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

15 minutes ago, matty40s said:

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. 

Or a clueless newbie who doesn't know how the throttle works. It can be done but you need experience, less throttle  more motion.

Glad he wont be passing me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Or a clueless newbie who doesn't know how the throttle works. It can be done but you need experience, less throttle  more motion.

Glad he wont be passing me.

But he will probably get the whole Grand Union dredged if he has his navigation impeded so stick with my version....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, matty40s said:

But he will probably get the whole Grand Union dredged if he has his navigation impeded so stick with my version....

Well that cant be a bad thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/07/2019 at 16:47, F DRAYKE said:

... asked him how wide the boat was, his reply 12'6" at waterline 14' at gunwales. 

So if the water level is a bit down, it could still get stuck in a 12'8" bridge hole?

Share this post


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

So if the water level is a bit down, it could still get stuck in a 12'8" bridge hole?

So basically it can’t fit through a 12’ 6” width gap then can it!! So unsuitable for the upper GU!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, frangar said:

So basically it can’t fit through a 12’ 6” width gap then can it!! So unsuitable for the upper GU!! 

I love widebeams, they are fab boats, much comfier than my present sewer tube. However history aside I would personaly rate this boat as totaly unsuitable for the entire GU!! Never mind the North Oxford!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please help my confusion. Is the widebeam reported to be now at Braunston, the same as they widened the bridge for at Warwickshire Fly? and did it have no trouble getting through Blue Lias bridge?  I missed that bit in the story - and if it is the same, it obviously had little trouble getting to Braunston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, canalboat said:

Please help my confusion. Is the widebeam reported to be now at Braunston, the same as they widened the bridge for at Warwickshire Fly? and did it have no trouble getting through Blue Lias bridge?  I missed that bit in the story - and if it is the same, it obviously had little trouble getting to Braunston.

Kind of, only it isn't at Braunston any more. It has passed Stowe Hill

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spotted a widebeam moored at Braunston yesterday evening but it looked well lived in, not brand new. Not the same boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the blurb This electric beauty 'has a draft of just 3.9 ft (1.2 m), meaning it can access just about any waterway in the world'

I had a row with a woman on the K&A who didn't understand the tradition of giving way to the boat travelling downstream and stuck her widebeam sideways under a bridge. She shouted at me that the boatyard told her they could navigate the entire system . I actually felt sorry I had been quite harsh , it was their first boat & no experience at all of the waterways. They didn't even know how swingbridges worked !

Share this post


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

Please help my confusion. Is the widebeam reported to be now at Braunston, the same as they widened the bridge for at Warwickshire Fly? and did it have no trouble getting through Blue Lias bridge?  I missed that bit in the story - and if it is the same, it obviously had little trouble getting to Braunston.

There are at least 3 boat owners I know of who are putting complaints in after being hit by this vessel over the weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, matty40s said:

There are at least 3 boat owners I know of who are putting complaints in after being hit by this vessel over the weekend.

I take it the same 3 boat owners would have complained if they had been hot by narrowboats as well?

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/07/2019 at 13:46, WotEver said:

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

Except it's not as easy as you might think.  Someone I know is sort of a bit famous, enough to have a wikipedia page.  The page has a number of minor mistakes and one huge whopper of a lie (nothing illegal or libellous, just utterly ridiculous).  When they tried to get it changed, wikipedia asked for comprehensive proof of who they were before allowing it.  Eventually they relented and the mistakes were rectified.  A week later, the original errors were added back in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's been my experience of Wikpedia as well.

I amended the description of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Canal from "a contour canal", which it certainly isn't. A month later, it was back in, although apparently it's now a contour canal by virtue of extensive cuttings, embankments and major aqueducts!

Share this post


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

I take it the same 3 boat owners would have complained if they had been hot by narrowboats as well?

Rachel you are so right. I am sorry to say that many of our forum friends here seem to think narrowboats are the b all and end all of boats when the reality is that narrowboats are far from the norm and a bloody ridiculous beam that we have been left with due to historical events. No one in their right mind would choose one over anything of a greater beam by choice. Facts are though that to do extensive inland cruising there is no option other that stupid beamed boats ? thats why we again have one. If we move back to the commercial waterways we will again have a comfy,  stable wonderful wider beam but for now.......................But of course tiny canals like the OXford, GU, K and A etc are hopeless for wider boats.

Edited by mrsmelly

Share this post


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

I take it the same 3 boat owners would have complained if they had been hot by narrowboats as well?

You would have to ask them, however, tiller steered narrowboats on the GU tend to go in a straight line, not bounce from bank with bow thrusting joy.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, matty40s said:

You would have to ask them, however, tiller steered narrowboats on the GU tend to go in a straight line, not bounce from bank with bow thrusting joy.

Yes, its a totaly unsuitable boat for the location. Cart are as much to blame for allowing it. What if it meets similar coming tuther way??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, matty40s said:

You would have to ask them, however, tiller steered narrowboats on the GU tend to go in a straight line, not bounce from bank with bow thrusting joy.

Is it the boats ability to go straight, or, the steerers ability to go straight ?

 

Put an experienced NB  'helm' on a WB and I bet it would go pretty straight.

Share this post


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

I take it the same 3 boat owners would have complained if they had been hot by narrowboats as well?

 

Its a moot point as a narrow boat weighs typically 15 to 20 tonnes whereas this behemoth is probably closer to 70 tonnes. So while a bump from this horror of a boat is likely to cause significant damage, a bump from a narrow boat one third of the weight will probably leave barely a mark. 

 

 

In addition, a narrowboat-to-narrowboat bump is usually hull-to-hull, whereas this monster bumping a narrowboat will be monster gunwale against narrowboat cabin side. 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Its a moot point as a narrow boat weighs typically 15 to 20 tonnes whereas this behemoth is probably closer to 70 tonnes. So while a bump from this horror of a boat is likely to cause significant damage, a bump from a narrow boat one third of the weight will probably leave barely a mark. 

 

 

In addition, a narrowboat-to-narrowboat bump is usually hull-to-hull, whereas this monster bumping a narrowboat will be monster gunwale against narrowboat cabin side. 

 

 

 

Surely it's unlikely to weigh any more than two narrowboats? Just because it looks big, doesn't mean it displaces more water. Most of the interia of a widebeam is open air!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mykaskin said:

Surely it's unlikely to weigh any more than two narrowboats? Just because it looks big, doesn't mean it displaces more water. Most of the interia of a widebeam is open air!

 

Good point.  A 14ft widebeam also has two less hull sides and cabin sides than a pair of narrowboats, and usually only one engine.

Share this post


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

Except it's not as easy as you might think.  Someone I know is sort of a bit famous, enough to have a wikipedia page.  The page has a number of minor mistakes and one huge whopper of a lie (nothing illegal or libellous, just utterly ridiculous).  When they tried to get it changed, wikipedia asked for comprehensive proof of who they were before allowing it.  Eventually they relented and the mistakes were rectified.  A week later, the original errors were added back in.

How peculiar. I have edited two Wiki pages on the last few days - indeed, one of them just ten minutes ago - and encountered no such problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Athy said:

How peculiar. I have edited two Wiki pages on the last few days - indeed, one of them just ten minutes ago - and encountered no such problems.

Horses for courses.  Doesn't mean it won't have been edited back if you check again in a week though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Horses for courses.  Doesn't mean it won't have been edited back if you check again in a week though.

 

You are quite correct; as I often forget which ones I have corrected or expanded, I rarely do check!

Share this post


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

That's been my experience of Wikpedia as well.

I amended the description of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Canal from "a contour canal", which it certainly isn't. A month later, it was back in, although apparently it's now a contour canal by virtue of extensive cuttings, embankments and major aqueducts!

Yep, if you edit a page you need to regularly check it because the eejit who originally wrote the ‘wrong’ stuff may well return and put it back. 

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.