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

27 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

Isn't the Foxton trip boat a wide beam, certainly looked wide when it was approaching me.

It is, but it's below the locks, not on the summit. Different kettle of fish. I believe, not having been as far as the next lock north of Foxton, that from there to Leicester and beyond the locks are wide ones.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Joe the plumber said:

Here is the new marina at North Kilworth this afternoon. You will see what might be the first ever widebeam on the GU Leicester Line Summit. It's been there for a couple of weeks. I assume it will live in the marina permanently and be someone's home, although the rather ambiguous wording on their website implies (incorrectly of course) that you can launch your widebeam there and access the whole canal system.

 

Should be a right laugh if it decides to pop along to Watford or Foxton. Or even Welford....

 

311726386_Widebeam_at_North_Kilworth_Marina_21st_September_20181.JPG.bdf45be08b269d3445c1bf4e523d0dc9.JPG

It won't get to Welford thank god.

Share this post


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

It is, but it's below the locks, not on the summit. Different kettle of fish. I believe, not having been as far as the next lock north of Foxton, that from there to Leicester and beyond the locks are wide ones.

 

I've realised I had the location wrong for the marina, I was thinking it was below Foxton not above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

I've realised I had the location wrong for the marina, I was thinking it was below Foxton not above. 

 

35 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

I've realised I had the location wrong for the marina, I was thinking it was below Foxton not above. 

 

It was (gone now). The trip boat is moored just after the bridge. The two day-boats are kept just beyond the swing bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

I've realised I had the location wrong for the marina, I was thinking it was below Foxton not above. 

Since about 2014 you can't get a widebeam past the collapsed banks just North of Debdale and I reckon there's only 8 feet clearance between the bank and tree branches coming out of the South end of Saddington tunnel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Lily Rose said:

It is, but it's below the locks, not on the summit. Different kettle of fish. I believe, not having been as far as the next lock north of Foxton, that from there to Leicester and beyond the locks are wide ones.

 

No locks on the Mk Harborough arm & all the locks on Canal, River Soar & Trent to Nottingham & beyond are wide as are the ones on Trent & T&M canal to Burton upon Trent, Dallow Lane being the start of the narrow locks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It,s a real shame that there really is little liklihood of the restoration of the Inclined Plane at Foxton, despite all the excellent work by the volunteers and trust members.  If it had been possible then there might have been a prospect of the Watford Locks being rebuilt to a broader guage, which would have given the required link for wider GRP cruiser type boats to travel from the Southern Canals up to the Northern network without the need to tackle the Norfolk coast.  But as a narrowboater who loves the Leicester Summit, and who has seen just how vulnerable the bridges and infrastructure are, I am somewhat saddened at the prospect of it becoming a wide beam resort.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SUIGENERIS said:

………………………….. I am somewhat saddened at the prospect of it becoming a wide beam resort.

the very real concern is have CRT got anything in their armory to stop what will soon become the unchecked practice of "pound cruising" - or do they even care???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard of one wide beam out of Kilworth being given a notice for using a wide beam on a narrow canal, however don't know the source well enough to be sure. I'm also not sure CRT have anything official in the armoury to use anyway against someone who carries on cruising out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is interesting - do we know who and how to contact the right person at CRT responsible for this area - IMHO the generic/website complaints process is totally useless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about in General Bye Laws:

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.

  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

How about in General Bye Laws:

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.

We have had this discussion a number of times previously.

I have always taken the meaning of 'fit' as being 'mechanically sound', if it was size that was being referred to I would suggest that 'capable' would be the 'correct' word.

 

No person shall bring use or leave in any canal any vessel which is not in every respect capable of navigation on the canal or part thereof where it is intended to be used.

 

One for the courts to decide ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follicular bisection, perhaps?

I see what Alan means, but "Fit in every respect" includes in respect of dimensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Athy said:

 

I see what Alan means, but "Fit in every respect" includes in respect of dimensions.

One would hope …………………… when I get a CRT contact it will be interesting to see what they say

Share this post


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

I see what Alan means, but "Fit in every respect" includes in respect of dimensions.

In your opinion it does.

In other's opinions, it may not.

 

When the legislation was drafted it was probably assumed that boat owners / skippers were sensible enough to use the correct boat for the 'waters' and the chance of anyone taking a 'fatty' on a narrow canal would have been less than extremely remote. Shows how standards have slipped.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


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

In your opinion it does.

In other's opinions, it may not.

 

When the legislation was drafted it was probably assumed that boat owners / skippers were sensible enough to use the correct boat for the 'waters' and the chance of anyone taking a 'fatty' on a narrow canal would have been less than extremely remote. Shows how standards have slipped.

No, "every" does not allow exceptions. Ergo, dimensions are included. However, the "part thereof" is open to some interpretation. For example,a widebeam boat is fit to navigate parts of the Oxford Canal, but not the parts which are locks, because the locks are narrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a reply from CRT (George @ Braunston - good bloke!) he is verifying the info first through the patch mobile licensing officer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

In your opinion it does.

In other's opinions, it may not.

 

When the legislation was drafted it was probably assumed that boat owners / skippers were sensible enough to use the correct boat for the 'waters' and the chance of anyone taking a 'fatty' on a narrow canal would have been less than extremely remote. Shows how standards have slipped.

It's all very well talking about legislation and 'they' should do something about whatever the problem (or sometimes perceived problems). The crux of the matter is that the current 'rules' have not kept up conditions and usage thus are not able to deal with the issue.

Monitoring events is quite expensive

Taking action is even more expensive as threads on here have shown.

 

On 'my own patch' - the Thames fatties - and those are even fatter than those on the canals just tip up and do pretty what they want - the cost of enforcement is huge and the EA either don't have the funds - or access to them  (probably a different department with it's own limited budget).

 

In absolute terms the numbers are not huge - so any legislation is highly unlikely - even if there is a prospect it takes ages and ages to get anything tabled and passed. The TWO to around ten years to get through and was heavily diluted in the process.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

We have had this discussion a number of times previously.

I have always taken the meaning of 'fit' as being 'mechanically sound', if it was size that was being referred to I would suggest that 'capable' would be the 'correct' word.

 

No person shall bring use or leave in any canal any vessel which is not in every respect capable of navigation on the canal or part thereof where it is intended to be used.

 

One for the courts to decide ?

But 'capable' is not helpful as the present situation relates to boats that clearly can do what they do. 'fit' is a much more helpful criterion as it lends itself to a broader range of characteristics that could be used to impose requirements. However, such expressions are clearly intended to allow courts to have a back stop role in difficult cases. (cf 'reasonable')

 

Much more interesting would be a case in which a court had to decide whether going up and down a single pound is consistent with making a bona fide journey!

Share this post


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

Much more interesting would be a case in which a court had to decide whether going up and down a single pound is consistent with making a bona fide journey!

 

Mayers Vs C&RT - HHJ Halbert's comments on that situation :-

 

7.22.4
If a person who lived permanently on his or her boat had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal between two points sufficiently far apart to be regarded as different places, it would in my view be purposeful movement by water from one place to another and hence “bona fide navigation”. In the course of argument I used the example of someone who lived on his boat but was also using the vessel commercially to move coal from a mine to an iron foundry only a few miles away and then returning empty for another load.

7.22.5
To take an extreme example, in its heyday, the Mersey Ferry operated continuously to and fro over the same stretch of water which is less than a mile wide. No one would ever have accepted the suggestion that the ferry boats were not bona fide used  for navigation throughout the period of their operations.

 

And :-

 

HHJ Halbert also stated that any requirement by CaRT to use a substantial part of the canal network was not justified by Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 because the requirement to use the boat for bona fide navigation is 'temporal not geographical'.

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


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

 

Mayers Vs C&RT - HHJ Halbert's comments on that situation :-

 

7.22.4
If a person who lived permanently on his or her boat had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal between two points sufficiently far apart to be regarded as different places, it would in my view be purposeful movement by water from one place to another and hence “bona fide navigation”. In the course of argument I used the example of someone who lived on his boat but was also using the vessel commercially to move coal from a mine to an iron foundry only a few miles away and then returning empty for another load.

7.22.5
To take an extreme example, in its heyday, the Mersey Ferry operated continuously to and fro over the same stretch of water which is less than a mile wide. No one would ever have accepted the suggestion that the ferry boats were not bona fide used  for navigation throughout the period of their operations.

 

And :-

 

HHJ Halbert also stated that any requirement by CaRT to use a substantial part of the canal network was not justified by Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 because the requirement to use the boat for bona fide navigation is 'temporal not geographical'.

I was aware of those citations and also that the matter is not limited to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Halsey said:

Just had a reply from CRT (George @ Braunston - good bloke!) he is verifying the info first through the patch mobile licensing officer

George has been in touch again - he is also going to talk to the marina - he acknowledges that this is very different situation to the north oxford issues and appears to be agreeing with the "widest" interpretation of the byelaw in that this waterway doesn't link to a wide canal.

Share this post


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

 

Much more interesting would be a case in which a court had to decide whether going up and down a single pound is consistent with making a bona fide journey!

But if the wide boat has a home mooring on the Leicester Summit, it isn't required to make a bona fide journey. But it could still be a significant impediment to other boats. So CRT need to be proactive when it comes to approving home moorings for such craft.

Edited by David Mack
  • Horror 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember my history correctly the Leicester line ( Old Grand Union) was built to the same dimensions as the GJ as a broad canal but with narrow locks.

 

  • Love 1

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.