Jump to content

March of the Widebeams


cuthound

Featured Posts

5 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

I think you will find that was the precise point @peterboat was making.

Maybe -- but then he inevitably brings up the fact that he's a good guy in this respect (which he is, wide canal Up Norf), so widebeam owners shouldn't be persecuted -- ignoring the fact that -- like CMers -- it's the boaters who abuse the system who cause the problems, not those who don't...

 

3 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:


And which canals do you consider to be the wrong canals?

 

The ones where widebeams don't really fit, or cause obstructions, or cause problems for other boats. Plenty of examples in this thread... 😉

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Maybe -- but then he inevitably brings up the fact that he's a good guy in this respect (which he is, wide canal Up Norf), so widebeam owners shouldn't be persecuted -- ignoring the fact that -- like CMers -- it's the boaters who abuse the system who cause the problems, not those who don't...

 

I would say no maybe about it.

 

You are reading something into a post that wasnt there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Maybe -- but then he inevitably brings up the fact that he's a good guy in this respect (which he is, wide canal Up Norf), so widebeam owners shouldn't be persecuted -- ignoring the fact that -- like CMers -- it's the boaters who abuse the system who cause the problems, not those who don't...

 

 

The ones where widebeams don't really fit, or cause obstructions, or cause problems for other boats. Plenty of examples in this thread... 😉


So should CRT prohibit widebeams on those canals?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

I would say no maybe about it.

 

You are reading something into a post that wasnt there.

Maybe I am -- but it's the argument Peter always makes (composting loos, solar, free EV charging, electric boats, wideboats) which is that it works for him (and his mates) so it must be "perfick", while ignoring the fact that not everyone else behaves as properly, or that what suits him doesn't suit them -- "me and my mates" or "I'm all right Jack".

 

I can probably go and find fifty examples if you really want me to... 😉

5 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:


So should CRT prohibit widebeams on those canals?

 

Yes, if they're not suitable for them.

 

The only exception might be occasional transits from one suitable canal to another suitable one, under some special permit from CRT.

Edited by IanD
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

Maybe I am -- but it's the argument Peter always makes (composting loos, solar, free EV charging, electric boats, wideboats) which is that it works for him (and his mates) so it must be "perfick", while ignoring the fact that not everyone else behaves as properly, or that what suits him doesn't suit them -- "me and my mates" or "I'm all right Jack".

 

I can probably go and find fifty examples if you really want me to... 😉

 

 

 

No dont bother. In this instance he clearly was responding to someone pointing out that there was two widebeams on a widebeam canal.

 

A wide canal built for widebeam boats.

 

You know, as opposed to one of those narrow canals.

 

 

 

Or ones where they just dont fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, M_JG said:

 

No dont bother. In this instance he clearly was responding to someone pointing out that there was two widebeams on a widebeam canal.

 

A wide canal built for widebeam boats.

 

You know, as opposed to one of those narrow canals.

 

 

I'm not quite sure what your argument is, since we both agree that widebeam boats on a wide canal built and maintained for them (and sensibly moored) are fine... 😉

 

But it's not *those* widebeams that have kept this thread going for more than 100 pages, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IanD said:

But it's not *those* widebeams that have kept this thread going for more than 100 pages, is it?

 

What the heck are banging on about then?

 

That was the precise point Peter was making, which I've already said.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

What the heck are banging on about then?

 

That was the precise point Peter was making, which I've already said.

 

 

So maybe you could let Peter respond, instead of attacking me (on his behalf) as you so *love* doing... 😉

 

Going for a G&T and a curry now, so any further response will be ignored anyway... 🙂

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, IanD said:

Yes, if they're not suitable for them.

 

The only exception might be occasional transits from one suitable canal to another suitable one, under some special permit from CRT.


I think the only section of canal that criterion can properly be applied to is Braunston to Hillmorton and what you describe is what CRT have done.

 

I am aware of nowhere else that widebeams are present (excepting for direct commercial purposes with business boating permissions) where the canal concerned was not designed, constructed or maintained to some degree for wide beam boats and where there is no legal requirement to enable their passage.

 

Some of those canals have not seen widespread widebeam usage in their history and are still relatively devoid of such craft. As a result should it increase there could be genuine issues that arise, as opposed to most of the supposed issues in this thread that are really just everyday stuff that can be mildly annoying but is blown out of proportion because it involves a widebeam.

 

Once widebeam owners are paying much more for their passage than narrowboaters then it wouldn’t be unreasonable for them to pressurise CRT to make nominal wide canals more suitable for such craft, such as by clearing the full width of the channel and properly fixing pinch points such as the WFBC bridge.

 

To encourage CRT to take action beyond the provisions of the 1968 act would be very stupid since there will come a day when the consequences of that would not be to your liking.

 

The latest ‘issue’ occurred on the Birmingham line. If you think this is an unsuitable canal for widebeams we could both list all the dates we’ve cruised somewhere between Napton Junction and Camp Hill in the past five years and enlighten the forum as to the issues we’ve had when encountering wide beams on that section??

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Captain Pegg
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IanD said:

 

So maybe you could let Peter respond, instead of attacking me (on his behalf) as you so *love* doing... 😉

 

Going for a G&T and a curry now, so any further response will be ignored anyway... 🙂

Why should I respond? My point was to widebeams on a big boat canal isnt wrong it's right, I have always maintained this. However widebeams on narrow canals is wrong  and shouldn't be allowed 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, john6767 said:

I notice there is another widebeam moored on the offside near to the Black Boy, something to do with the ghost marina there possibly?

 

Is this the one? I quite liked it, maybe because it actually curves round at the front a bit and the cratch helps.

I did wonder what the story was with the weeded-up “marina” just after it, any more info?

 

 

IMG_0964.jpeg

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

Is this the one? I quite liked it, maybe because it actually curves round at the front a bit and the cratch helps.

I did wonder what the story was with the weeded-up “marina” just after it, any more info?

 

 

Also, the roofline looks hardly any higher than a narrowboat. Which is a Good Thing.

 

The broadbeans I really dislike are those that are a good three feet higher than my NB. They really do block out the view.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Also, the roofline looks hardly any higher than a narrowboat. Which is a Good Thing.

 

The broadbeans I really dislike are those that are a good three feet higher than my NB. They really do block out the view.

 

 

Liverpool and Collingwood Mike, I don't like them either 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Hudds Lad said:

 

Is this the one? I quite liked it, maybe because it actually curves round at the front a bit and the cratch helps.

I did wonder what the story was with the weeded-up “marina” just after it, any more info?

 

 

IMG_0964.jpeg

Yes that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:


I think the only section of canal that criterion can properly be applied to is Braunston to Hillmorton and what you describe is what CRT have done.

 

I am aware of nowhere else that widebeams are present (excepting for direct commercial purposes with business boating permissions) where the canal concerned was not designed, constructed or maintained to some degree for wide beam boats and where there is no legal requirement to enable their passage.

(snip)

 

There are quite a few on the Trent and Mersey between Middlewich and Anderton. Most stay  in marinas, thankfully!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Iain_S said:

There are quite a few on the Trent and Mersey between Middlewich and Anderton. Most stay  in marinas, thankfully!

 

Strictly speaking the T&M from Preston Brook to Croxton is a broad canal. Albeit most of the boats you refer to are I suspect wider than the 9' 0" maximum beam requirement of that section.

 

In reality enforcement action requires evidence as a trigger. Simply taking a boat that's bigger than the published dimensions onto a canal isn't going to trigger such action. It needs the boat to create some sort of tangible problem. Hence if these widebeams stay in marinas and only ever utilise the canal for below the radar transits to and from the Anderton lift or wherever they may be craned in or out then it's unlikely to create an issue that needs a solution. If it did CRT have the easy comeback of the 9' 0" limit here. That's something they don't have on the Grand Union.

 

Edited by Captain Pegg
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Victor Vectis said:

I can't help thinking that if CaRT have to issue notices to the effect that the tunnels at Blisworth and Braunston will be closed to allow the passage of a widebeam then those bits of the systen just ain't suitable for widebeam craft.

 

Be thankful they do it the way that they do and that restrictions are very limited in when they can be applied.

 

The alternative is to introduce a one way  at a time system like Harecastle or Foulridge.

 

I presume you aren’t going argue that narrow boats are unsuitable for those places?

 

Edited by Captain Pegg
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Victor Vectis said:

I can't help thinking that if CaRT have to issue notices to the effect that the tunnels at Blisworth and Braunston will be closed to allow the passage of a widebeam then those bits of the systen just ain't suitable for widebeam craft.

Even on a canal built for normal sized boats the L@L.  Through Foulridge tunnel boats are only allowed to travel in one direction at a time. Effectively closing the canal from the other direction. So I don’t think you can say this means the canal is unsuitable for normal sized boats. 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Victor Vectis said:

I can't help thinking that if CaRT have to issue notices to the effect that the tunnels at Blisworth and Braunston will be closed to allow the passage of a widebeam then those bits of the systen just ain't suitable for widebeam craft.

So narrow canals with tunnels (or bridges or locks) which are not wide enough for boats to pass are not suitable for narrow beam craft?

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Today's 12'x60ft Collingwood with new owner came along and chatted about his travails.

Complained that his hood kept getting caught on branches.....he was cruising with his pram hood up. I have no doubt that if he carried on as far as the High House bridge, he would no longer have a pram hood in good repair.

 

He also asked if we had anything to extend the tiller with, as he was having to step from side to side and the tiller arm wasnt long enough..we suggested strapping a broom handle to it. 

He also complained that he was single handing it, as all his mates who were supposed to come along and join him were all busy.

Happy days another satisfied owner on the way to London.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, matty40s said:

Today's 12'x60ft Collingwood with new owner came along and chatted about his travails.

Complained that his hood kept getting caught on branches.....he was cruising with his pram hood up. I have no doubt that if he carried on as far as the High House bridge, he would no longer have a pram hood in good repair.

 

He also asked if we had anything to extend the tiller with, as he was having to step from side to side and the tiller arm wasnt long enough..we suggested strapping a broom handle to it. 

He also complained that he was single handing it, as all his mates who were supposed to come along and join him were all busy.

Happy days another satisfied owner on the way to London.

At least its going where no sensible boater would bother going....

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, matty40s said:

Today's 12'x60ft Collingwood with new owner came along and chatted about his travails.

Complained that his hood kept getting caught on branches.....he was cruising with his pram hood up. I have no doubt that if he carried on as far as the High House bridge, he would no longer have a pram hood in good repair.

 

He also asked if we had anything to extend the tiller with, as he was having to step from side to side and the tiller arm wasnt long enough..we suggested strapping a broom handle to it. 

He also complained that he was single handing it, as all his mates who were supposed to come along and join him were all busy.

Happy days another satisfied owner on the way to London.

 

It's obviously the canal's fault, as his boat is sized to fit through the locks....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.