Jump to content

March of the Widebeams


cuthound

Featured Posts

23 hours ago, frangar said:

Having just come along the Soar it seems that the first rule of widebeam ownership is you must moor on a lock landing....and the uglier your fat narrowboat the more entitled you feel to do this....

And the second law is that being on a widebeam excuses you from ever having to close lock gates behind you.

  • Greenie 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sitting out the rain at Swarkestone, when we became aware of an engine, then excessive use of a bow thruster. 

It was this...

Oh to see them meet a similar vessel coming the other way.

IMG_20190719_144025.jpg

Edited by johnmck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhat naively I was under the impression that Bow Thrusters were used to assist when mooring and winding. How are the batteries replenished if the thrusters are used excessively?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, johnmck said:

Sitting out the rain at Swarkestone, when we became aware of an engine, then excessive use of a bow thruster. 

It was this...

Oh to see them meet a similar vessel coming the other way.

IMG_20190719_144025.jpg

I must have passed you....thankfully I didn’t meet that thing...I’m not sure it can be called a boat really....

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, frangar said:

 

I met a CRT wide beam barge being pushed by a CTR tug the other day up around bridge 73 on the northern GU, above Kixley Wharf, on a bend of course, we both run aground whilst passing each other, he was on the tow path side, all due to a lack of dredging  and lots of offside vegetation overhanging the cut, otherwise there would have been plenty of room to pass each other. My boat is 11ft wide.

Edited by F DRAYKE
Wrong quote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, F DRAYKE said:

I met a CRT wide beam barge being pushed by a CTR tug the other day up around bridge 73 on the northern GU, above Kixley Wharf, on a bend of course, we both run aground whilst passing each other, he was on the tow path side, all due to a lack of dredging  and lots of offside vegetation overhanging the cut, otherwise there would have been plenty of room to pass each other. My boat is 11ft wide.

Wow, I imagine you are proficient at handling your own boat as we'd trust Waterways' operatives to also be.

It's honest of you to point out that even just an 11ft beam boat isn't suitable on the North GU and that you both stemmed up.

 

This arrangement didn't work in the 1930s just after completion of the widening, and you confirm 80+ years of inactive dredging and overhanging vegetation hasn't improved it.

Who'd have guessed?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, F DRAYKE said:

I met a CRT wide beam barge being pushed by a CTR tug the other day up around bridge 73 on the northern GU, above Kixley Wharf, on a bend of course, we both run aground whilst passing each other, he was on the tow path side, all due to a lack of dredging  and lots of offside vegetation overhanging the cut, otherwise there would have been plenty of room to pass each other. My boat is 11ft wide.

That’s just the point....the channel isn’t maintained to accommodate widebeams and never really has been....nearly all canals are shallow at the edges and have been since being built...it’s just a fact of how they are constructed...it’s a reason as pointed out above that widebeam traffic on the the upper GU never really worked. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, F DRAYKE said:

I met a CRT wide beam barge being pushed by a CTR tug the other day up around bridge 73 on the northern GU, above Kixley Wharf, on a bend of course, we both run aground whilst passing each other, he was on the tow path side, all due to a lack of dredging  and lots of offside vegetation overhanging the cut, otherwise there would have been plenty of room to pass each other. My boat is 11ft wide.

You actualy do far more mileage in your widebeam ( stupid term ) than the majority of folks do in their sewer tubes!! It did look nice and comfy when I passed you last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, frangar said:

That’s just the point....the channel isn’t maintained to accommodate widebeams and never really has been....nearly all canals are shallow at the edges and have been since being built...it’s just a fact of how they are constructed...it’s a reason as pointed out above that widebeam traffic on the the upper GU never really worked. 

Such a design shows a greater understanding of commercial traffic and hydrodynamics than is often displayed today. 

 

Firstly, the canals were intended to be operated by boats that did not moor up to a towpath but went largely non stop from loading point to delivery. Hence they were not interested in how close to the bank they could get.

 

Secondly, as was said recently, on another thread I think, for boats to move forward in waters that have a depth not much greater than the draft, water needs to pass by along the sides. With a boat that 'just fits' it would come close to a dead stop, as is almost the experience in many a narrow canal accommodation bridge. Hence, the original design would be expected to have sufficient depth in the middle for two boats of the working dimension to pass with just enough room to prevent them being sucked together, with a sloping side section - the more extreme examples are on the Shroppie - to allow the boats to move forward at the design speed.  To excavate to full depth right up to the edge (ie a rectangular cross section) would have been a waste of effort and hence cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, frangar said:

I must have passed you....thankfully I didn’t meet that thing...I’m not sure it can be called a boat really....

Just met it in Shardlow

Given appropriate amount of room.

nice bridge scars on the front cabin.

the bow thruster started going the minute we got near. However they handled it pretty well, and checked the blind bend behind was safe before going through.

Should be on river by now

 

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

To excavate to full depth right up to the edge (ie a rectangular cross section) would have been a waste of effort and hence cost.

Plus the vertical banks would be constantly falling in, defeating the object.  I don't think steel and concrete piling had been invented.

 

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

With a boat that 'just fits' it would come close to a dead stop

Edstone Aqueduct ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris Williams said:

Plus the vertical banks would be constantly falling in, defeating the object.  I don't think steel and concrete piling had been invented.

 

Edstone Aqueduct ?

There are some aquaducts and tunnels where thetowpath us deliberately over water, e.g. on llangollen. Went through a tunnel a few days ago, forgotten which, that did not have this and, wow, how much did it slow us down. Fortunately not a long tunnel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/07/2019 at 18:09, roland elsdon said:

Ive steered a wide beam trip boat with a tiller on the GU, and a wheel ‘steered’ one. Of course neither had bow thrusters, and only between brentford and rickmansworth.

The tiller steer was ok, the wheel steer was russian roulette. No steering feel impossible in reverse and turned sharp left or right if you went aground. If you slowed down the wave coming back under the boat made it uncontrollable.

To be avoided at all cost...

 

I saw this beast of a boat making its way through Cosgrove today. Apparently it is at the absolute maximum size for the canal structures (except the bridge on Stockton Brook it turned out). You can see its bulk compared to the working boat it is about to pass (hit). All the handing characteristics you mentioned were apparent. It just wouldn't steer straight and the poor old bow thruster was grinding away all the time, in fact I could hear it half a mile away and even using it constantly the boat twisted and turned and looked virtually uncontrollable. This is a brand new boat on its maiden journey heading for London - and the paintwork is wrecked already. It may be physically possible to float it south, but the the crew didn't seem to be enjoying the experience one bit. 

IMG_4148.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

 

Firstly, the canals were intended to be operated by boats that did not moor up to a towpath but went largely non stop from loading point to delivery. Hence they were not interested in how close to the bank they could get.

 

 

Unless there was a stoppage.

$_57 (4).JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Capt Ahab said:

I saw this beast of a boat making its way through Cosgrove today. Apparently it is at the absolute maximum size for the canal structures (except the bridge on Stockton Brook it turned out). You can see its bulk compared to the working boat it is about to pass (hit). All the handing characteristics you mentioned were apparent. It just wouldn't steer straight and the poor old bow thruster was grinding away all the time, in fact I could hear it half a mile away and even using it constantly the boat twisted and turned and looked virtually uncontrollable. This is a brand new boat on its maiden journey heading for London - and the paintwork is wrecked already. It may be physically possible to float it south, but the the crew didn't seem to be enjoying the experience one bit. 

IMG_4148.JPG

 

Has anybody observed it passing through a lock yet?

 

This would help resolve the debate about its beam...

 

It certainly doesnt look wider above the waterline than below in this photo, as asserted earlier in the thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Capt Ahab said:

I saw this beast of a boat making its way through Cosgrove today. Apparently it is at the absolute maximum size for the canal structures (except the bridge on Stockton Brook it turned out). You can see its bulk compared to the working boat it is about to pass (hit). All the handing characteristics you mentioned were apparent. It just wouldn't steer straight and the poor old bow thruster was grinding away all the time, in fact I could hear it half a mile away and even using it constantly the boat twisted and turned and looked virtually uncontrollable. This is a brand new boat on its maiden journey heading for London - and the paintwork is wrecked already. It may be physically possible to float it south, but the the crew didn't seem to be enjoying the experience one bit. 

IMG_4148.JPG

Looking at the wash in that picture and listening to the description of their progress they have to much power on.

Its no bigger than Final Fling 65x12'6 and that was fine on the GU but it had a trolling valve so could creep along very slowly. 

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.