March of the Widebeams

[grahamjnewman]

I had to go to Onley Marina, known as Dunchurch Pools this afternoon. There are now 10 widebeams moored there. Clearly CRT dont care nor do Daventry District Council as they gave planning permission for the Marina but not for residential use. I understand at least 6 of these boats will not move out of the Marina as they are occupied by liveaboard 'boaters'.

Maybe its time for narrowboat owners to congregate on a regular basis at Braunston Turn and the sanitary station/water point to stop these larger boats reaching Dunchurch Pools Marina!!

[Jonny P]

7 minutes ago, grahamjnewman said:

I had to go to Onley Marina, known as Dunchurch Pools this afternoon. There are now 10 widebeams moored there. Clearly CRT dont care nor do Daventry District Council as they gave planning permission for the Marina but not for residential use. I understand at least 6 of these boats will not move out of the Marina as they are occupied by liveaboard 'boaters'.

Maybe its time for narrowboat owners to congregate on a regular basis at Braunston Turn and the sanitary station/water point to stop these larger boats reaching Dunchurch Pools Marina!!

It would only need one narrow boater to moor in the narrows to prevent passage of wide boats while allowing passage of narrow boats so well volunteered GJN. Let us know how you get on.

JP

[blackrose]

Vigilante action to obstruct navigation? Turning boater against fellow boater....

This sort of nonsense just reinforces the points made earlier about the mindset of some narrow boat owners.

Is that really what you people want?

Edited October 5, 2017 by blackrose

[Leo No2]

Sorry had to create a reply to stop getting countless e-mails about updates.

[Steilsteven]

53 minutes ago, grahamjnewman said:

I had to go to Onley Marina, known as Dunchurch Pools this afternoon. There are now 10 widebeams moored there. Clearly CRT dont care nor do Daventry District Council as they gave planning permission for the Marina but not for residential use. I understand at least 6 of these boats will not move out of the Marina as they are occupied by liveaboard 'boaters'.

Maybe its time for narrowboat owners to congregate on a regular basis at Braunston Turn and the sanitary station/water point to stop these larger boats reaching Dunchurch Pools Marina!!

Yes why don't you and then CaRT can prosecute the lot of you for obstruction.

Keith 

[rustynewbery]

The answer is not to provoke canal rage but to highlight the stupidity of the current situation.  If the occupancy of Dunchurch is now 10 wide beams, 6 of which are "liveaboards" then a breach of the planning permission has been made.  That is a separate issue, as is the current debate about licensing of larger vessels.

The bottom line is just this: are you prepared to risk your boat in a waterway not designed for it?  If so, crack on and wait for the crunch. I wonder if the insurance cover would be valid in the event of a claim.

Next stop for me , CRT.  Thanks for a lively debate!!

TTFN!

 

[Jonny P]

8 hours ago, rustynewbery said:

The answer is not to provoke canal rage but to highlight the stupidity of the current situation.  If the occupancy of Dunchurch is now 10 wide beams, 6 of which are "liveaboards" then a breach of the planning permission has been made.  That is a separate issue, as is the current debate about licensing of larger vessels.

The bottom line is just this: are you prepared to risk your boat in a waterway not designed for it?  If so, crack on and wait for the crunch. I wonder if the insurance cover would be valid in the event of a claim.

Next stop for me , CRT.  Thanks for a lively debate!!

TTFN!

 

Then I hope you go to CRT with a coherent argument based upon the design of the canal rather than the maintenance issues that you use as evidence here.

There are three critical factors affecting the width of boats able to navigate a section of canal. These are the width of locks, width of bridges and the width of the construction of the channel itself. It should be noted that many canals with nominally 7' wide locks have bridges holes of nominally 14' so the idea that things can be simply grouped into narrow beam or wide beam is too simplistic.

In this case locks aren't relevant but it appears there is no absolute restriction on wide beam vessels reaching Hillmorton as a result of the width of bridge holes or other narrows. Hence the only logical argument rests around the designed width of the channel and that's an issue you haven't tackled here.

As far as historic passage of wide beam vessels north of Berkhamsted is concerned it does appear this is a maintenance issue. A bit of research suggests BW dredged a 30' wide deep channel south of Berkhamsted and 25' wide north thereof. I don't though believe the actual channel is designed and constructed to a different standard. The Oxford however was (and is?) dredged with a deep channel of 17' width and interestingly that doesn't seem to be any different for the Braunston to Napton section. What I think is clear is that while the Oxford is not designed and constructed as wide as the Grand Junction it is most definitely wider than the dredged deep channel and potentially has latent capacity to accomodate boats wider than 7'. 

The key issue therefore is the designed and constructed width of the Oxford channel and calculations of what width of boat can sensibly navigate or with moor on this section and what reasonable restrictions may be placed thereon. I think CRT would be failing to not consider how they can reasonably accomodate demand for all boaters and I hope you take this approach. Adherence to published dimensions isn't key - I don't believe they are either accurate or binding and are published largely as information for boaters. I strongly suspect many - if not most - narrow boaters have breached them at some point.

JP

Edited October 6, 2017 by Captain Pegg

[Neil2]

The Dunchurch situation is just symptomatic of the way in which attitudes to how and where we live are rapidly changing.  

Just look at the number of "park" homes in the uk compared to 20 years ago.  A lot of asset rich folk have cashed in their chips and bought a lodge or chalet where they can live quite happily for a fraction of the capital outlay on a conventional house.  This is driving the boat market as well, plus those who have no chance of getting on the housing ladder.  But I guess an awful lot of potential boat  owners look at a narrowboat and then get on a wide beam and it's simply a no brainer.  

We know that the vast majority of boats never, or hardly ever, leave their home mooring, to most it's just a smaller home in a nice part of the country and I'm sure those WB owners at Dunchurch, like most WB owners, have no intention of ever taking their boats out onto the canal.  As for the planning regs anyone who keeps their boat on a marina knows very well that there are scores of narrowboat owners bending the rules on residential use.    

       

[Athy]

12 hours ago, blackrose said:

Vigilante action to obstruct navigation? Turning boater against fellow boater....

This sort of nonsense just reinforces the points made earlier about the mindset of some narrow boat owners.

Is that really what you people want?

The trouble with some narrowboaters is that they suffer from an affliction called a "sense of humour". This has not yet affected all widebeam-boat owners.

[X Alan W]

It seems that the growing number of wide beam boats poses a similar set up to the 44Ton artic owner that parks his legal vehicle outside his house in a no through road & the cars between the dead end & his truck cannot get past without difficulty so it causes ill feeling,with the lack of maintenance & growing number of moored boats the problem of passing is greater on occasions 2 narrow beam boat have a struggle, increase the beam of one of the boats by 90% & the problem gets more difficult the post on this & other forums seem also to portraysome owners have shorter tempers & resent being delayed/held up which if meeting a wide boat in certain places is a forgone conclusion modern trends i'm afraid

[Alan de Enfield]

21 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

I don't believe they are either accurate or binding and are published largely as information for boaters.

BW (and now C&RT)  internal documents show that for the Oxford the following is the 'channel dredging dimensions'

Fraenkel Report (1975) 4.26m x 1.39m

BW Dredging Standards (2000)  5.3m x 1.1

MOC Dredging Standards (2006) 5.3m x 1.1m

Hydro team (2010) 5.3m x 1.1m

 

Even if those standards were maintained (which they are not) then you would not pass a NB and a WB 'in the channel'.

[RLWP]

Imagine going back to the days of a commercial carrying canal. Someone turns up with a big boat and launches it. I can't imagine any navigation authority refusing it, I can imagine them saying 'good luck mate, and if you get stuck you are on your own'. If your boat was unsuitable, you'd go out of business

Richard

[Tam & Di]

Not exactly - the ByeLaws state:

As to Vessels to be used on Canals
Fitness of Vessels
3. No person shall bring use or leave in any canal any vessel which
is not in every respect fit for navigation on the canal or part
thereof where it is intended to be used.

They also define a Narrow Canal Boat as any vessel with a beam less than 7' 6"

[cereal tiller]

59 minutes ago, Athy said:

The trouble with some narrowboaters is that they suffer from an affliction called a "sense of humour". This has not yet affected all widebeam-boat owners.

[Neil2]

1 hour ago, Athy said:

The trouble with some narrowboaters is that they suffer from an affliction called a "sense of humour". This has not yet affected all widebeam-boat owners.

Maybe, but most widebeam boats make me laugh.  

[MtB]

On 06/10/2017 at 10:25, Neil2 said:

Maybe, but most widebeam boats make me laugh.  

 

Yes most of them look like photoshopped narrow boats don't they!

[Steilsteven]

2 hours ago, Athy said:

The trouble with some narrowboaters is that they suffer from an affliction called a "sense of humour". This has not yet affected all widebeam-boat owners.

But when it has to be pointed out that something was meant to be humourous it has obviously failed to be.

Many a comedian ''died'' at the Glasgow Empire whilst thinking they were funny.

Keith

[Jonny P]

7 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

BW (and now C&RT)  internal documents show that for the Oxford the following is the 'channel dredging dimensions'

Fraenkel Report (1975) 4.26m x 1.39m

BW Dredging Standards (2000)  5.3m x 1.1

MOC Dredging Standards (2006) 5.3m x 1.1m

Hydro team (2010) 5.3m x 1.1m

 

Even if those standards were maintained (which they are not) then you would not pass a NB and a WB 'in the channel'.

Those are the same numbers I was looking at to arrive at 17' (approx 5.3m).

My point though was that the navigation was constructed wider than those dimensions and therefore could be maintained fit for wider boats than are presently allowed. Exactly how wide and under what restrictions would need to be calculated.

JP

[GRLMK38]

22 hours ago, grahamjnewman said:

I had to go to Onley Marina, known as Dunchurch Pools this afternoon. There are now 10 widebeams moored there. Clearly CRT dont care nor do Daventry District Council as they gave planning permission for the Marina but not for residential use. I understand at least 6 of these boats will not move out of the Marina as they are occupied by liveaboard 'boaters'.

Maybe its time for narrowboat owners to congregate on a regular basis at Braunston Turn and the sanitary station/water point to stop these larger boats reaching Dunchurch Pools Marina!!

Did I see a new fatboat sail away being craned in at Braunston today?

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, GRLMK38 said:

Did I see a new fatboat sail away being craned in at Braunston today?

I don't know - did you ?

[GRLMK38]

[roland elsdon]

Was it windy ?

[RLWP]

16 minutes ago, roland elsdon said:

Was it windy ?

No, it's Friday

Richard

[tree monkey]

Just now, RLWP said:

No, it's Friday

Richard

Crackerjack!

[RLWP]

2 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Crackerjack!