March of the Widebeams

[Tuscan]

I was recently advised that when a wide beam is seen on the North Oxford to notify crt via customer services who in turn will contact Matthew Symmonds who will take the appropriate action. I suspect when  CRT are not formally notified then the ‘problem’ doesn’t exist.

[adam1uk]

32 minutes ago, frangar said:

Is that on the bend by midland chandlers?? It’s narrow enough there at the best of times!! 

Yes, between Midland Chandlers and the bridge.

[matty40s]

1 hour ago, adam1uk said:

Yes, between Midland Chandlers and the bridge.

Not gone very far then...see post #1521.

If someone stops on the waterpoint/elsan, it could get interesting!!

[cuthound]

4 hours ago, Tuscan said:

I was recently advised that when a wide beam is seen on the North Oxford to notify crt via customer services who in turn will contact Matthew Symmonds who will take the appropriate action. I suspect when  CRT are not formally notified then the ‘problem’ doesn’t exist.

 

I thought Dunsford Pool accepts widebeams? I suspect thst their owners will be rightfully pee'd off if sanctions are brought about them after all this time.

 

A better solution would bevto give 12 months notice and thren put a width restriction in at Braunston. 

[ditchcrawler]

12 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

I thought Dunsford Pool accepts widebeams? I suspect thst their owners will be rightfully pee'd off if sanctions are brought about them after all this time.

 

A better solution would bevto give 12 months notice and thren put a width restriction in at Braunston. 

If they are in the marina they are not causing a problem

[matty40s]

28 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

I thought Dunsford Pool accepts widebeams? I suspect thst their owners will be rightfully pee'd off if sanctions are brought about them after all this time.

 

A better solution would bevto give 12 months notice and thren put a width restriction in at Braunston. 

Its Dunchurch Pools, and theres nothing wrong with them being floating commuter flats in there, it's the ones that move out for a cruise, or the one of several that CC around the Napton Hillmorton stretch that cause the issues.

CRT have also issued notices to the ones in North Kilworth new marina telling them to stay put.

[peterboat]

5 hours ago, adam1uk said:

And this was moored on the North Oxford, just past Braunston Junction when we went past this morning.

Proper boat that is looks very nice indeed, would look better on the big canals up here though I suspect

[mrsmelly]

2 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Proper boat that is looks very nice indeed, would look better on the big canals up here though I suspect

Lovely looking boat and immeasurably more comfortable than a sewer tube. But in entirely the wron location innitt. 

[peterboat]

1 minute ago, mrsmelly said:

Lovely looking boat and immeasurably more comfortable than a sewer tube. But in entirely the wron location innitt. 

I agree I love the comfort of my big boat, I am supposed to be going on my mates narrowboat next week but the weather doesnt look good for the week so not sure if its going to happen or not

[Tuscan]

I heard there were 8 reported incidents of wide beams going through Braunston or Blissworth tunnel last year, presumably more went unreported. Not sure what CRT does about if anything.

[CV32]

I agree with the majority that wide beams should not be on these stretches but I wonder what CRT can actually do having issued licences to these vessels for navigation ? I guess they will have to identify and list all canals not suitable for wide beams and then refuse licenses on that basis and deal with any offenders. 

[furnessvale]

12 minutes ago, CV32 said:

I agree with the majority that wide beams should not be on these stretches but I wonder what CRT can actually do having issued licences to these vessels for navigation ? I guess they will have to identify and list all canals not suitable for wide beams and then refuse licenses on that basis and deal with any offenders. 

Very few of these errant wide beams are being craned directly into narrow canals.  These can be quickly dealt with if suggestions 1 and 2 are adopted

 

Simple solution.

 

1.  Any marina on a narrow canal accepting wide beams must fit piles at its entrance 7' 6" apart.

 

2.  At the few interfaces between broad and narrow canals, CRT must fit a piled narrows 7' 6" wide, the first bridge hole will do.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

Simple solution.

 

1.  Any marina on a narrow canal accepting wide beams must fit piles at its entrance 7' 6" apart.

 

2.  At the few interfaces between broad and narrow canals, CRT must fit a piled narrows 7' 6" wide, the first bridge hole will do.

 

As the legal definition of 'narrowboat' is 7' 6", surely the 'narrows' must allow a 7' 6" boat to pass, so, it would need to be a little wider.

[ditchcrawler]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

As the legal definition of 'narrowboat' is 7' 6", surely the 'narrows' must allow a 7' 6" boat to pass, so, it would need to be a little wider.

And the ones who can't steer straight

[Captain Pegg]

44 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

I heard there were 8 reported incidents of wide beams going through Braunston or Blissworth tunnel last year, presumably more went unreported. Not sure what CRT does about if anything.

Given there is no reason why a widebeam shouldn’t go through Braunston and Blisworth tunnels are you suggesting these were ‘incidents’ because they weren’t booked passages?
 

34 minutes ago, CV32 said:

I agree with the majority that wide beams should not be on these stretches but I wonder what CRT can actually do having issued licences to these vessels for navigation ? I guess they will have to identify and list all canals not suitable for wide beams and then refuse licenses on that basis and deal with any offenders. 

 

The boat above breaches the dimensions for the GU (and Napton to Braunston section of the Oxford) because of its height but probably not it’s width. I don’t think a licence can be refused for a craft that’s within published dimensions for its home mooring location or the range within which it cruises if it has no home mooring. The key is to regulate movement and mooring to be fair to all boaters while permitting all legitimate craft to be able to cruise.

 

JP

Edited March 9, 2020 by Captain Pegg

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

Given there is no reason why a widebeam shouldn’t go through Braunston and Blisworth tunnels are you suggesting these were ‘incidents’ because they weren’t booked passages?

 

The boat above breaches the dimensions for the GU (and Napton to Braunston section of the Oxford) because of its height but probably not it’s width. I don’t think a licence can be refused for a craft that’s within published dimensions for its home mooring or the range within it cruises if it has no home mooring. The key is to regulate movement and mooring to be fair to all boaters while permitting all legitimate craft to be able to cruise.

 

JP

 

The law states :

 

No person shall bring use or leave in any canal any vessel which
is not in every respect fit for navigation on the canal or part
thereof where it is intended to be used.

[Captain Pegg]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The law states :

 

No person shall bring use or leave in any canal any vessel which
is not in every respect fit for navigation on the canal or part
thereof where it is intended to be used.

You do like a rule, but CRT have to determine by what criteria can that be fairly judged versus the legal requirements incumbent upon them for the purpose of issuing licences.
 

I can’t see how they could refuse to licence a craft based upon size if that craft falls within the dimensions to which CRT are legally obliged to maintain the waterway in question. Clearly they aren’t even enforcing to that level currently. I would like to see them do that but nothing further as that could set a dangerous precedent.

 

JP

Edited March 9, 2020 by Captain Pegg

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

You do like a rule, but CRT have to determine by what criteria can that be fairly judged versus the legal requirements incumbent upon them for the purpose of issuing licences.
 

I can’t see how they could refuse to licence a craft based upon size if that craft falls within the dimensions to which CRT are legally obliged to maintain the waterway in question. Clearly they aren’t even enforcing to that level currently. I would like to see them do that but nothing further as that could set a dangerous precedent.

 

JP

The defined dimensions of suitable boats, and the dimensions to which the canal must be maintained are readily available. for example to max boat beam for the Oxford is 2.13m

The maximum 'superstructure' width is 1.6 mts and maximum height is 1.83mts

 

And the canal dimensions and maintenance requirements clearly defined.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[TheBiscuits]

Current version is https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/original/32433-waterway-dimensions.pdf

 

Oxford Canal (narrow)

 

Braunston Junction to Wigrams (Napton Junction)

Length - Beam - Draught - Headroom

21.96m 72ft - 3.84m 12ft 7'' - 1.5m 4ft 11" - 1.83m 6ft

 

Wigrams (Napton Junction) to Oxford (narrow)

Length - Beam - Draught - Headroom

21.96m 72ft - 2.13m 7ft - 1.23m 4ft - 1.98m 6ft 6"

Pinch point: second lock up

[Captain Pegg]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The defined dimensions of suitable boats, and the dimensions to which the canal must be maintained are readily available. for example to max boat beam for the Oxford is 2.13m

 

And the canal dimensions and maintenance requirements clearly defined.

 

 

 

 

Note that those dimensions for the Oxford exclude Napton to Braunston which is presumably listed with the Grand Union dimensions as part of the wide beam through route.

 

The latter extract appears to be guidance for the navigation authority on how to accommodate craft adhering to minimum dimensions so what does this add or contradict in terms of what it is posted in response to, if anything?

 

JP

[Dr Bob]

There are currently about 10 wide beams in Dunchurch Pools marina. 

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Note that those dimensions for the Oxford exclude Napton to Braunston which is presumably listed with the Grand Union dimensions as part of the wide beam through route.

 

The latter extract appears to be guidance for the navigation authority on how to accommodate craft adhering to minimum dimensions so what does this add or contradict in terms of what it is posted in response to, if anything?

 

JP

The dimensions quoted are those which were defined as 'must be maintained' when the canals were reviewed as 'Commercial', or 'Cruising Canals'

These are (apparently) the legal dimensions required.

 

If a canal is legally required to be maintained as usable by boats up to 2.13 metre beam, then C&RT could argue that a 12 foot 'fatty' is not 'fit' for use on that canal.

 

Lets say that there is a 'wide section' 10 miles long between two narrow sections, would it be acceptable for the 'wide boat' to be able to use the wide section ?

Should it only be licenced for the 'wide section' ?

 

Remember it has to be "fit for navigation on the canal or part thereof where it is intended to be used".

 

Edited March 9, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[Captain Pegg]

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The dimensions quoted are those which were defined as 'must be maintained' when the canals were reviewed as 'Commercial', or 'Cruising Canals'

These are (apparently) the legal dimensions required.

 

If a canal is legally required to be maintained as usable by boats up to 2.13 metre beam, then C&RT could argue that a 12 foot 'fatty' is not 'fit' for use on that canal.

 

Lets say that there is a 'wide section' 10 miles long between two narrow sections, would it be acceptable for the 'wide boat' to be able to use the wide section ?

Should it only be licenced for the 'wide section' ?

 

Remember it has to be "fit for navigation on the canal or part thereof where it is intended to be used".

 

Hard and fast rules aren’t as easy as some would like and each case is probably unique to a degree.
 

If a boat sits on a home mooring and has a naturally available cruising range in which it physically fits without unduly hindering other boaters or risking damage to the infrastructure and in which the owner is content to stay that could be deemed as being fit even if the boat is larger than the published dimensions for the whole canal in question. There is historic precedent for this kind of arrangement in carrying days. It can also be the only logic by which CRT granted a licence for the Port Loop floating sales office in Birmingham.

If that same cruising range was insufficient to meet the requirements for a boat that has no home mooring then that could be deemed to be a craft that is not fit for navigation in those circumstances even though it could be the same boat on the same stretch of canal. That would certainly be the case with your suggested 10 miles.

 

To the best of my knowledge CRT cannot licence a craft only for certain waterways so it would come down to monitoring movement to inform future renewal decisions as that would provide reasonable evidence as to the applicants intended use.
 

I don’t believe CRT could rightly defend refusing to issue a licence to a craft that is within the minimum dimensions for the waterway on which it is based. That was my original point as it seems some folk would wish CRT to do that.

 

If strict adherence to craft dimensions is the order of the day then it would also curtail some narrowboat use such as slightly overlength boats using broad locks on northern canals by lying on the diagonal or taking ex-GUCCCo boats on the BCN (which would include CRTs own heritage fleet which is based there).

 

That’s why some sense and careful consideration is required in how to allow everyone to boat where they sensibly can, and wish to, but not at the expense of someone else’s enjoyment of doing the same or unduly risking damage to the infrastructure.

 

JP

 

 

 

 

 

[furnessvale]

8 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

There are currently about 10 wide beams in Dunchurch Pools marina. 

#1562 refers.  OK, as pointed out, add an inch or two to my 7' 6" but those wide beams can live happily in the marina with no problem.

[Captain Pegg]

8 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

#1562 refers.  OK, as pointed out, add an inch or two to my 7' 6" but those wide beams can live happily in the marina with no problem.

Given widebeams can access the marina along the north Oxford should those craft be allowed a booked passage along what is officially a narrow canal for the purpose of initial access - and when sold on - or should they be craned into and out of the marina?

 

JP