Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
cuthound

March of the Widebeams

Featured Posts

9 hours ago, Chris Williams said:

I loaded coal on a wide canal - the Ashby was used by wide boats and the bridges were wide.  Lower down, it became a ditch, and the Coventry and Oxford were also ditches, then I got out onto the Sheepwash, which is wide, and then the Thames.

Isis Lock, the last on the Oxford was originally wide, and Thames barges served many of the wharves above it.

Ahh, thanks for that I hadnt known that but its interesting to know ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pete harrison said:

It has been pointed out that a trial was carried out with one purpose built wide boat after its locks were modified, and that trial was deemed to be unsuccessful :captain:

But according to this thread other companies did run widebeam boats through the canal, The problem is a hotel boat has run up and down the canal for years the crt regs say its suitable so they rebuild the bridge to the correct size again, just because narrowboat owners dont want widebeams on the canals doestnt make you or your boats right! it just means you want something for yourself and that isnt fair

21 minutes ago, Jerra said:

So if BW happened to have made a mistake somewhere (I am not saying they did) CRT would have to (to give a totaly silly suggestion)  widen 7 foot locks to 14 foot because BW hadn't got it right.

 

I think they didn't read the small print if they agreed to that.

Yes please ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Jerra said:

So if BW happened to have made a mistake somewhere (I am not saying they did) CRT would have to (to give a totaly silly suggestion)  widen 7 foot locks to 14 foot because BW hadn't got it right.

 

I think they didn't read the small print if they agreed to that.

I'd actually prefer just over 14 foot as that is my beam.

 

PS - I also know where is suitable and not suitable for my boat (The rivers, the Northern Canals and the sea)

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jerra said:

I don't know the area particularly well but reading the thread it seems things have changed and moved on.   So it is no longer suitable for wide boats.

Read Pete Harrison’s comments: it never was.

Edited by davidg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume CRT have measured the boat, because not all builders use the same tape measure. My boat is supposed 57 but is 56.9 my friends boat is also 57 but is 57.8 long so there is a big bit of stretch in builders tape measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, davidg said:

Read Pete Harrison’s comments: it never was.

You are taking the comment out of context.   It was a reply to things change and move on.   I never said it had ever been, I was replying with a reason why boats which seemingly have passed (hotel boat) can't now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

Ahh, thanks for that I hadnt known that but its interesting to know ?

It would have been easier to trans-ship from barge to narrowboat on the canal, than on the River.  The lock was narrowed in1844, no idea why.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, peterboat said:

But according to this thread other companies did run widebeam boats through the canal, The problem is a hotel boat has run up and down the canal for years the crt regs say its suitable so they rebuild the bridge to the correct size again, just because narrowboat owners dont want widebeams on the canals doestnt make you or your boats right! it just means you want something for yourself and that isnt fair

If the scrawlings of somebody on Wikipedia carrys more weight than somebody who has carried out 30 years of dedicated research into commercial canal boats and how / where they operated then I give up :captain:

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, pete harrison said:

If the scrawlings of somebody on Wikipedia carrys more weight than somebody who has carried out 30 years of dedicated research into commercial canal boats and how / where they operated then I give up :captain:

I refer you to Captain Peggs post above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, pete harrison said:

If the scrawlings of somebody on Wikipedia carrys more weight than somebody who has carried out 30 years of dedicated research into commercial canal boats and how / where they operated then I give up :captain:

Not all Wiki articles are balderdash. Some aren't as good as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just Spoke to skipper of tranquil rose as we crossed bridge has narrowed to 12’5” which is why they can’t get through

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, pete harrison said:

If the scrawlings of somebody on Wikipedia carrys more weight than somebody who has carried out 30 years of dedicated research into commercial canal boats and how / where they operated then I give up :captain:

Then you or somebody else with good knowledge should edit it. That’s the whole idea of Wikipedia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Then you or somebody else with good knowledge should edit it. That’s the whole idea of Wikipedia. 

Partly, yes (and I have indulged in that activity from time to time). But, as it is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, albeit only an on-line one, it would be good if the original contributors knew what they were talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Athy said:

Partly, yes (and I have indulged in that activity from time to time). But, as it is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, albeit only an on-line one, it would be good if the original contributors knew what they were talking about.

I totally agree. Many is the time I’ve spotted something glaringly wrong in an article but I don’t always have the time (nor inclination) to get off my arse and do something about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Commercial wide beam in action on the GU Birmingham line. This is the only wide beam I’ve passed while it’s been on the move in six trips from Kingswood to Wiggerham’s over the past five years.

 

 

74A1A3CC-B7BC-4DBC-BEB8-7DCEA6D3DE3C.jpeg

 

PS - thought I’d correct a piece of distorted history there ??

Edited by Captain Pegg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

Ultimately though why should history dictate modern usage?

I suspect the facts that: -

 

  • There isn't enough money to complete the annual maintenance plans every year, let alone a major overhaul to cater for a different usage.
  • A lot of the infrastructure is listed and protected against "flavour of the month/long term, ill thought through vandalism"
  • Regardless of the above, it would take years to do and leave stretches of waterways truncated or inaccessible to so many for so long any perceived advantage would be greatly outweighed if only by everybody complaining.
  • Land would have to be  acquired to build access roads to get to remote locations.

Then there are many places where bits could just not be altered, aqueducts and where new buildings, embankments and motorways encroach to the edge.

We have what we have, let's concentrate on insisting it's maintained to how it was, I seem to remember Waterways being bound to a Transport Act dated nineteen hundred and fast asleep which chuntered on about their being required to keep it all in the same physical shape as it was when they inherited it.  To my simple mind that means Blue Lias at 12ft.

So, as CP so correctly summed it all up, if you don't like it ……. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

I suspect the facts that: -

 

  • There isn't enough money to complete the annual maintenance plans every year, let alone a major overhaul to cater for a different usage.
  • A lot of the infrastructure is listed and protected against "flavour of the month/long term, ill thought through vandalism"
  • Regardless of the above, it would take years to do and leave stretches of waterways truncated or inaccessible to so many for so long any perceived advantage would be greatly outweighed if only by everybody complaining.
  • Land would have to be  acquired to build access roads to get to remote locations.

Then there are many places where bits could just not be altered, aqueducts and where new buildings, embankments and motorways encroach to the edge.

We have what we have, let's concentrate on insisting it's maintained to how it was, I seem to remember Waterways being bound to a Transport Act dated nineteen hundred and fast asleep which chuntered on about their being required to keep it all in the same physical shape as it was when they inherited it.  To my simple mind that means Blue Lias at 12ft.

So, as CP so correctly summed it all up, if you don't like it ……. 

 

I refer you to post #874

 

In the transfer documents C&RT 'signed' to accept that they would not allow the dimensions to fall below ………………………………………………..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

Similarly from Berkhamsted to Braunston - which is where I suspect you were really referencing above - the channel is constructed to the same specification as from Brentford to Braunston.

You can choose to think that is what I was referencing, but you would be wrong.  We were talking about the Braunston to Birmingham mainline, and what was or was not done to improve it in the 1930s.

 

However, if you want to take it in this other direction, I would love to see evidence that Tring summit was ever constructed with the same profile specification as the Grand Junction South of Berkhamsted.  It certainly doesn't seem that way, and I suggest whoever is supposed to have signed it off as such didn't do a very good job!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

I suspect the facts that: -

 

  • There isn't enough money to complete the annual maintenance plans every year, let alone a major overhaul to cater for a different usage.
  • A lot of the infrastructure is listed and protected against "flavour of the month/long term, ill thought through vandalism"
  • Regardless of the above, it would take years to do and leave stretches of waterways truncated or inaccessible to so many for so long any perceived advantage would be greatly outweighed if only by everybody complaining.
  • Land would have to be  acquired to build access roads to get to remote locations.

Then there are many places where bits could just not be altered, aqueducts and where new buildings, embankments and motorways encroach to the edge.

We have what we have, let's concentrate on insisting it's maintained to how it was, I seem to remember Waterways being bound to a Transport Act dated nineteen hundred and fast asleep which chuntered on about their being required to keep it all in the same physical shape as it was when they inherited it.  To my simple mind that means Blue Lias at 12ft.

So, as CP so correctly summed it all up, if you don't like it ……. 

That’s broadly my thoughts as well but I’m not suggesting CRT should change the physical construction. All they have to do as make provision for reasonable passage by all boats - up to the maximum published size - in a way that does not unreasonably restrict passage of other craft. If they are taking the increased revenues from the spread of wide beams to this area (which by and large is probably new users rather than a shift from narrow beams) then there should be an obligation to do so.

 

At a simple level that’s improved dredging dimensions and vegetation management. Should there be overcrowding and/or conflict then restrictions on numbers, times/dates for cruising and mooring are all legitimate controls to ensure all users can co-exist. I’ll be off toward Braunston and beyond in a few weeks time so I’ll see if things have got significantly worse than last year when I did the same journey and it was a complete non-issue.

 

The biggest concern I have is that it will take CRT to learn lessons from elsewhere and be proactive. Hopefully it’s not already too late. I’d far sooner meet a widebeam with an understanding of the impact their boat has on others than a narrow boater who just wants a canal full of similar minded folk.

 

JP

 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pete harrison said:

If the scrawlings of somebody on Wikipedia carrys more weight than somebody who has carried out 30 years of dedicated research into commercial canal boats and how / where they operated then I give up :captain:

It isn't the scrawlings of Wikipedia in this case though but boats which have been able to get through bridges but now can not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

You can choose to think that is what I was referencing, but you would be wrong.  We were talking about the Braunston to Birmingham mainline, and what was or was not done to improve it in the 1930s.

 

However, if you want to take it in this other direction, I would love to see evidence that Tring summit was ever constructed with the same profile specification as the Grand Junction South of Berkhamsted.  It certainly doesn't seem that way, and I suggest whoever is supposed to have signed it off as such didn't do a very good job!

On the first point I’ll acknowledge that as I didn’t reference back to your point sufficiently.

 

Tring summit was a very difficult piece of terrain for civil engineers and it’s not uncommon for geological features to lead to isolated constraints in capacity - as opposed to capability - of transport corridors even in the modern world. But did Tring summit ever prevent a single 14’ boat passing along the canal?

 

There are a couple of things it would be good to clarify. The first is the basic specification of the Grand Junction canal. Is there a difference is designed dimensions of the general channel, bridge and lock dimensions as the canal heads north? It’s not obviously apparent that there is and it’s hard to see why there would have been such a requirement.

 

The other is the true dimensions of Blue Lias bridge. There are a good number of sources that claim 12’ maximum but I rather suspect CRTs dimensions and the seeming certainty that Tranquil Rose has traversed it many times tell us that it is at least 12’ 6” at the water line and at least that wide as high as the published air draft of 6’ 3”. We may find out soon.

 

JP

Edited by Captain Pegg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Back in the 60's these were the "Statutory Craft Dimensions" that BW (and subsequently CRT) had to work to :

 

 

 

image.png.1a8b63ac6f7b81c10a10f573558ece30.png

 

image.png

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

The other is the true dimensions of Blue Lias bridge. There are a good number of sources that claim 12’ maximum but I rather suspect CRTs dimensions and the seeming certainty that Tranquil Rose has traversed it many times tell us that it is at least 12’ 6” at the water line and at least that wide as high as the published air draft of 6’ 3”. We may find out soon.

 

Spoke to the skipper of the Tranquil Rose today as we crossed , he says that the blue lias bridge has shrunk to 12’5” (crt measurements) from 12’6” hence they couldn’t get through although previously they could.

Edited by Tuscan

Share this post


Link to post
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.