Jump to content

March of the Widebeams


cuthound

Featured Posts

2 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

As stated above this is a width of 12’ 6” rather than 14’ which interestingly is the case for the whole canal north of Berkhamsted.

402924681_Screenshot2019-06-28at01_01_52.png.47063f936baadfa5e14d781264524ebd.png

 

 

I suspect this boat exceeds the CRT published dims on not just width but headroom too. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caveat Emptor . . . 

 

unless the builder/designer negligently failed to advise their client. In principle, one might expect the CaRT Licensing web site to pick up this matter but, of course, there are waterways where the vessel might be more than compliant and the licence quite clearly does not guarantee the ability to cruise the whole system. Applied strictly then we (at 60ft) could not be licensed for the C&H but we have done it several times.

 

If the owner explicitly said to the builder that they wanted a design that they cruise this route (down to London?) who then said, "No Problem" (sorry Sue) then surely they would share the liability for any financial outcome. 

 

In any event, anyone building right to the limits, if they have any knowledge of the system, should know that this is foolhardy, not just to width but depth, length, tumblehome and air draft. Unless there is explicit evidence of negligence by others, surely a court would expect the buyer to exercise due diligence?

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Unless there is explicit evidence of negligence by others, surely a court would expect the buyer to exercise due diligence?

Personally I'd lay much of the fault at the owners door.

The builder (probably) just built what he was asked and could well have expected a crane & truck to turn up and take it away.

C&RT (could) have picked it up on the licence application but the licence could have been granted with a declared 'home mooring' of The Thames - C&RT would not know that the owner intended to get there by water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

.

C&RT (could) have picked it up on the licence application but the licence could have been granted with a declared 'home mooring' of The Thames -

 

I was told recently that CRT are effectively powerless to prevent a licensed boat from attempting to navigate a specific section of canal. Hence why they cannot prevent widebeams navigating narrow canals like the North Oxford not withstanding that they disapprove.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

 

I was told recently that CRT are effectively powerless to prevent a licensed boat from attempting to navigate a specific section of canal. Hence why they cannot prevent widebeams navigating narrow canals like the North Oxford not withstanding that they disapprove.  

From the T&Cs

(Probably not enforceable because the acts do not allow then to dictate what boats can go where)

 

 

7.3 The Boat must be fit for navigation on any Waterway where it is intended to be used.

 

Boat Dimensions
There is a guide to all Waterways dimensions on http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/a-boat-of-your-own/choosing-a-boat-to-buy or contact our Customer Service Centre. Use this to check that the Boat is not too big for the Waterways you want to navigate.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Caveat Emptor . . . 

 

unless the builder/designer negligently failed to advise their client. In principle, one might expect the CaRT Licensing web site to pick up this matter but, of course, there are waterways where the vessel might be more than compliant and the licence quite clearly does not guarantee the ability to cruise the whole system. Applied strictly then we (at 60ft) could not be licensed for the C&H but we have done it several times.

 

If the owner explicitly said to the builder that they wanted a design that they cruise this route (down to London?) who then said, "No Problem" (sorry Sue) then surely they would share the liability for any financial outcome. 

 

In any event, anyone building right to the limits, if they have any knowledge of the system, should know that this is foolhardy, not just to width but depth, length, tumblehome and air draft. Unless there is explicit evidence of negligence by others, surely a court would expect the buyer to exercise due diligence?

I suspect so but in the case of published maximum dimensions that is the only definitive thing the builder has to work on and I can’t see any other outcome than CRT being liable if a boat constructed within the envelope the published dimensions describe cannot physically make passage. CRT have a legal obligation to maintain those dimensions. The argument of suitability is semantic.

 

<<STUCK RECORD>> The published dimensions have to be used in combination. They describe a cuboid datumed at the waterline. The logic that someone else posted that the Fraenkel report dimensions are questionable because they had put a 71’ 6” boat through locks on a nominally 70’ maximum length canal is flawed. There are three ways in which a boat can relate to the dimensions;-

 

1. A boat constructed entirely within the envelope of the published dimensions should fit the entire waterway concerned and it is CRTs legal responsibility to ensure it can.

 

2. A boat that exceeds any or all of the dimensions in isolation or duplication MAY fit through any structure but it is at the risk of the owner. This is the case with your over length but under width and draught boat on the Calder & Hebble.

 

3. A boat that exceeds the dimensions in all three axes simultaneously will not fit one or more points on the waterway concerned.

 

JP

 

 

Edited by Captain Pegg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

If the owner explicitly said to the builder that they wanted a design that they cruise this route (down to London?) who then said, "No Problem" (sorry Sue) then surely they would share the liability for any financial outcome. 

 

 

The opposite might have been the case.

 

Builder: It won't fit through Blue Lias.

Owner: Yes it will, launch it anyway, I'm paying.

Builder: Ok then but sign this first....

 

Builder now enjoying the schadenfreude.... 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

The opposite might have been the case.

 

Builder: It won't fit through Blue Lias.

Owner: Yes it will, launch it anyway, I'm paying.

Builder: Ok then but sign this first....

 

Builder now enjoying the schadenfreude.... 

 

 

 

 

That is possible. I did consider that the boat may have originally been constructed for road transport away from the yard and then circumstances and/or the owner changed. As I said earlier I have doubts that the builder would have been blind to the restrictions of the canal in which they have been based for some time.

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

I suspect so but in the case of published maximum dimensions that is the only definitive thing the builder has to work on and I can’t see any other outcome than CRT being liable if a boat constructed within the envelope the published dimensions

 

But the boat is built bigger than the CRT published dimensions. The boat is 4m, CRT say 12ft 6in.

 

4m is 9" bigger than 12ft 6in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

But the boat is built bigger than the CRT published dimensions. The boat is 4m, CRT say 12ft 6in.

 

4m is 9" bigger than 12ft 6in. 

Is that established fact? I recognise that was presented as a quote from the owner but were they describing it accurately or approximately?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

But the boat is built bigger than the CRT published dimensions. The boat is 4m, CRT say 12ft 6in.

 

4m is 9" bigger than 12ft 6in. 

My Cruiser is 4.3 metres and I have just a couple of inches clearance in wide locks.

 

I know where I can go and where I cannot go (Basically only on Rivers)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Caveat Emptor . . . 

 

unless the builder/designer negligently failed to advise their client. In principle, one might expect the CaRT Licensing web site to pick up this matter but, of course, there are waterways where the vessel might be more than compliant and the licence quite clearly does not guarantee the ability to cruise the whole system. Applied strictly then we (at 60ft) could not be licensed for the C&H but we have done it several times.

 

If the owner explicitly said to the builder that they wanted a design that they cruise this route (down to London?) who then said, "No Problem" (sorry Sue) then surely they would share the liability for any financial outcome. 

 

In any event, anyone building right to the limits, if they have any knowledge of the system, should know that this is foolhardy, not just to width but depth, length, tumblehome and air draft. Unless there is explicit evidence of negligence by others, surely a court would expect the buyer to exercise due diligence?

There was a case a few years back where a boat owner sued a boatbuilder as their boat was too wide to get up the Llangollen. They won the case because the boat was measured to be more than 6ft 10in wide (but I recall less than 7 ft). The poor boatbuilder had to pay a significant sum in compensation. And it wasn't really his fault - he was just a boat fitter who had bought in a shell from a fabricator who had gone bust in the meantime, so couldn't be pursued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the beam of this boat was/is and don't care either. But..

 

A boat builder will build the boat a customer wants, moreso at that end of the market. If that boat was specified by the customer to be 4mtrs wide, or indeed wider, then the builder will build that. However, Delta (if it was Delta) have been around long enough to let that customer know they will have to road haul that boat away because of the waterways limitations and the customer agreeing..

 

I can also see the customer going down to the location, that they see as the only one stopping them getting to where they want to go without having extra expense, with a tape measure and giving it a rough measure. Customers will say yes one day, then make enquiries to have the boat lifted/moved and after a quote, be quick to change their minds and make believe they can get it down without having to incur all that extra cost for the sake of a few inches, mainly because their 'rough measure' tells them it will be 'o.k'.

They probably went and bought a tape measure, it's a lot cheaper than lifting and road haulage (as they see it).

 

Will Delta (if they were the builder) have let them go on the day, i.e. put it in the water and watch them sail away.. Hell yes, they built the boat, their obligation is to the customer, nothing more. Soon as it's certified and paid for, it's over for the builder, unless there are call backs regards their work. Customer takes full responsibility for the boat after that.

 

As someone mentioned before, just sign and take delivery, in that signed contract could have been the notice that the builder has informed the customer that the boat should be lifted and road hauled because of those limitations.

Edited by 70liveaboard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Even Nicholsons labels Blue Lias bridge as only 12ft wide. 

 

 

 

...and they havent even got as far as the Blue Lias bridge yet.

 

I did say to the CRT blokes bashing away at the coping stones at the bridge 24 that the next one up was even narrower...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Personally I'd lay much of the fault at the owners door.

The builder (probably) just built what he was asked and could well have expected a crane & truck to turn up and take it away.

C&RT (could) have picked it up on the licence application but the licence could have been granted with a declared 'home mooring' of The Thames - C&RT would not know that the owner intended to get there by water.

I launched at Calcutt but my home mooring was listed at Napton Engine arm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/06/2019 at 14:06, billS said:

...still there this morning. I wonder what the plan is now? Tow it backwards to somewhere it can be craned out?

It would only need to go backwards to Long Itchinton I would have thought, then it would be able to turn around.  I fail to understand why they have not just gone back to the boat yard where they came from, and admit that they made a mistake.

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.