March of the Widebeams

[john6767]

43 minutes ago, MtB said:

What eventually happened to that last oversized fatty that got stuck there for a week or two? 

 

Did it get lifted out? Or the bridge modified, or what?

 

And how wide are these boats that expect to fit through, but don't? 

 

 

 

They removed some of the brickwork at the waterline for the other boat that was stuck there.  I wonder if it was later put back, or if this boat is even wider.

[Bee]

Well I suppose it floats so therefor it must be a boat but if I was responsible for bringing it into the world I would hang my head in shame.

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, john6767 said:

They removed some of the brickwork at the waterline for the other boat that was stuck there.  I wonder if it was later put back, or if this boat is even wider.

 

Ah yes I remember now. I don't think this question about putting them back was ever answered. 

 

Regarding Steve Powell's comment, I'm inclined to think he was evasive as he doesn't want boaters doing for themselves whatever it was he did! 

 

One odd thing about the photo. Matty says they were heading for Knowle, but from the photo I'd guess they were travelling south. 

 

[ditchcrawler]

18 minutes ago, Bee said:

Well I suppose it floats so therefor it must be a boat but if I was responsible for bringing it into the world I would hang my head in shame.

Even if you made a few thousand profit and kept your business going

[frangar]

3 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Even if you made a few thousand profit and kept your business going

Some of us in business still have some scruples! 

[John Brightley]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

One odd thing about the photo. Matty says they were heading for Knowle, but from the photo I'd guess they were travelling south. 

 

The lower side of the bridge is the side adjacent to WFBCo, so Matty's correct I'm afraid !

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, BD3Bill said:

Fat boat now freed by Steve Powell and his team, navigation now clear at WFB . 

But through the bridge or sent back whence it came?

[BD3Bill]

4 minutes ago, David Mack said:

But through the bridge or sent back whence it came?

I do not have that fact. 

[roland elsdon]

Does this kind of carp not lead to an ‘ unsuitable for waterway’ and licence ban?

[john6767]

54 minutes ago, David Mack said:

But through the bridge or sent back whence it came?

If it has carried on its way, it is not going far for a while, as Hatton is shut until 18 December.  Do we know where at Knowle it is heading?

[matty40s]

29 minutes ago, john6767 said:

If it has carried on its way, it is not going far for a while, as Hatton is shut until 18 December.  Do we know where at Knowle it is heading?

Permanent mooring, Im sure the chap joined here a while back. 

[Detling]

Blame the VAT rules for these monsters. If they were a few cm narrower then they wouldn't qualify for VAT free (if they really do?) and as a buyer I probably wouldn't notice the 2cm narrower inside, but would notice the 20% VAT on the bill.

[MtB]

6 hours ago, Detling said:

Blame the VAT rules for these monsters. If they were a few cm narrower then they wouldn't qualify for VAT free (if they really do?) and as a buyer I probably wouldn't notice the 2cm narrower inside, but would notice the 20% VAT on the bill.

 

So how wide must they be to qualify for zero VAT? 

 

And why do CRT licence them when they must know they are too wide for the GU? 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

So how wide must they be to qualify for zero VAT? 

 

A couple of examples :

 

 

As an interesting example, take ‘Panache’ the widebeam boat featured on our build diary of a huge 69’ long (L) x 11″ beam (B) with a height of 46” (D).

Let’s work out the calculation by first converting the imperial measurements to metric so we have:

21.03m x 3.35m x 1.16m = 81.35 x 0.16 = 13.01 gross tons… Not a qualifying vessel.

 

So here’s the interesting part in order to get a boat even of this size to qualify the standard (D) measurement would need another 190mm adding giving a (D) measurement of 1.35m. See the revised calculation below:

(21.03m x 3.35m x 1.35) = 95.10 multiplied by 0.16 = 15.21 gross tons, a qualifying ship.

 

 

 

 

 

Here are HMRC definitions for L,B & D and for us, it is the D definition which is key.

L = Length measured from foreside of the foremost fixed permanent structure to the afterside of the aftermost permanent structure. This measurement must not include appendages that do not contribute to the volume of the vessel.

B = Beam breadth of vessel at widest part to the outside of outer planking. This measurement must not include the thickness of any moulding or rubbing strake which may be fitted, in way of such measurement.

D = Depth measured vertically from the midpoint overall.

The upper calculation point will be:

• For a decked vessel – the underside of the deck on the middle line, or (if there is no deck on the middle line) the underside of the deck at the side of the vessel
• For an open decked vessel – the top of the upper strake or gunwale

The lower calculation point will be:

• For a wooden vessel – the upper side of the plank at the side of the keel.
• For a metal vessel – the top of the plating at the side of the keelson.
• For a moulded vessel (for example one made of glass-reinforced plastic) – the inside of the hull. Where no keel member is fitted and the keel is of open trough construction, the calculation point shall be the top of the keel filling, if fitted, or the level at which the inside breadth of the trough is 10 centimetres – whichever gives the greater depth.

NOTE: HMRC then go on to specifically define the D measurement for canal boats and this is measured from under the top of what we know as the gunwale.

HM Revenue & Customs Definitions August 2013

[David Mack]

10 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

As an interesting example, take ‘Panache’ the widebeam boat featured on our build diary of a huge 69’ long (L) x 11″ beam (B) with a height of 46” (D).

That's hardly a widebeam!

[Alan de Enfield]

26 minutes ago, David Mack said:

That's hardly a widebeam!

 

As I'm sure you are aware, anything over 7' 6" is a widebeam.

11' may not be truly enormous by todays standards of boats that are commonly up to 12' 6", but, 11' is still, by definition a 'widebeam'.

 

Using the formula :

a 69' x 12' with 'standard' height (46") gunwales would only rate as 14.3 tonnes, so, again would need the height of the gunwales increasing to comply.

a 72' x 12' with 'standard' height (46") gunwales would only rate as 14.9 tonnes, so, again would need the height of the gunwales increasing to comply.

a 72' x 12' 6" with 'standard' height (46") gunwales would rate as 15.5 tonnes, so, meets the volume required to be zero rated for VAT

 

Edit to add:

 

I now understand your comment following on from MTB's post.

 

Doh.........................

Edited November 3, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

As I'm sure you are aware, anything over 7' 6" is a widebeam.

11' may not be truly enormous by todays standards of boats that are commonly up to 12' 6", but, 11' is still, by definition a 'widebeam'.

 

Using the formula :

a 69' x 12' with 'standard' height (46") gunwales would only rate as 14.3 tonnes, so, again would need the height of the gunwales increasing to comply.

a 72' x 12' with 'standard' height (46") gunwales would only rate as 14.9 tonnes, so, again would need the height of the gunwales increasing to comply.

a 72' x 12' 6" with 'standard' height (46") gunwales would rate as 15.5 tonnes, so, meets the volume required to be zero rated for VAT

 

 

Agreed, but an 11ft beam boat is 10ft 1in wider than the example quoted by David. 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Agreed, but an 11ft beam boat is 10ft 1in wider than the example quoted by David. 

 

Well spotted.

[Mike Todd]

12 hours ago, MtB said:

 

So how wide must they be to qualify for zero VAT? 

 

And why do CRT licence them when they must know they are too wide for the GU? 

There are very limited grounds for CaRT to refuse a licence and asking where the vessel is to be used is not included. In any case it would take a bit of enforcement to decide if someone declared one area and then took it elsewhere. (But the Gold licence sort of does that by including two navigation authorities in one licence)

 

What CaRT can do is use the T&C to state that the vessel must be used in accordance with (reasonably) published criteria, such as dimensions. Persistent failure to abide by the T&Cs can, albeit as yet not fully tested, be accepted by the courts as reasonable grounds for withholding a licence - but it cannot do so pre-emptively (alas).

 

Whilst it might be tempting to call for greater enforcement of this particular T&C, be careful what you wish for - I for one would not want to see a stream of licence cancellations just because someone went one minute beyond 8pm with their gennie.

[MtB]

53 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Whilst it might be tempting to call for greater enforcement of this particular T&C, be careful what you wish for - I for one would not want to see a stream of licence cancellations just because someone went one minute beyond 8pm with their gennie.

 

I would!

 

 

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

I for one would not want to see a stream of licence cancellations just because someone went one minute beyond 8pm with their gennie.

Or because someone took their 71ft 6ins long (+ fenders + rudder) narrowboat through a lock which CRT have deemed only suitable for 70ft boats.

Edited November 3, 2021 by David Mack

[Steilsteven]

13 hours ago, MtB said:

 

So how wide must they be to qualify for zero VAT? 

 

And why do CRT licence them when they must know they are too wide for the GU? 

One bridge hole doth not a waterway make.

 

Keith

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

There are very limited grounds for CaRT to refuse a licence and asking where the vessel is to be used is not included. In any case it would take a bit of enforcement to decide if someone declared one area and then took it elsewhere. (But the Gold licence sort of does that by including two navigation authorities in one licence)

 

What CaRT can do is use the T&C to state that the vessel must be used in accordance with (reasonably) published criteria, such as dimensions. Persistent failure to abide by the T&Cs can, albeit as yet not fully tested, be accepted by the courts as reasonable grounds for withholding a licence - but it cannot do so pre-emptively (alas).

 

Whilst it might be tempting to call for greater enforcement of this particular T&C, be careful what you wish for - I for one would not want to see a stream of licence cancellations just because someone went one minute beyond 8pm with their gennie.

Or more than 2 foot draft up the Llangollen

[roland elsdon]

4 hours ago, David Mack said:

Or because someone took their 71ft 6ins long (+ fenders + rudder) narrowboat through a lock which CRT have deemed only suitable for 70ft boats.

Guilty as charged. But there was historical precedent! 
We just used to remove the fenders and turn the rudder on certain bcn locks, and go downhill backwards on the Avon, which Im sure David would have approved of given some of his antics.

[ditchcrawler]

3 minutes ago, roland elsdon said:

Guilty as charged. But there was historical precedent! 
 

And there is another problem, wide beams were encouraged when the locks were widened, it may not have been successful but they did say it was suitable for them.