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

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

For the maximum published beam it is at the maximum published draught, at the maximum published headroom, and at all points in between.

 

JP

I actually meant 'where on the boat'.

As the example given is 12' at the waterline and 14' at the Gunwale - in many cases the gunwale could be at the height of the coping stones of a bridge hole etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I actually meant 'where on the boat'.

As the example given is 12' at the waterline and 14' at the Gunwale - in many cases the gunwale could be at the height of the coping stones of a bridge hole etc.

Over it’s entire height (and depth)

Edited by Captain Pegg

Share this post


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

Over it’s entire height (and depth)

That would appear sensible - so - why did the owner of this 14 foot beam boat expect C&RT to widen the bridges for him ?

 

 

I wonder what beam he claims on the licence application form ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

That would appear sensible - so - why did the owner of this 14 foot beam boat expect C&RT to widen the bridges for him ?

 

 

I wonder what beam he claims on the licence application form ?

Did he expect that? I don’t know and I don’t think it’s the relevant point. The navigation authority identified a failure to maintain the canal to the required dimensions and put it right. That’s what should happen. This wasn’t the only, or the first, boat to be restricted by this particular bridge.

 

If this boat is 14’ wide at the gunwale then it navigates at the owners risk and should it get stuck on a piece of infrastructure that complies with the minimum craft dimensions then there will be no obligation on the part of CRT to take action and I very much doubt that they would.

 

JP

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


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

Did he expect that? I don’t know and I don’t think it’s the relevant point. The navigation authority identified a failure to maintain the canal to the required dimensions and put it right. That’s what should happen. This wasn’t the only, or the first, boat to be restricted by this particular bridge.

 

If this boat is 14’ wide at the gunwale then it navigates at the owners risk and should it get stuck on a piece of infrastructure that complies with the minimum craft dimensions then there will be no obligation on the part of CRT to take action and I very much doubt that they would.

 

JP

 

So why the big difference in CRT's response to the chap whose boat used to fit through the recently repaired lock on the K&A, but now doesn't? 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

So why the big difference in CRT's response to the chap whose boat used to fit through the recently repaired lock on the K&A, but now doesn't? 

Perhaps he was a bit of a dick about it but this guy hasn't been. 

 

How you approach a situation can have a big effect on the response you get to that situation. 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


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

Perhaps he was a bit of a dick about it but this guy hasn't been. 

 

How you approach a situation can have a big effect on the response you get to that situation. 

 

 

He seems pretty sensible and level headed in his posts about it on here, so I disagree with your hypothesis that he is a bit of a dick.

 

 

In fact the owner of the Stockton monster is reported to have been 'upset' about posts on here about his, but declined to post and put the record straight. Who looks the more of a dick to you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Add a bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

So why the big difference in CRT's response to the chap whose boat used to fit through the recently repaired lock on the K&A, but now doesn't? 

I think scale and geography and how that results in differing behaviours from CRT.

 

Rather than thinking of CRT as a single entity who present a joined up position think of it as a number of individuals arranged into specific functional teams within a number of regional structures. Depending on which team you are dealing with in which region you will get a different perspective, a different set of motivations and a different set of priorities. I’m not saying that’s how it should be but it’s a reality of an organisation like CRT and it isn’t an entirely negative thing.

 

The immediate problem at Itchington was one solvable by maintenance work, so within CRTs structure it will have available budget, available resource and local management empowered to deploy those. The asset management function was probably in the lead and calling the shots and well informed about the state of the infrastructure. The local lead asset manager concerned will also be well aware of the legal framework in which CRT operates. Hence they chose to sort it, good on them.

 

On the K&A the work was part of the winter stoppage programme so probably delivered through a process that was far removed from the above and involved a remit from the asset team to a project management team, a specific budget authority for the remitted outputs and no more, a planned stoppage and then the letting of the contract to deliver the work. So something of a chain through which knowledge, detail and ownership can get lost. One of the disadvantages of contracting out work. So immediately following the work there’s probably not a great deal of knowledge in the day to day CRT operation on the K&A about the current state of the asset. Then a boat gets stuck and it’s likely the local Operations & Customer Services team get involved. Without the local knowledge that applied at Itchington or the need to know the legal requirements in general they make a false assumption - aided by the published craft dimensions - that the boat is too wide for the infrastructure. A statement which frankly should have been subsequently corrected. It will now need another remit, another authority, another stoppage and another contract to sort it long term.

 

JP

Edited by Captain Pegg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

So why the big difference in CRT's response to the chap whose boat used to fit through the recently repaired lock on the K&A, but now doesn't? 

OK a very hypothetical one, I know it wont happen

 

So just suppose they rebuild the A45 bridge on the North Oxford to 9 foot width, considering the dimensions of the canal are quoted as 7ft 6in by 71 feet. Do you think it should be knocked down to let the wide beames out because they use to be able to pass through it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

So why the big difference in CRT's response to the chap whose boat used to fit through the recently repaired lock on the K&A, but now doesn't? 

One doesn't belong to the right lodge??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Loddon said:

Indeed but wasn't she responsible for making that happen. It certainly came about when she was on the local council/mayor, wasn't there before that, and no one had heard it before then.

Oh, I guess you missed my irony re media, social and trad . . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

Perhaps he was a bit of a dick about it but this guy hasn't been. 

 

How you approach a situation can have a big effect on the response you get to that situation. 

I'd argue that I wasn't a bit of a dick. Not that they comment on here but I know a few of the local CRT staff personally and I'm sure they would say I was calm and polite throughout. I think it may be down to a difference in scenario's. In my case, if I wasn't at fault then it would mean that the recent repair work was - the chief engineer that visited site was primarily concerned with making sure that was not the outcome (Despite my boat, and others of the same beam always having previously fitted through the same lock). In the more recent scenario on the GU, this wasn't a consideration - no one from CRT needed to defend themselves. I can see why the owner of this boat was a bit pissed off about all the derogitory comments about the situation, lots of keyboard warriors about talking crap based on hearsay and very few of the facts. 

  • Greenie 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sitting here on the Trent and Mersey canal there is a wide lock at Middlewich but wide boats can't reach it because there is a narrow aqueduct about half a mile below it. I think this is probably the third aqueduct on that site and the first one was a wide one, Should CRT be looking to replace it so once again wide boats can get to Middlewich.

Edited by ditchcrawler
Not telling

Share this post


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

Oh, I guess you missed my irony re media, social and trad . . . 

I have never managed to find an irony emoticon ;)

Edited by Loddon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Sitting here on the Trent and Mersey canal there is a wide lock at Middlewich but wide boats can't reach it because there is a narrow aqueduct about half a mile below it. I think this is probably the third aqueduct on that site and the first one was a wide one, Should CRT be looking to replace it so once again wide boats can get to Middlewich.

 

Yes!, for the sake of historic correctness the aqueduct should be replaced with a wide one, and at the same time all those wide locks on Hatton flight need to be demolished and the old narrow locks re-instated. :)

 

...............Dave

  • Happy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

Yes!, for the sake of historic correctness the aqueduct should be replaced with a wide one, and at the same time all those wide locks on Hatton flight need to be demolished and the old narrow locks re-instated. :)

 

...............Dave

That get’s my vote. 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

Yes!, for the sake of historic correctness the aqueduct should be replaced with a wide one, and at the same time all those wide locks on Hatton flight need to be demolished and the old narrow locks re-instated. :)

 

...............Dave

Can we un-sraighten the Northern Oxford please and don't forget the locks up to Calcutt from Warwick. Oh, re-tunnel Fenny Compton too. 

 

Cheers Graham 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

Yes!, for the sake of historic correctness the aqueduct should be replaced with a wide one, and at the same time all those wide locks on Hatton flight need to be demolished and the old narrow locks re-instated. :)

 

...............Dave

That's the BCN new mainline stuffed then!

 

 

Edited by TheBiscuits
Punctuation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Graham and Jo said:

Oh, re-tunnel Fenny Compton too. 

 

NOOOOOOO!!!!!! What about the amazing glow worm population along there??? They would all have to be re-housed!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points. We can solve the ‘problem’ of widebeams on ‘unsuitable’ canals by rewinding to before our canal network was even built. 😂

 

Obviously I’m not serious about the GU Birmingham line but I do hold the narrow canal would have been a nicer waterway than the widened version.

 

It all goes to show that history isn’t a good way of defining the future and that a formal line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere. That line is the current legal position and must be the starting point for any discussion on usage. Preservation of the dimensions of wide beam waterways is an important precedent in ensuring that the narrow beam network is never confined to 6’ 10”. I wonder if those who operate - or support the operation of - narrow craft in excess of 6’ 10” but argue against widebeams where they are within limits fail to recognise the issue or whether they just don’t believe it will happen?

 

The precedent at Itchington is the same one as ensures the Llangollen will become passable again to 7’ 0.5” craft. Of course if we applied history as per the posts above that facility wouldn’t be afforded on the Llangollen.

 

I contend that we should be supporting all boaters who operate within legal requirements, be encouraging CRT to regulate passage of atypical craft such that it is reasonable to other users, to restrict passage that flagrantly breaches the limits, while at the same time pushing them to demonstrate a transparent strategy of opening out pinch points to utilise the general dimensions of the as-built channel, locks and major structures. Individual bridges should not be a barrier to wider capability in the long term.

 

JP

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Graham and Jo said:

Can we un-sraighten the Northern Oxford please and don't forget the locks up to Calcutt from Warwick. Oh, re-tunnel Fenny Compton too. 

 

Cheers Graham 

While we are at Napton area can we have this bridge back please?

38148148_10216512216933954_7588543699714310144_n.jpg

 

Plus these gates and paddle gear.

 

 

PH1239-6-14-Oxford-Canal-Napton.jpg

Edited by Ray T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ray T said:

While we are at Napton area can we have this bridge back please?

38148148_10216512216933954_7588543699714310144_n.jpg

 

Plus these gates and paddle gear.

 

 

 

Where was the bridge? 

 

Cheers Graham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Graham and Jo said:

Where was the bridge? 

 

Cheers Graham

Between the Wigram's 3, to give them their "proper" name and Napton Junction.

38005051_10216512352737349_3980139119392063488_o.jpg

38023568_10216512318536494_193376251052818432_o.jpg

Edited by Ray T
  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ray T said:

Between the Wigram's 3, to give them their "proper" name and Napton Junction.

38005051_10216512352737349_3980139119392063488_o.jpg

38023568_10216512318536494_193376251052818432_o.jpg

Thanks, I wondered if it was that one. I have crashed into the remains of the bridge on the towpath side in a minor moment of less that ideal attention. 

 

Cheers Graham

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyhow, Stowe Hill was disrupted on Saturday by the arrival of recently discussed behemoth.

 

If the owner doesn't like being talked about then it's about time he got the boat lifted and dropped in the Thames off a lorry.

 

Coming under the A5 bridge the boat got wedged across the cut, much noise,  bowthruster action and sprayed silt later, it broke down due to overheating.

Eventually resuming , it appears navigation is achieved by forward motion corrected with constant use of said bowthruster. The canal looked like mulligatawney soup......obviously the fault of CRT due to lack of dredging. 

The boat hit the narrowboat in front of me on his end of garden mooring, and then the owner used his shaft to push the boat away from Old Friends.

 

He did get some advice...." Get it lifted out, you give us wide beam owners a bad name"....from a wide beam owner.

 

Expect it at Blisworth tunnel for passage Monday morning.

Edited by matty40s
  • Greenie 1
  • Love 1
  • Horror 6

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.