March of the Widebeams

[Grahamnewman]

3 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

I bet its fantasticaly comfortable inside? Have you been inside?

Yes i have. Very nice, good woodwork, lots of gadgets and air conditioning throughout. Its filling with fresh water, 6.15 so should be on its way soon.

lots of large rubber mats down each side to protect it !!!

[noddyboater]

56 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

It handled better and was way more stable. 

I can only assume by this that your wide beam was a proper boat shaped boat or the narrowboats you’ve owned are particularly poorly handling. The current crop of widebeams being churned out aren’t known for superb handling characteristics. 

[OldGoat]

54 minutes ago, Grahamnewman said:

Yes i have. Very nice, good woodwork, lots of gadgets and air conditioning throughout. Its filling with fresh water, 6.15 so should be on its way soon.

lots of large rubber mats down each side to protect it !!!

That really is *** quite beyond the pail. It'll probably drain the marina's electricity allowance - serves them right.

Whatever next..... 

[mrsmelly]

22 minutes ago, noddyboater said:

I can only assume by this that your wide beam was a proper boat shaped boat or the narrowboats you’ve owned are particularly poorly handling. The current crop of widebeams being churned out aren’t known for superb handling characteristics. 

My Udson had long swims and was a well built boat. My current ( second ) colecraft in fairness isnt too bad for a skip which is what modern narrowboats are. In fairness my widebeam was built by Horsley Quenet a company 99.9  percent of forum owners have never heard of. It was very well built of 12/8/4 construction and a lovely shape, it was not like the pigs seen often nowadays. It had a three foot draught which made it stable and was no problem whatsoever on the commercial waterways it was kept and used on. Trouble I find is far too many narrowboaters have actualy never been on or indeed owned a widebeam boat but for some reason slang them off with zero experience of them whatsoever. On the right waterway owning a widebeam, even a pig to look at for living on purposes is way nicer than a narrowboat. Problem is too many are finding their way onto tiny waterways such as the GU, the K and A and god help us even worse the North Oxford!! Nowt wrong with the boats just the people who locate them.

[noddyboater]

2 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

My Udson had long swims and was a well built boat. My current ( second ) colecraft in fairness isnt too bad for a skip which is what modern narrowboats are. In fairness my widebeam was built by Horsley Quenet a company 99.9  percent of forum owners have never heard of. It was very well built of 12/8/4 construction and a lovely shape, it was not like the pigs seen often nowadays. It had a three foot draught which made it stable and was no problem whatsoever on the commercial waterways it was kept and used on. Trouble I find is far too many narrowboaters have actualy never been on or indeed owned a widebeam boat but for some reason slang them off with zero experience of them whatsoever. On the right waterway owning a widebeam, even a pig to look at for living on purposes is way nicer than a narrowboat. Problem is too many are finding their way onto tiny waterways such as the GU, the K and A and god help us even worse the North Oxford!! Nowt wrong with the boats just the people who locate them.

I’ve never had the pleasure? of steering a modern wide narrowboat shaped thing, but don’t imagine they handle very well as they don’t have much in the way of swims or fine underwater shape. My broad boating has been on more vintage stuff- Dutch barge, Leeds Liverpool short boat, Tom pudding tug, none of which handled particularly well. Obviously the Tom pudding tug isn’t going to at less than 50’ but 6’ draught! 

If I was going back to living aboard based up North again I’d love a widebeam, but it would have to be something that didn’t make me feel bilious every time I saw it. 

[MtB]

 

From what I read about the Rochdale, widebeams are hardly best choice of vessel.

 

(That IS a 'northern canal' isn't it?)

 

 

[Chris Williams]

3 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

far too many narrowboaters have actualy never been on or indeed owned a widebeam boat

Does a breasted pair (14 foot) count ?   And lop-sided propulsion from the motor.  Never had any problem.

 

[TheBiscuits]

2 hours ago, Chris Williams said:

Does a breasted pair (14 foot) count ?   And lop-sided propulsion from the motor.  Never had any problem.

Strangely, no.

 

Having steered a variety of fat boats, short boats, long boats ( L&L, not Viking!) and breasted pairs, I can assure you they all handle very differently.

 

Our current trick with a breasted pair of leisure narrowboats is that you add the other steerer and run both engines to "make road" in longer pounds. Good communication is key, and handing fine control over to one steerer for going into narrows or locks makes a heck of a difference!  We have tried the "you go in reverse and I'll go in forward" trick, but it is much much easier with twin throttles and less steerers!

 

Either way, a breasted pair does not handle anything like a fat narrowboat does, or anything remotely like an L&L short boat does.

 

I've never (yet) tried a humber keel or a tom pudding tug, so next time I'm over Wakefield way I might need to go towards the weir and bother @NB Esk ...

Edited May 29, 2019 by TheBiscuits

[NB Esk]

6 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

Strangely, no.

 

Having steered a variety of fat boats, short boats, long boats ( L&L, not Viking!) and breasted pairs, I can assure you they all handle very differently.

 

Our current trick with a breasted pair of leisure narrowboats is that you add the other steerer and run both engines to "make road" in longer pounds. Good communication is key, and handing fine control over to one steerer for going into narrows or locks makes a heck of a difference!  We have tried the "you go in reverse and I'll go in forward" trick, but it is much much easier with twin throttles and less steerers!

 

Either way, a breasted pair does not handle anything like a fat narrowboat does, or anything remotely like an L&L short boat does.

 

I've never (yet) tried a humber keel or a tom pudding tug, so next time I'm over Wakefield way I might need to go towards the weir and bother @NB Esk ...

Probably best not to throw me a rope though.....

 

 

[sirweste]

14 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

and no walking like a crab

[mrsmelly]

10 hours ago, noddyboater said:

I’ve never had the pleasure? of steering a modern wide narrowboat shaped thing, but don’t imagine they handle very well as they don’t have much in the way of swims or fine underwater shape. My broad boating has been on more vintage stuff- Dutch barge, Leeds Liverpool short boat, Tom pudding tug, none of which handled particularly well. Obviously the Tom pudding tug isn’t going to at less than 50’ but 6’ draught! 

If I was going back to living aboard based up North again I’d love a widebeam, but it would have to be something that didn’t make me feel bilious every time I saw it. 

My old bus was not as pig ugly as the standard craft, it was just very nearly pig ugly ? It did have some shape and a good tumblehome with a nice shaped pointy end. The swims were blunt and stopping was not as good as many other boats. However it was much more stable, turned on a sixpence and immeasureably more comfortable. A no brainer as a liveaboard on bigger waterways.

[furnessvale]

2 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

My old bus was not as pig ugly as the standard craft, it was just very nearly pig ugly ? It did have some shape and a good tumblehome with a nice shaped pointy end. The swims were blunt and stopping was not as good as many other boats. However it was much more stable, turned on a sixpence and immeasureably more comfortable. A no brainer as a liveaboard on bigger waterways.

And that is the key.  Anyone claiming that living on a narrowboat is as comfortable as a broad beam is deluding himself.  All that people (ie me) are complaining about is out of gauge vessels using unsuitable canals.

 

I have stated that I have never met one on the move on a narrow canal and what I would do if I did.  However, I have been forced into the offshore foilage by such boats moored unattended.  I can scratch my own painwork, I don't need help from others! ?

 

George

[johnmck]

The boat in question has gone from Braunston. No reports, so the trip must have been uneventful into Dunchurch Pools?

[furnessvale]

Just now, johnmck said:

The boat in question has gone from Braunston. No reports, so the trip must have been uneventful into Dunchurch Pools?

Quick, get the marina entrance stanked to 8ft wide while it's still in there!

 

George

[Chris Williams]

11 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

Either way, a breasted pair does not handle anything like a fat narrowboat does,

Easier or not?  I did some work using Jaguar, empty, with a well-loaded mud hopper breasted up,  took a while to get up speed, but handled OK.  Never have handled a wide boat.

[TheBiscuits]

44 minutes ago, Chris Williams said:

Easier or not?  I did some work using Jaguar, empty, with a well-loaded mud hopper breasted up,  took a while to get up speed, but handled OK.  Never have handled a wide boat.

Depends on the boat(s) obviously, but a breasted pair of anything tends to swim much better than a fat narrowboat with a square stern.  You can get better fatties with a well designed swim, but most purchasers don't go for that as it eats into the internal space too much.  

 

Some of the old dutch barges are fab to steer if they have enough water under the keel, but that usually means at least 4 or 5 feet, which doesn't happen too often on the canals.  On the rivers they are brilliant. 

 

I think a lot of it is down to boat-handling skill to be honest - some boaters could make a fair job of steering a square pan with an underpowered outboard strapped to it, and others couldn't manage a rubber dinghy.  Some of that may be nerves - I don't think I'd want to pay £250,000 for a floating flat and then go ditchcrawling in it - but that means they never gain experience handling their own boat.

 

 

[KevMc]

2 hours ago, furnessvale said:

And that is the key.  Anyone claiming that living on a narrowboat is as comfortable as a broad beam is deluding himself.  All that people (ie me) are complaining about is out of gauge vessels using unsuitable canals.

 

I have stated that I have never met one on the move on a narrow canal and what I would do if I did.  However, I have been forced into the offshore foilage by such boats moored unattended.  I can scratch my own painwork, I don't need help from others! ?

 

George

I'm happy to be deluded then ..... I have a nice 4ft bed with no wasted space around it to gather clutter. The galley is compact enough for me to be able to reach everything without needing to walk around - and has a standard size fridge, microwave, 4 burner hob and oven big enough to cook xmas lunch for 3 (2 meat eaters and a veggie). The saloon has a very comfortable sofa less than 6ft from a reasonable sized TV and a drop leave dining table. I haven't needed a bath since I was a nipper as I prefer showers (being as they are more hygienic and use less water). And to top it off I only have to heat half as much space as a widebeam ... so my life is very comfortable thank you.

[Steilsteven]

On 27/05/2019 at 20:54, frangar said:

Unfortunately that view is becoming common....just because a boat can fit thro a lock or bridge hole doesn’t mean it’s suitable for the waterway....you only have to look at the bridges on the Oxford to see the damage caused by narrowboats with no tumblehome let alone a widebeam like the one pictured. 

Yes they should ban all narrow boats from the Oxford canal they just aren't suitable.

 

Keith

On 27/05/2019 at 20:45, Ray T said:

Lifted from a previous poster.

According to those dimensions all historic working boats are too big to navigate the Oxford canal.

 

Keith

[Ray T]

3 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

Yes they should ban all narrow boats from the Oxford canal they just aren't suitable.

 

Keith

According to those dimensions all historic working boats are too big to navigate the Oxford canal.

 

Keith

That post is out of date information, please see my further post below my original which gives revised dimensions of 72ft and 7ft. So historic working boats are quite safe. 

Edited May 29, 2019 by Ray T

[Steilsteven]

19 minutes ago, Ray T said:

That post is out of date information, please see my further post below my original which gives revised dimensions of 72ft and 7ft. So historic working boats are quite safe. 

Except that they're all ( pre 1950 ) wider than 7'. Pedantic I know.

Surely that 6' headroom is wrong though?

 

Keith

[Ray T]

Just now, Steilsteven said:

Except that they're all ( pre 1950 ) wider than 7'. Pedantic I know.

Surely that 6' headroom is wrong though?

 

Keith

Don't ask me, ask CRT.

[pete harrison]

13 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

Except that they're all ( pre 1950 ) wider than 7'. Pedantic I know.

Surely that 6' headroom is wrong though?

 

Keith

Would the 6' headroom be based upon a boat of 12'7'' beam, so giving space for a cabin under the lowering section of the bridge arch.

 

You and I both know that a large empty Grand Union Canal Carrying Company Ltd. motor with a full size cratch needs a height getting on for 9' and will easily fit along this section because the highest point of the cratch goes through the highest point of the arch - and the cabin is nowhere near the arch.

 

6' does sound low however

 

edit - if I remember correctly the two lowest bridges are on the southern Oxford Canal, one at Kiddlington and the other astride Shipton Weir Lock - both of which can be a nuisance with a cratch up when empty.

Edited May 29, 2019 by pete harrison

[Chris Williams]

4 minutes ago, pete harrison said:

Would the 6' headroom be based upon a boat of 12'7'' beam, so giving space for a cabin under the lowering section of the bridge arch.

 

You and I both know that a large empty Grand Union Canal Carrying Company Ltd. motor with a full size cratch needs a height getting on for 9' and will easily fit along this section because the highest point of the cratch goes through the highest point of the arch - and the cabin is nowhere near the arch.

 

6' does sound low however

I did have trouble with Jaguar's cratch at Aynho, when the Cherwell was in flood and we were empty.  A Town would not have got through without taking the cratch down.

[pete harrison]

1 minute ago, Chris Williams said:

I did have trouble with Jaguar's cratch at Aynho, when the Cherwell was in flood and we were empty.  A Town would not have got through without taking the cratch down.

Obviously Nell Bridge (below Nell Bridge Lock) is subject to the same problem, but I do recall having an issue there...………….yet

[dogless]

So the new boat and owners disappeared into their marina to live happily ever after on their floating, dream home.

The sun still rises and sets.

I love a happy ending

Rog