March of the Widebeams

[Alan de Enfield]

13 minutes ago, George and Dragon said:

Was that the boat that couldn't fit and had to reverse back to Kingswood? End of last year or very early this, I don't remember exactly when. 

 

Don't know if it was the same location, but, a 'fatty' got stuck in a bridge hole, C&RT came and removed the capping-stones and made it an inch or two wider so it could get thru.

 

C&RTs problem is if they say that the canal is suitable for (say) 12' 6" then it must be possible for a 12' 6" boat to transit. 

Maybe they should measure the boat before removing bits of the infrastructure.

[john6767]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Don't know if it was the same location, but, a 'fatty' got stuck in a bridge hole, C&RT came and removed the capping-stones and made it an inch or two wider so it could get thru.

 

C&RTs problem is if they say that the canal is suitable for (say) 12' 6" then it must be possible for a 12' 6" boat to transit. 

Maybe they should measure the boat before removing bits of the infrastructure.

That sounds like the one at the bridge below shop lock, that the stoppage notices is about.  I don’t remember anything about one at Shrewley.

[cuthound]

23 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Don't know if it was the same location, but, a 'fatty' got stuck in a bridge hole, C&RT came and removed the capping-stones and made it an inch or two wider so it could get thru.

 

C&RTs problem is if they say that the canal is suitable for (say) 12' 6" then it must be possible for a 12' 6" boat to transit. 

Maybe they should measure the boat before removing bits of the infrastructure.

 

I thought the CRT terms and conditions said that a boat must be suitable for the waterway which it is being used on?

 

If it won't go through a bridgehole because it is too wide, too high or the wrong profile then it clearly isn't suitable for that waterway.

 

After all CRT do not immediately widen a narrowed lock just because the odd working boat can't get through it.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, cuthound said:

I thought the CRT terms and conditions said that a boat must be suitable for the waterway which it is being used on?

 

Correct.

But when C&RT advertise a waterway as being 'usable' by a 12' 6" boat, and said boat gets stuck, is the boater at fault, (using a non- suitable boat) or is C&RT at fault by advertising something that is not available ?

 

There was another example :-  on the K&A, where (from memory) they repaired a lock & made it narrower that the published dimensions and a boat that had passed thru before the lock was rebuilt could not longer get back 'home'.

 

Whilst I agree that boats should only use 'suitable' waterways, it does require some level of competence from the authorities to check that the waterway is actually capable of navigation by boats that fall within the stated dimensions.

 

 

[cuthound]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Correct.

But when C&RT advertise a waterway as being 'usable' by a 12' 6" boat, and said boat gets stuck, is the boater at fault, (using a non- suitable boat) or is C&RT at fault by advertising something that is not available ?

 

There was another example :-  on the K&A, where (from memory) they repaired a lock & made it narrower that the published dimensions and a boat that had passed thru before the lock was rebuilt could not longer get back 'home'.

 

Whilst I agree that boats should only use 'suitable' waterways, it does require some level of competence from the authorities to check that the waterway is actually capable of navig,ation by boats that fall within the stated dimensions.

 

 

 

But with a 250 year old infrastructure, often passing through heavily mined areas, is it reasonable to drop everything to allow one boat to pass, or better to undertake the remedial work at a future date when it can be properly budgeted for?

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

But with a 250 year old infrastructure, often passing through heavily mined areas, is it reasonable to drop everything to allow one boat to pass, or better to undertake the remedial work at a future date when it can be properly budgeted for?

 

Or, republish the guidance on boat sizes, and repair (if necessary) at a later date.

[Ray T]

From a recent Towpathtalk.

I thought the Trent & Mersey is a "narrow" canal.

I have sent a copy to CRT making them aware of this.

 

Note: "Narrowboats Ltd. will soon be able to launch widebeam vessels into the Trent & Mersey canal.........."

 

Edited March 20, 2022 by Ray T

[ditchcrawler]

24 minutes ago, Ray T said:

From a recent Towpathtalk.

I thought the Trent & Mersey is a "narrow" canal.

I have sent a copy to CRT making them aware of this.

 

Note: "Narrowboats Ltd. will soon be able to launch widebeam vessels into the Trent & Mersey canal.........."

 

They have been putting fat boats in there for years, there are several moored in Park Farm Marina they can also go down the Anderton Lift to the Weaver or if the correct size to the Bridgewater

[Rob-M]

25 minutes ago, Ray T said:

From a recent Towpathtalk.

I thought the Trent & Mersey is a "narrow" canal.

I have sent a copy to CRT making them aware of this.

 

Note: "Narrowboats Ltd. will soon be able to launch widebeam vessels into the Trent & Mersey canal.........."

 

I think that section is listed as width up to 9ft so perhaps they will only crane in slimline fatties.

[ditchcrawler]

1 minute ago, Rob-M said:

I think that section is listed as width up to 9ft so perhaps they will only crane in slimline fatties.

I am going that way next trip so I may just check the width of the lock. When I was at Park Farm a fatty decided to go out on holiday, after getting to the bridgewater he decided not to risk coming back through the tunnels. 

[Rob-M]

4 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I am going that way next trip so I may just check the width of the lock. When I was at Park Farm a fatty decided to go out on holiday, after getting to the bridgewater he decided not to risk coming back through the tunnels. 

I was going by the CRT February 2022 dimensions document.

32433-waterway-dimensions.pdf

[StephenA]

53 minutes ago, Ray T said:

From a recent Towpathtalk.

I thought the Trent & Mersey is a "narrow" canal.

I have sent a copy to CRT making them aware of this.

 

Note: "Narrowboats Ltd. will soon be able to launch widebeam vessels into the Trent & Mersey canal.........."

 

 

CRT probably wont care - they didn't seem to give a damn when we were basically forced into the side by a wide boat from there which was passing a moored narrowboat, with a wide boat moored outside of it, on the offside.  Helmsman on the broad boat, who I suspect was drunk, didn't seem to have a clue about what he was doing.

 

26 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

I think that section is listed as width up to 9ft so perhaps they will only crane in slimline fatties.

 

From memory all the ones I've seen there are full fat fatties.

Edited March 20, 2022 by StephenA

[PaulJ]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

I am going that way next trip so I may just check the width of the lock. When I was at Park Farm a fatty decided to go out on holiday, after getting to the bridgewater he decided not to risk coming back through the tunnels. 

You mean the Dutton stop lock ? Its 9ft and a little bit one end and alot wider the (Bridgewater) other end-though I dont know how much as it was irrelevant.

I know this because the T&M (narrow end) gate wouldnt fully open a couple of years ago and had hell of a job squeezing one of the 9fters through. 

Tunnels were fun 😀

 

[John Brightley]

On 19/03/2022 at 17:19, George and Dragon said:

Was that the boat that couldn't fit and had to reverse back to Kingswood? End of last year or very early this, I don't remember exactly when. 

There's an Aqualine widebeam called 'Adventurer' moored at Kingswood at the moment.

[Victor Vectis]

That ugly thing has been knocking about in the area for a while.

 

And there was another fattie moored on the offside near that new marina south of the Black Boy last time I passed that way.

[MtB]

On 20/03/2022 at 18:11, StephenA said:

From memory all the ones I've seen there are full fat fatties.

 

Presumably they will be entitled to a license reduction being unable to cruise anywhere beyond the pound they are in? 

 

 

[TheBiscuits]

37 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Presumably they will be entitled to a license reduction being unable to cruise anywhere beyond the pound they are in? 

 

 

They might not be entitled to a license at all under the new t&c's.

 

Appropriate size for the waterway don'cher know.

 

 

[MtB]

37 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

 

They might not be entitled to a license at all under the new t&c's.

 

Appropriate size for the waterway don'cher know.

 

 

 

And who decides if any given boat is 'appropriate' or not, and by what criteria?

 

Is it just beam and length? And who checks that?

 

just wonderin'.

[TheBiscuits]

10 hours ago, MtB said:

 

And who decides if any given boat is 'appropriate' or not, and by what criteria?

 

Is it just beam and length? And who checks that?

 

just wonderin'.

 

Computer says "No."

 

That's how it works for passage bookings anyway - I have had to update my boat's air draught twice and it's draught once to be able to book transits online.

 

Admittedly the second air draught update was because I had only guessed at it the first time to get booked onto the Liverpool Link.  It was still too high to book Standedge Tunnel, but I actually measured it for that one!

[haggis]

The problem is perhaps that when you licence a boat you are not asked to say where it will be cruising. You do have to say where it will be moored and perhaps there is something built into the system to say you can't moor there as the canal is narrow beam only.  

[StephenA]

CRT seem to be happy to have wide craft on narrow canals.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/getting-afloat/wide-beam-boats-wider-considerations

 

 

Edited April 16, 2022 by StephenA

[Mike Todd]

I noticed when passing a well-known long line of farm moorings on the Chester Canal I(northern part of Shroppie) not far from Tattenhall, that a wide beam is long term moored here. 

 

It could not go further south than Nantwich so cannot be intended for cruising. Wonder what the PP for permanent residential is at this site? There seem to be quite a few, but otherwise all narrow. Also one double mooring on what is rather narrow for half the length of the moorings.

[David Mack]

12 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

It could not go further south than Nantwich so cannot be intended for cruising.

It's a wide boat on a wide canal, and presumably has a home mooring. It wouldn't be my choice, but I can't see that there is much to object to. Last time I passed Golden Nook there were a few narrow boats double moored, which restricted the canal as much as (or more than) a wide boat.

[Mike Todd]

4 hours ago, David Mack said:

It's a wide boat on a wide canal, and presumably has a home mooring. It wouldn't be my choice, but I can't see that there is much to object to. Last time I passed Golden Nook there were a few narrow boats double moored, which restricted the canal as much as (or more than) a wide boat.

I was not suggesting that it cannot within current rules. However, the southern part of that mooring is not maintained to a suitable width to allow double mooring/wide beam and for two narrow boats to pass each other readily. It is of such a length that it is unrealistic to suggest that boats should wait for an oncoming boat to clear the section before entering it.

 

What I was hoping my post might elicit from someone who knows wot I don't, is what the 'rule' situation is about double mooring. Is it just down to an interpretation of 'causing an obstruction'? After all, if double mooring is generally permitted then, as a wide beam canal, presumably that implies two such boats could moor abreast. Or will the new interest in 'inappropriate mooring' be brought the bear on such situations?

[Alan de Enfield]

27 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

After all, if double mooring is generally permitted then, as a wide beam canal, presumably that implies two such boats could moor abreast

 

All of the mooring signs I've seen that mention 'double mooring' tend to say (words to the effect) "mooring for two NBs breasted up, or, a single wideboat"