March of the Widebeams

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, Leo No2 said:

Tranquil Rose, probably the most athletically pleasing wide boat around, in my humble opinion,

When you say 'athletically pleasing' do you mean she is a 'fit old bird' ?

[Athy]

She does look like a boat, yes. I see that she's still in service, so she's clocked up some 45 years as a working boat. She appears to have a proper engine, too.

[Leo No2]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

When you say 'athletically pleasing' do you mean she is a 'fit old bird' ?

Oh I do so dislike predictive spelling (and my inability to pick it up) - aesthetically was the word but yes she is a 'fit old bird' anyway.

[Ray T]

 

Last time we met them, a couple of years ago now, the then crew were very affable and polite.

This too is a wide boat I like.

 

Edited August 20, 2019 by Ray T
Not sure of picture copyright, so deleted it.

[Athy]

....though she looks better now that the clodhopping cratch has been replaced by something a little more professional-looking.

[Pluto]

This is what a wide boat should look like, with the correct type of narrow canal boat.

[zenataomm]

9 hours ago, Athy said:

I notice that th emajority of new widebeam boats, as featured on these pages and in  magazine adverts, look like widened narrowboats and are not always aesthetically pleasing. Now, I seem to remember that about 20 years ago U.K. boatbuilders were producing widebeams which were based on Dutch barges, and which in some cases were very handsome. Why has there been a change, which some people would view as a step backwards?

I think the answer to this is behind the boatbuilders' ability as a salesman and their lack of ability to construct anything other than a slab sided brick.

If you didn't have to look at it for the rest of your life which would you find easier to fabricate ...

 

[url=https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjXkOqE8ZHkAhVsyoUKHRMDAWoQjRx6BAgBEAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenorthwichboat.com%2F%3Fpage_id%3D1063&psig=AOvVaw3Eyy_Ueb8d9en2U5Snu_F_&ust=1566405399566425]This one?[/url]

Or Maybe ...

[url=https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi20.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb204%2FMoley1958%2FC15090504.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.canalworld.net%2Fforums%2Findex.php%3F%2Ftopic%2F6164-narrow-boat-shape%2F&docid=9F0ZU1Dsta4JTM&tbnid=3aksg2_T7o1xdM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwio76-n8ZHkAhXfSxUIHXMgA2EQMwhUKAEwAQ..i&w=600&h=450&bih=856&biw=1829&q=Square canal boat&ved=0ahUKEwio76-n8ZHkAhXfSxUIHXMgA2EQMwhUKAEwAQ&iact=mrc&uact=8]This one?[/url]

 

If you know next to nothing about boats and are trying to persuade your doubting other half to live on a commodious boat, then I could put up a very convincing argument for the latter.  Especially if it suited me to do so!

 

BP

[MtB]

46 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

I think the answer to this is behind the boatbuilders' ability as a salesman and their lack of ability to construct anything other than a slab sided brick.

If you didn't have to look at it for the rest of your life which would you find easier to fabricate ...

 

[url=https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjXkOqE8ZHkAhVsyoUKHRMDAWoQjRx6BAgBEAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenorthwichboat.com%2F%3Fpage_id%3D1063&psig=AOvVaw3Eyy_Ueb8d9en2U5Snu_F_&ust=1566405399566425]This one?[/url]

 

Curious how both these boats are being sold by the same company. One godawful, once quite reasonable.......

 

[frangar]

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Curious how both these boats are being sold by the same company. One godawful, once quite reasonable.......

 

That top thing is just beyond ugly!! 

[rusty69]

17 minutes ago, frangar said:

That top thing is just beyond ugly!! 

Moored at the end of the little creek? 

[frangar]

1 minute ago, rusty69 said:

Moored at the end of the little creek? 

It probably wouldn’t fit under the bridges......

[ditchcrawler]

Several here on the W&B at Hanbury 

[PeterF]

10 hours ago, Athy said:

I notice that th emajority of new widebeam boats, as featured on these pages and in  magazine adverts, look like widened narrowboats and are not always aesthetically pleasing. Now, I seem to remember that about 20 years ago U.K. boatbuilders were producing widebeams which were based on Dutch barges, and which in some cases were very handsome. Why has there been a change, which some people would view as a step backwards?

I moored for may years in the basin at Brighouse ans saw many of the elegant widebeams that Sagar Marine built. Lovely boats, lots of curves, internal space not maximised due to proper bow and stern, wide gunwhales, chined hull (if I have the right descriptor). Expensive compared to the cuboid vessels under discussion here and obviously more attractive to boaters.

[mrsmelly]

1 minute ago, PeterF said:

I moored for may years in the basin at Brighouse ans saw many of the elegant widebeams that Sagar Marine built. Lovely boats, lots of curves, internal space not maximised due to proper bow and stern, wide gunwhales, chined hull (if I have the right descriptor). Expensive compared to the cuboid vessels under discussion here and obviously more attractive to boaters.

Yes much more pretty than slab sided widebeam so called narrow boats. However an e type jag is  much prettier than a skoda rapide. etc etc. Those pretty boats cost much, much more money than a fat narrowboat due mainly to many more man hours to build. If someoene lives on a fat boat then he probably has a budget. Fat narrow boats give a lovely living area, a comfy space no sewer tube could ever even approach on comfort levels. Again I say there is nowt wrong with fat cheaper build boats its just the numpties who insist on putting them on tiny canals like the  GU and K and A for instance that get them bad press. Larger vessels on decent waterways make complete sense, in fact living full time on the fab northern waterways on a narrowboat is plain stupid, but of course again for many its cost. A nice narrowboat can be had for less money than a scabby widebeam, considerably less. Many widebeam owners move a lot, I moved mine between the Huddersfield broad and Nottingham and Leeds and Wakefield. It wasnt quite as ugly as the standard fat narrowboat built by a decent builder and it drove very well and was major league comfy. Horses for courses and all that. If I go back to live oop norrf I will rid myself of this tiny narrowboat and buy another wide boat, its a no brainer.

[roland elsdon]

29 minutes ago, frangar said:

It probably wouldn’t fit under the bridges......

Strewth wideboats in queensland...

[Steilsteven]

On 19/08/2019 at 21:26, zenataomm said:

Imagine owning a boat that whenever you take it out you dread …

1.  Seeing a bridge ahead because you're going to have to creep your way through because you don't want to hit it …
2.  Seeing a boat coming towards you because you'll both have to squeeze past because of your girth …
3.  Seeing a line of moored boats which means as you pass you're likely to dominate the available canal over other boats approaching …
4.  Seeing a queue of  boats following close behind you, because you keep slowing down for bridges and boats coming towards you ...
5.  Seeing a lovely spot to moor but having to ignore it because with your width you'll block everybody else's passage or cause an accident …
6.  Seeing another wide boat coming the other way and realising what everybody else thinks when they see you coming ...

Then there are the restrictions that really set you out as a pariah of the inland waterways.

• Junctions allowing you only a peek into the secretive world of narrow canals, where you should not go, or you do so knowing you really are being dumb.
• Arriving at a tunnel and having to wait until night time to creep through like an outcast, and pray your doppelgänger isn't at the other end doing the same.

I'm sure there are more, but I'm starting to feel depressed about their view of canal cruising and what's in it for them.

 

1 to 6 apply equally to narrow boats on narrow canals.

As for tunnels, one way traffic applies to many of them in this country because two narrow boats can't pass.

 

I have to laugh each time I see such ill thought through comments as yours.

 

Keith

[Steilsteven]

On 20/08/2019 at 07:22, john6767 said:

Yes it was built for widebeam barges, but as I said I would say that today it is not maintained for widebeams in terms of the navigable channel.  Fine for 9ft beam cruisers, but not the monster steel widebeams, and I don’t think big steel widebeam hire boats is a great idea, they seem to spend most of their time aground.

Modern widebeams only draw about 2' from what I've seen but loaded barges drew around 4'.

When narrow boating started to get popular, builders made vessels with little draught and made them narrower because of the poorly maintained canals.

Every time that someone says a particular vessel isn't suitable for a canal because it's no longer maintained for them anymore is one sandwich short of a pick nick and should go away and have a good long think.

 

Keith 

[Tuscan]

4 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

Modern widebeams only draw about 2' from what I've seen but loaded barges drew around 4'.

When narrow boating started to get popular, builders made vessels with little draught and made them narrower because of the poorly maintained canals.

 

Keith 

A lot of good boat builders were building boats with more than 2’ draft until very recently Hudson comes to mind  , so enough room in the centre of the channel for two to cross, not the case when passing a 12’ wide wide beam. This could be alleviated if CRT were to dredge to the bank side rather to the current curve. Yes I know that’s not going to happen. 

Every time that someone says a particular vessel is suitable for a canal just because of the published dimensionsis one sandwich short of a pick nick and should go away and have a good long think.

[mrsmelly]

2 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

A lot of good boat builders were building boats with more than 2’ draft until very recently Hudson comes to mind  , so enough room in the centre of the channel for two to cross, not the case when passing a 12’ wide wide beam. This could be alleviated if CRT were to dredge to the bank side rather to the current curve. Yes I know that’s not going to happen. 

Every time that someone says a particular vessel is suitable for a canal just because of the published dimensionsis one sandwich short of a pick nick and should go away and have a good long think.

My widebeam had a 3 foot draught, I never had any problem mooring or indeed passing oncoming or moored boats, there was oodles of room most of the time.

[Steilsteven]

17 hours ago, PeterF said:

I moored for may years in the basin at Brighouse ans saw many of the elegant widebeams that Sagar Marine built. Lovely boats, lots of curves, internal space not maximised due to proper bow and stern, wide gunwhales, chined hull (if I have the right descriptor). Expensive compared to the cuboid vessels under discussion here and obviously more attractive to boaters.

Widebeams as in wide versions of narrow boats give loads of internal space to the detriment of cruising ability.

If, as these two photos show, they were built with generous gunnels it would not only improve the appearance of them it would also make them safer and more pleasurable when cruising. 

'Petra' is 12' beam and 9' wide above gunnel height internally. This means I can walk from the steering position quite easily without having to hold on and makes single handing easier than any narrow boat. I've seen a few of the widebeams with straight sides like those a few pages back and think they should be used solely as houseboats as they are dangerous to operate IMHO.

 

Keith

[Steilsteven]

20 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

A lot of good boat builders were building boats with more than 2’ draft until very recently Hudson comes to mind  , so enough room in the centre of the channel for two to cross, not the case when passing a 12’ wide wide beam. This could be alleviated if CRT were to dredge to the bank side rather to the current curve. Yes I know that’s not going to happen. 

Every time that someone says a particular vessel is suitable for a canal just because of the published dimensionsis one sandwich short of a pick nick and should go away and have a good long think.

Hudsons are recent, I'm talking about 60s/70s builders.

They made boats smaller because the canals got smaller which in turn made the canals get smaller still.

Modern wide beams should be able to travel a canal that was built to take vessels of those dimensions and if they do the channel will increase do it's design width eventually.

The channel only gets smaller because too few large ( or loaded ) boats pass along it.

It's not about ''published dimensions''.

 

Keith

[haggis]

1 minute ago, Steilsteven said:

 

They made boats smaller because the canals got smaller which in turn made the canals get smaller still.

 

Building smaller width  boats might just have had something to do with the width of narrow locks ?

 

haggis

[Steilsteven]

3 minutes ago, haggis said:

Building smaller width  boats might just have had something to do with the width of narrow locks ?

 

haggis

It had something to do with the narrow locks getting narrower through neglect.

 

Keith

[Graham Davis]

39 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

Hudsons are recent, I'm talking about 60s/70s builders.

They made boats smaller because the canals got smaller which in turn made the canals get smaller still.

Modern wide beams should be able to travel a canal that was built to take vessels of those dimensions and if they do the channel will increase do it's design width eventually.

The channel only gets smaller because too few large ( or loaded ) boats pass along it.

It's not about ''published dimensions''.

 

Keith

I would suggest that builders built narrow boats because they were being used on NARROW canals.

33 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

It had something to do with the narrow locks getting narrower through neglect.

 

Keith

And which locks would those be? Name them please?
The only one I can think of is Hurlestone Bottom and I'm not sure how wide it was when I went through it the first time in the mid 70's.

[Chris Williams]

I stuck at two on the Southern Stratford and one at Marston Doles on the Oxford.  This was in 1974/5, the Stratford ones I was empty. the Doles I was loaded.  No other locks that I can remember, so it wasn't the boat's fault.