March of the Widebeams

[frangar]

33 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

As I've said before, the Grand Junction Canal was built for wide beam vessels.

 

Keith

Thats debatable and its certainly not been maintained as such for many years....and I mean long before CRT/BW or even the GUCC before that. When wide traffic was proposed I seem to recall reading that it was acknowledged that Tring summit cutting would be a bottleneck for a start. The fact is also that a modern widebeam skip isn't the same shape as say Progress and simply doesnt fit either the profile of the canal bed or the structures.

[ditchcrawler]

At 91 pages I can't go back and look for it but I did pose an extract from a GU publication saying that it would be used by wide beam boats. I don't expect they meant 14 foot wide

[Keeping Up]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

But is that true? Certainly in later years widebeams only worked up to around Berko. But it was built with wide locks, bridges and tunnels all the way to Braunston. Did the builders in the late 1700s, when the concept of anything other than horse-towed boats on the canal would have been unthinkable, really plan that those locks would only be used by paired narrow boats? Somehow I doubt it.

The underwater profile is also different north of Berkhamstead. The width from bank to bank is the same but the deep channel is narrower and would have needed re-profiling before any significant usage by widebeam boats could have been implemented. Maybe they built bridges and tunnels wider because subsequent modification would have been more difficult than merely digging out the earth channel?

[GUMPY]

Let's be fair about all this the canals were not built for pleasure boats or living on the side of, so you are all chancing it even the narrowboats 😉

[roland elsdon]

Or mooring on the towing path.

[matty40s]

1 hour ago, roland elsdon said:

Or mooring on the towing path.

I cant see a problem locally.

[TheBiscuits]

7 hours ago, Loddon said:

Let's be fair about all this the canals were not built for pleasure boats or living on the side of, so you are all chancing it even the narrowboats 😉

 

That may be tongue in cheek, but raises other thoughts. 

 

Will motorways have camper vans parked along the hard shoulders for miles and miles in fifty years? 

 

Will cars be expected to slow down to 20 when going past these residential parking spots?

 

It's pretty much what happened to the canals over a similar timescale.

 

 

[David Mack]

23 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

That may be tongue in cheek, but raises other thoughts. 

 

Will motorways have camper vans parked along the hard shoulders for miles and miles in fifty years? 

 

Will cars be expected to slow down to 20 when going past these residential parking spots?

 

It's pretty much what happened to the canals over a similar timescale.

 

 

I'm looking forward to the day when I can park my private train at a nice spot in the country along the railway!

[frangar]

6 hours ago, David Mack said:

I'm looking forward to the day when I can park my private train at a nice spot in the country along the railway!

Camping coaches were often placed in rural sidings from quite early on in railway history. 

[Athy]

2 hours ago, frangar said:

Camping coaches were often placed in rural sidings from quite early on in railway history. 

If you count the 1930s as "quite early on", yes. British Rail(ways) carried on operating them until the '60s but the Beeching cuts meant that many of them were left stranded with no railway access. There are still a few about, but I think they're all privately owned now. I stayed in one once while volunteering on the North Yorks Moors preserved railway.

 

Pump-out or cassette, I wonder.

[frangar]

Just now, Athy said:

If you count the 1930s as "quite early on", yes. British Rail(ways) carried on operating them until the '60s but the Beeching cuts meant that many of them were left stranded with no railway access. There are still a few about, but I think they're all privately owned now. I stayed in one once while volunteering on the North Yorks Moors preserved railway.

 

Pump-out or cassette, I wonder.

I thought they had them earlier than that...maybe not!?....I think some preserved railways still have them as you say....both for vols and as "glamping"....They obviously have a dump through....but no flushing while in the station.......

[ditchcrawler]

10 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

Will motorways have camper vans parked along the hard shoulders for miles and miles in fifty years? 

 

There wont be any hard shoulders, they will all be "smart" motorways before the close down, and we will all have mini artics with Stobart on them and curtain sides over the hard walled living area parked up in laybys using Coke bottles as toilets.

[Captain Pegg]

19 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

At 91 pages I can't go back and look for it but I did pose an extract from a GU publication saying that it would be used by wide beam boats. I don't expect they meant 14 foot wide

 

I think sometimes we forget that canals were built by independent commercial concerns. I can't imagine any company ever built locks to a dimension that they had no intention of allowing craft to fill. That would be economic madness.

 

We've been through the Grand Junction debate before. Built for 14' wide craft but reduced to 12' 6" north of Berkhamsted due to a reduced dredged channel width. It was operated by wide craft over the entire length throughout it's history until incorporation into the Grand Union system and in all likelihood has always been navigated by wide craft. Where CRT are perhaps remiss is in enforcing the 12' 6" limit north of Berkhamsted.

 

Having travelled the entire Braunston to Brentford length and return over the past few months the number of instances of being inconvenienced by moored widebeams was pretty much nil. Certainly not more than I'd expect from narrow boats on narrow canals.

 

Being inconvenienced by boats of various sizes and shapes being moved by undersized and/or inconsiderate crews was commonplace and this included widebeams - including the waterway being blocked at Batchworth by two widebeams - but it was the actions (or more accurately inactions) of the crews rather than the boats themselves that was problematic.

Edited November 7, 2021 by Captain Pegg

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

I think sometimes we forget that canals were built by independent commercial concerns. I can't imagine any company ever built locks to a dimension that they had no intention of allowing craft to fill. That would be economic madness.

 

We've been through the Grand Junction debate before. Built for 14' wide craft but reduced to 12' 6" north of Berkhamsted due to a reduced dredged channel width. It was operated by wide craft over the entire length throughout it's history until incorporation into the Grand Union system and in all likelihood has always been navigated by wide craft. Where CRT are perhaps remiss is in enforcing the 12' 6" limit north of Berkhamsted.

 

Having travelled the entire Braunston to Brentford length and return over the past few months the number of instances of being inconvenienced by moored widebeams was pretty much nil. Certainly not more than I'd expect from narrow boats on narrow canals.

 

Being inconvenienced by boats of various sizes and shapes being moved by undersized and/or inconsiderate crews was commonplace and this included widebeams - including the waterway being blocked at Batchworth by two widebeams - but it was the actions (or more accurately inactions) of the crews rather than the boats themselves that was problematic.

As always you are the voice of reason and knowledge. As I have said before whilst my boat would fit on the GU it's not for me I prefer the deep and wide waterways up north 

[tree monkey]

2 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

 using Coke bottles as toilets.

Traditionally that should be lucozade, use of coke bottles is a newby mistake 

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Traditionally that should be lucozade, use of coke bottles is a newby mistake 

 

 

Lucozade tradionally had the wider 'mouth' so easier to get the poop into.

[tree monkey]

35 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Lucozade tradionally had the wider 'mouth' so easier to get the poop into.

Yeah, but I was avoiding the actual reason for the choice of vessel

[MtB]

3 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

We've been through the Grand Junction debate before. Built for 14' wide craft but reduced to 12' 6" north of Berkhamsted due to a reduced dredged channel width. It was operated by wide craft over the entire length throughout it's history until incorporation into the Grand Union system and in all likelihood has always been navigated by wide craft. Where CRT are perhaps remiss is in enforcing the 12' 6" limit north of Berkhamsted.

 

 

Just to clarify, does the Grand Junction stop at Braunston then? Is the bit from there up to brum actually a different canal, called the Grand Union?

 

Thanks.

[Steilsteven]

23 hours ago, frangar said:

Thats debatable and its certainly not been maintained as such for many years....and I mean long before CRT/BW or even the GUCC before that. When wide traffic was proposed I seem to recall reading that it was acknowledged that Tring summit cutting would be a bottleneck for a start. The fact is also that a modern widebeam skip isn't the same shape as say Progress and simply doesnt fit either the profile of the canal bed or the structures.

No it isn't debatable, it's fact and can be verified by reading Alan H. Faulkner's book ''The Grand Junction Canal''. 

 

Keith

23 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

At 91 pages I can't go back and look for it but I did pose an extract from a GU publication saying that it would be used by wide beam boats. I don't expect they meant 14 foot wide

14' to Berko 12'6'' to Brum.

 

Keith

[Steilsteven]

14 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

That may be tongue in cheek, but raises other thoughts. 

 

Will motorways have camper vans parked along the hard shoulders for miles and miles in fifty years? 

 

Will cars be expected to slow down to 20 when going past these residential parking spots?

 

It's pretty much what happened to the canals over a similar timescale.

 

 

There won't be any cars by then.

 

Keith

[GUMPY]

21 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Just to clarify, does the Grand Junction stop at Braunston then? Is the bit from there up to brum actually a different canal, called the Grand Union?

 

Thanks.

The Grand Junction stopped at Braunston where it joined the Oxford Canal.

When the 1930's improvements happened the Grand Junction canal was combined with the Warwick and Napton Canal and the Warwick and Birmingham Canal to form the Grand Union Canal. 

The bit from Braunston to Napton is and always has been the Oxford Canal.

[Steilsteven]

17 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Just to clarify, does the Grand Junction stop at Braunston then? Is the bit from there up to brum actually a different canal, called the Grand Union?

 

Thanks.

The Grand Junction was built to join the Oxford Canal at Braunston, the Napton and Warwick Canal ran from the Oxford Canal to Warwick where it joined the Warwick an Birmingham Canal. Upon amalgamation these ( except the Oxford ) became the Grand Union Canal, this name lifted from what is now known as the Leicester section.

 

Keith

3 minutes ago, Loddon said:

The Grand Junction stopped at Braunston where it joined the Oxford Canal.

When the 1930's improvements happened the Grand Junction canal was combined with the Warwick and Napton Canal and the Warwick and Birmingham Canal to form the Grand Union Canal. 

The bit from Braunston to Napton is and always has been the Oxford Canal.

Beat me to it.

 

Keith

[Captain Pegg]

38 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Just to clarify, does the Grand Junction stop at Braunston then? Is the bit from there up to brum actually a different canal, called the Grand Union?

 

Thanks.

 

Yes. Brentford to Braunston was built to 14' gauge as the Grand Junction canal. It became part of the Grand Union in 1929 when that company was formed by the amalgamation of numerous original canals.

 

Beyond Braunston the route to Birmingham was made up of narrow canals at the time of the formation of the Grand Union company in 1929. Those being the Oxford, Napton & Warwick and Warwick & Birmingham Canals. Of course the Grand Union never owned the Oxford - and hence the GU isn't technically continuous from London to Birmingham - but they bought the latter two companies and in the 1930s set about widening Napton to Birmingham. They never quite finished the job hence it's status as a wide canal throws up the odd issue. The GU company was also permitted to fund and undertake improvements to the Oxford between Braunston and Napton for the passage of wider boats. There's a good argument they wouldn't have had to do this if the intention had only ever to have been to operate pairs of narrow boats.

 

ETA - both beat me to it.

Edited November 7, 2021 by Captain Pegg

[David Mack]

26 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

and in the 1930s set about widening Napton to Birmingham.

Birmingham in this case being Samson Road depot at the top of Camp Hill locks which remained narrow, as did the Warwick and Birmingham's later extension, the Birmingham and Warwick Junction Canal from Bordesley Junction to Salford Bridge Junction.

[DerekB]

On 05/11/2021 at 11:44, frangar said:

If that’s a widebeam then Watford might come as a shock…..

What's up with Watford then? That's an area i might be thinking of visiting and i'm about to buy a 10' widebeam liveaboard (I hope).