 7 feet beam or for better passage of two narrowboats. As far as I can see, some of the 20C improvements were not properly followed through in term so of improving the infrastructure between locks following the construction of wide locks. The increasing usage today was, as far as I can see, never achieved in the days of commercial carrying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Halsey said:

Sometimes our changing world really disappoints - a pal of mine has just recently cruised along the Crick summit and there are now 4 fat boats "cruising" the Crick Summit - the new North Kilworth Marina are putting them in and off they go - is it just me but how do they qualify as continuous cruisers ???

 

The sad thing is that, now there are 4, others will surely follow far more readily - CRT wont do anything so soon there will be no leisure moorings in the popular areas.

 

Dunchurch Pools is bad enough (encouraging fattys on the north Oxford) but surely a marina on a narrow canal with NO appropriate access/egress points for fat boats shouldn't be allowed to crane them in.

 

Don't marinas have to get consent from CRT to connect to the system so why cant this consent be conditioned 

 

CRT really need to get on top of this otherwise every pound in the country with a craning in facility will have a fat boat cruiser on it who will claim they can't move

 

Don't get me wrong I'm NOT against fat boats in the right location but surely that isn't a narrow canal with narrow locks!

 

I have posted this on the part II version of this topic as well but in view of the posts above about North Kilworth Marina I thought it better here - just reflect on the comments that"this wont happen",  "this cant happen", "they cant go anywhere" etc  - FYI - It HAS happened and this is just the beginning - write to CRT about it and esp this marinas involvement - IMHO don't make it personal its not about the people its about the issue and CRT's response to it!!

CRT are unlikely to discourage widebeam boats in any location given that they are now going to be generating more licence income from them!

  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

It seems a bit contentious as to what the original intentions were for some of the so-called broad canals -whether they were intended for boats > 7 feet beam or for better passage of two narrowboats. As far as I can see, some of the 20C improvements were not properly followed through in term so of improving the infrastructure between locks following the construction of wide locks. The increasing usage today was, as far as I can see, never achieved in the days of commercial carrying.

I think we may be struggling as it's not even clear the promoters always knew what size of boat to expect - The Grand Junction IIRC correctly wanted broad boats and was loathe to let narrow boats use locks singly, yet single narrow boats were sure to arrive given the connection at the north end to the Oxford Canal

 

Things get more complicated on things like the K&A. which was built to a non-standard broad size (it is slightly smaller than the GU, and smaller than the barges on the rivers at both ends), and during the development stage accepted that connecting canals would be half-width

 

What is undoubtedly true on the GU, where motorisation meant that boats meeting each other no longer had to contend with passing towropes*, was that pairs of narrow boats were a lot faster than single broad beam boats as they could go flat our between the locks passing each other in bridges and tunnels, neverthless the intention was to allow broad beam vessels to Birmingham

 

*The K&A didn't see many pairs and they weren't motorised, so although narrow boats could pass in a bridge hole they still had to contend with towropes passing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Victor Vectis said:

Yes.

 

If you do get a response can you keep us posted?

Of course I will but as you will see from a later post there is an inference already that if the stretch of canal is "locked" in by narrow locks that that is an important factor to them hence the distinction drawn between the north oxford and the crick summit (and presumably the ashby)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magpie patrick said:

I think we may be struggling as it's not even clear the promoters always knew what size of boat to expect - The Grand Junction IIRC correctly wanted broad boats and was loathe to let narrow boats use locks singly, yet single narrow boats were sure to arrive given the connection at the north end to the Oxford Canal

 

Things get more complicated on things like the K&A. which was built to a non-standard broad size (it is slightly smaller than the GU, and smaller than the barges on the rivers at both ends), and during the development stage accepted that connecting canals would be half-width

 

What is undoubtedly true on the GU, where motorisation meant that boats meeting each other no longer had to contend with passing towropes*, was that pairs of narrow boats were a lot faster than single broad beam boats as they could go flat our between the locks passing each other in bridges and tunnels, neverthless the intention was to allow broad beam vessels to Birmingham

 

*The K&A didn't see many pairs and they weren't motorised, so although narrow boats could pass in a bridge hole they still had to contend with towropes passing

As I have read it, the intention was to allow broad beam to Birmingham (actually just south of Camp Hill which was never planned to be widened but that the works only got as far as widening the locks. Then the traffic and demand for wide barges did not materialise enough to justify investment in what happens between the locks, especially in terms of width (especially for passing) and depth as well as loading/unloading facilities. This also makes more sense of the Hilmorton situation. We do also have to remember that it was not necessary to allow for moored boats other than at recognised transhipment points, where it would probably be widened anyway. This is what makes today's context rather different and more contentious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You must be JOKING

 

£7,500,000 (7.5 million) ???

I think it's a misprice ... if you read down and your eyes aren't blinded by the colour scheme the price is shown as £75000 in the text

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, KevMc said:

I think it's a misprice ... if you read down and your eyes aren't blinded by the colour scheme the price is shown as £75000 in the text

I did notice that - but when you see a headline with a price 7.5 million times what you'd be prepared to pay I would not often read further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/11/2018 at 09:47, Halsey said:

One would hope …………………… when I get a CRT contact it will be interesting to see what they say

Are you looking for responsibility for a particular region, or in the wider context of it being able to happen anywhere?

 

Once again it seems more or less impossible to delve on-line into the current CRT organisational structure much below board level.  I never find their search facility will easily show who reports to who, or their areas of responsibility.

Mathew Syumonds carries the title "Boating Strategy and Engagement Manager " I think (whatever that means!), unless it has changed yet again quite recently.

 

Is Jon Hosfall Head of Customer Services, and does Matthew report to him?  I'm not sure any more!

 

I would have thought all this stuff ultimately falls under Julie Sharman, Chief Operating Officer.

 

Why not direct at all three, and ask for clarification about who you should be talking to?

Edited by alan_fincher
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
×
×
  • 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.