March of the Widebeams

[roland elsdon]

Crt several hats ago, well 50 plus years ago cut a bit out of our boat, no one knows how long it really is. 

They say one thing and surveys say another. It got worse when they tried to metricate the charging system. If they had left it in feet  and inches, and pounds shillings and pence it would have been ok.

To make it worse they claim it is x metres long , but has a maximum speed in knots, and weighed in tons.

poor thing really cant cope which is why it goes aground a lot because depths are measured in metres now and it was built in feet.

im looking forward to Boris  and the new british age.  He will blast us back to the dark ages. I shall measure the length in chains, and pay a man wearing a brown coat and a flat hat, in florins and groats. He will take cash and give me an inky duplicated  reciept for the ticket drawer.

good old days are back again.

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, roland elsdon said:

good old days are back again.

We can but hope !

[GRLMK38]

7 hours ago, haggis said:

I think this might be a long running thread with all the obstacles this boat has to encounter before it gets to London. Blue Lias bridge, Braunston tunnel to name but two. 

 

haggis

Perhaps it's time to be thinking about winter moorings.

[zenataomm]

2 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

Given that another fat boat that could get through the bridge but now cant, doesn't that suggest there is a problem with the bridge not the boat?

For the sake of tying loose ends and trying to clarify the unclarifiable.  

All I remember about Rambling Roseling Tranquiling was reading it had passed through Braunston at some point.

Which way was it going?

Did it get through Blue Lias Bridge?

Did it get through WFB Bridge?

[peterboat]

10 hours ago, hider said:

Get the daft beggar through the bridge then rebuild it for narrow boats so he can't get back in to the proper canal made for proper size boats.

Preferably let these barge skips sail all the way to the coasts, out to sea and then not let them back in. 

Bugger off to the Continent with the stupid boats.

Just because you think narrowboats are right doesnt mean you are right, widebeams can only be on canals and rivers that have locks and bridges that are big enough for them, and believe me there are lots of canals built for proper size boats and not the toy ones that you like so much. You are another blinkered narrow minded person on a narrow canal............that might have been built for a proper sized boat

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Just because you think narrowboats are right doesnt mean you are right, widebeams can only be on canals and rivers that have locks and bridges that are big enough for them, and believe me there are lots of canals built for proper size boats and not the toy ones that you like so much. You are another blinkered narrow minded person on a narrow canal............that might have been built for a proper sized boat

 

Therefore, only an idiot would take a fat boat on a canal built for thin boats. 

 

He should have launched it directly into the Thames. Tried to save himself £1,500 transport on a £250k boat build and came horribly unstuck. 

 

What is it they say about a ship and a ha’porth of tar?

 

 

 

 

[hider]

5 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Just because you think narrowboats are right doesnt mean you are right, widebeams can only be on canals and rivers that have locks and bridges that are big enough for them, and believe me there are lots of canals built for proper size boats and not the toy ones that you like so much. You are another blinkered narrow minded person on a narrow canal............that might have been built for a proper sized boat

Sorry to get that from you, but its utter rubbish. The canals that had wide boats were built for those boats, but these idiots want to put wide boats on canals that were built for pairs of narrowboats that could be singled out when need be.

[peterboat]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Therefore, only an idiot would take a fat boat on a canal built for thin boats. 

 

He should have launched it directly into the Thames. Tried to save himself £1,500 transport on a £250k boat build and came horribly unstuck. 

 

What is it they say about a ship and a ha’porth of tar?

 

 

 

 

But a boat that size has been traveling up and down that canal for years, I wouldnt because I prefer our big open waterways up here made for proper boats.

[MtB]

1 minute ago, peterboat said:

But a boat that size has been traveling up and down that canal for years, I wouldnt because I prefer our big open waterways up here made for proper boats.

 

What size, exactly?

 

and your evidence they are the same? 

[Chris Williams]

11 minutes ago, peterboat said:

a narrow canal............that might have been built for a proper sized boat

I rather think that money (or lack of it) had just a little to do with it.

[peterboat]

3 minutes ago, hider said:

Sorry to get that from you, but its utter rubbish. The canals that had wide boats were built for those boats, but these idiots want to put wide boats on canals that were built for pairs of narrowboats that could be singled out when need be.

On this thread it has been pointed out that wide boats traded on the canal after its locks were modified so whats the problems?

3 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

What size, exactly?

 

and your evidence they are the same? 

Because the owner says its 12.6 feet wide and CRT are repairing the bridge, dont think they would if it wasnt a problem?

[hider]

4 minutes ago, peterboat said:

On this thread it has been pointed out that wide boats traded on the canal after its locks were modified so whats the problems?

And it proved to be a mistake, they went back to narrow boats.

 

Any surviving wide boats off these "widened" canals?

 

Plenty of narrow ones still running around.

[peterboat]

2 minutes ago, hider said:

And it proved to be a mistake, they went back to narrow boats.

 

Any surviving wide boats off these "widened" canals?

 

Plenty of narrow ones still running around.

Doesnt matter what you think, CRT think different, the canal was rebuilt for wide boats, just like up here, except up here they were a success  100 tons carried in one boat, thats the way to do it and make the canal pay at the time. Now days we have a very large boat going down our canal it carries 400 tons plus of oil, our canal had to be altered in the 80s to accommodate boats that size, its just a fact of life things change and move on

[Chris Williams]

I loaded coal on a wide canal - the Ashby was used by wide boats and the bridges were wide.  Lower down, it became a ditch, and the Coventry and Oxford were also ditches, then I got out onto the Sheepwash, which is wide, and then the Thames.

Isis Lock, the last on the Oxford was originally wide, and Thames barges served many of the wharves above it.

[Naughty Cal]

6 hours ago, hider said:

And it proved to be a mistake, they went back to narrow boats.

 

Any surviving wide boats off these "widened" canals?

 

Plenty of narrow ones still running around.

You may think it was a mistake but CRT clearly dont agree with you or they would not be willing to spend many several thousands of pounds to put right this bridge.

 

It matters not one jot what you think about wide boats on this particular stretch of water.

[pete harrison]

7 hours ago, peterboat said:

On this thread it has been pointed out that wide boats traded on the canal after its locks were modified so whats the problems?

It has been pointed out that a trial was carried out with one purpose built wide boat after its locks were modified, and that trial was deemed to be unsuccessful 

[Naughty Cal]

7 minutes ago, pete harrison said:

It has been pointed out that a trial was carried out with one purpose built wide boat after its locks were modified, and that trial was deemed to be unsuccessful 

It has also been pointed out that until recently a wide hotel boat has been able to get through that bridge.

 

Now it can not.

 

 

[pete harrison]

11 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

It has also been pointed out that until recently a wide hotel boat has been able to get through that bridge.

 

Now it can not.

 

 

Yes, I am not disputing that TRANQUIL Rose has been passing along this section for some years and now can not pass the W.F.B.Co. bridge. 

 

It is however being suggested by one or two on here that there is a historic president (spelling ?) set by the Grand Union Canal Company that multiple wide boats traded along this section that is just not true 

 

edit = and as I stated earlier in this thread the wide boat that was used was gauged at 12'1½'' not the 12'6'' being quoted nowadays.

Edited July 9, 2019 by pete harrison

[alan_fincher]

7 hours ago, peterboat said:

Doesnt matter what you think, CRT think different, the canal was rebuilt for wide boats,

No wrong!

 

The canal had it's locks rebuilt able to take two narrow boats instead of one.

 

On the whole the rest of the canal was never modified to accommodate boats of over 7 feet, which is why when they tried just one on a trial basis, they quickly deemed it not viable, and dropped the idea.

 

Had more money been available to widen the channel, things might have been different, but it never happened.

 

You trying to rewrite history doesn't change the known facts.

 

 

[Jerra]

8 hours ago, peterboat said:

 its just a fact of life things change and move on

I don't know the area particularly well but reading the thread it seems things have changed and moved on.   So it is no longer suitable for wide boats.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

I don't know the area particularly well but reading the thread it seems things have changed and moved on.   So it is no longer suitable for wide boats.

In which case, I come back to the point that C&RT should either revise the figures they quote for boat dimensions that can use the canal, or, rebuild to the original specification.

[Jerra]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

In which case, I come back to the point that C&RT should either revise the figures they quote for boat dimensions that can use the canal, or, rebuild to the original specification.

Quoting different dimensions would have been the cheapest option.

[GUMPY]

3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Quoting different dimensions would have been the cheapest option.

But it would also be the wrong option!

Reclassify Hurleston Locks to 6'6" anyone?

Edited July 9, 2019 by Loddon

[Alan de Enfield]

29 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Quoting different dimensions would have been the cheapest option.

Indeed it would, but, apparently they have a legal obligation to maintain the 'track' to the dimensions used by BW, so to get agreement to change the dimensions may involve Parliament.

 

CRT’s priorities for maintaining navigability of the waterways 

12.4 CRT is successor to statutory duties under the Transport Act 1968 to maintain certain of the waterways in its care (those classified as either commercial or cruising waterways under the provisions of that Act) to specified statutory dimensions. BW (as its predecessor in respect of those statutory duties) had been subject to a long standing ministerial direction that in its management of such waterways it should maintain to such dimensions as reflected their use and prospects of use. It was further understood between BW and Government that, in the event of enforcement of the statutory dimensions in circumstances that did not reflect use and prospects of use, Government would exercise its powers under the Transport Act 1968 to revise those dimensions so that they reflected actual use and prospects of use. 
12.5 Defra confirms to CRT its intention that the maintenance of statutory dimensions of the classified waterways should continue to reflect actual use and prospects of use. 
12.6 In order to avoid inappropriately frequent proposals from CRT to Defra under the amended provisions of the Transport Act 1968 for a change to the statutory maintenance dimensions, Defra confirms and acknowledges that in assessing the extent of compliance by CRT with its statutory duties for the purposes of enforcement of the Trust Settlement obligations and the requirements of the Grant Agreement, Defra will take into account the mutually understood intention that CRT will operate and maintain the classified waterways in its care to standards that reflect their use and the prospects of their use.  
 

The process for consultation on waterway re-classification and maintenance dimension orders 

12.7 CRT and Defra confirm their understanding in relation to the process for consultation on waterway re-classification and maintenance dimension orders under the Transport Act 1968 on the basis set out in Annex 7 (The process for consultation on waterway re-classification and maintenance dimension orders under the Transport Act 1968). 
 

Very small extract from Annex 7

 

There remains wide scope for recreational users and their organisations to make representations and to formally object under the provisions of the Transport Act 1968 if an application is made by CRT to the Secretary of State for the re-classification of a waterway or to change a waterway‟s maintenance dimensions.  CRT through its governance framework can be expected to widely debate the issue before any application is made within CRT‟s Council and relevant Waterway Partnership and more widely.  Specific consultation requirements on the Secretary of State are set out in Schedule 13 to the Transport Act 1968 to enable those with an interest to object to a proposed navigation order. Therefore if Government proposes a change to statutory classification or maintenance requirements Government would undertake a full consultation on its proposal to ensure boaters and other interested parties have the opportunity to comment.  It is anticipated that the proposal would be aired and debated within CRT‟s governance structures as part of CRT‟s consultation procedure to ensure all those with an interest are able to comment. 

Edited July 9, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[Jerra]

26 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Indeed it would, but, apparently they have a legal obligation to maintain the 'track' to the dimensions used by BW,

So if BW happened to have made a mistake somewhere (I am not saying they did) CRT would have to (to give a totaly silly suggestion)  widen 7 foot locks to 14 foot because BW hadn't got it right.

 

I think they didn't read the small print if they agreed to that.