March of the Widebeams

[Hudds Lad]

3 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

They agreed  it. I would say its quite sensible having a wide an entrance as possible especially on a narrow canal. Have you ever examined marina entrances, lots of people have problems getting through them.

 

 

i see what you're saying, and have struggled in high wind to leave a marina with a narrow entrance in the direction i wanted as i just could not angle the boat to take account of conditions. i've also seen the state of the opposite bank outside Great Haywood Marina (and added to the scars myself after stopping for a pumpout).

 

that said, admittedly in my limited experience of the system, i've not seen a marina on any other narrow canal with a wide entrance.

[ditchcrawler]

5 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

 

 

that said, admittedly in my limited experience of the system, i've not seen a marina on any other narrow canal with a wide entrance.

Maybe one with foresight, did they expect to get widebeam customers up there? I know once you have one others will follow but there are two widebeams where I am on the Coventry canal

 

[frangar]

 

18 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

They agreed  it. I would say its quite sensible having a wide an entrance as possible especially on a narrow canal. Have you ever examined marina entrances, lots of people have problems getting through them.

 

Yes Im not sure CRT thought that anyone would be daft enough to put a widebeam on a narrow waterway....and the "wide" entrance makes for an easy passage for suitable sized boats. From what I can see rather than planned wide berths they just take up 2 narrow beam berths....I really dont have an issue with them in a marina...its just if they venture out...especially given the bridge profiles and positioning on the waterway.

[Jon johan]

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

Maybe one with foresight, did they expect to get widebeam customers up there? I know once you have one others will follow but there are two widebeams where I am on the Coventry canal

 

It was not so much “expect” to get wide beams, it was presented in their initial planning stages to provide berths for them.

I was made aware of that by a friend who had pre booked a berth for his wide beam prior to the marina being completed.

[Hudds Lad]

4 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Maybe one with foresight, did they expect to get widebeam customers up there? I know once you have one others will follow but there are two widebeams where I am on the Coventry canal

 

looking at my Dunchurch literature there's no mention of beam at all, the only use of the word "wide" is in relation to the jetties

 

Quote

Wide full length fixed jetties in two sizes, 18m (59ft) and 22m (72ft)

 

the mooring plan shows only narrow craft.

 

i do like the wide entrance though especially as its a very windy marina, also feels huge after Overwater and some of the bridge holes on the Shroppie and surrounds  

[Ray T]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

In an ideal world yes, but, practically I doubt that very many have even read the Inland waterways requirements (bylaws) and not only do not know the 'passing laws' but have no idea about the required sound signals, or lighting requirements which are also specified in the Bylaws.

 

At the end of the day, it'll only matter when there is an accident.

Travelling at 2-3mph on still water does not take a lot of concentration, and is not overly 'risky', hence the very small number of accidents.

To my mind it does take a little more concentration and an understanding of the hydrodynamic effects on boats when passing and overtaking on a shallow canal.

[ditchcrawler]

38 minutes ago, frangar said:

 

Yes Im not sure CRT thought that anyone would be daft enough to put a widebeam on a narrow waterway....and the "wide" entrance makes for an easy passage for suitable sized boats. From what I can see rather than planned wide berths they just take up 2 narrow beam berths....I really dont have an issue with them in a marina...its just if they venture out...especially given the bridge profiles and positioning on the waterway.

There has been a wide beam going up and down the N Oxford for years, a rather strange shaped craft, I am shure BW and then C&RT must have noticed it 

 

[Ray T]

35 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

There has been a wide beam going up and down the N Oxford for years, a rather strange shaped craft, I am shure BW and then C&RT must have noticed it 

 

This boat was built for its original owner at Warwickshire Fly Boat Co.
 I believe it is styled on a South Sea Island Outrigger, the original intention was to float it along the GU and hence to the coast to have a mast, sails and outrigger fitted.

This never happened and the boat was sold on.

 

 

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Ray T

[sirweste]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

In an ideal world yes, but, practically I doubt that very many have even read the Inland waterways requirements (bylaws) and not only do not know the 'passing laws' but have no idea about the required sound signals, or lighting requirements which are also specified in the Bylaws.

 

At the end of the day, it'll only matter when there is an accident.

Travelling at 2-3mph on still water does not take a lot of concentration, and is not overly 'risky', hence the very small number of accidents.

 

OK grand, ta.

 

So the theory is then, that by the laws we should be moving to the right to pass, then you add on the colregs and realise, should there be some reason boats cannot pass without one giving way, then the deeper draft boat has right of way (due to it's restricted movement), then next in the pecking order is the larger vessel. All common sense really, the smaller you are the easier you can yield. 

This is why if I see a breasted pair (e.g. Juels) coming though I yield to them, deep draft and max dimensions. The same should really be applied to a 14' 70' beastie too.

 

So this is then correct(?): if you're a narrowboat then you should be giving way to a laden working boat / breasted pair / widebeam where there isn't space for both vessels.

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, sirweste said:

So this is then correct(?): if you're a narrowboat then you should be giving way to a laden working boat / breasted pair / widebeam where there isn't space for both vessels.

 

I would concur with your conclusion.

[Graham Davis]

2 hours ago, frangar said:

Struggling in what way?? You seem to have run out of anything worthwhile to add to this conversation....

 

He's another troll, as his past postings confirm.
Stop feeding him.

[ditchcrawler]

50 minutes ago, sirweste said:

 

 

So this is then correct(?): if you're a narrowboat then you should be giving way to a laden working boat / breasted pair / widebeam where there isn't space for both vessels.

I happily give way to any other boat, its often easier, quicker and more pleasant than trying to prove you have right of way.

[Alan de Enfield]

22 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I happily give way to any other boat, its often easier, quicker and more pleasant than trying to prove you have right of way.

 

 

Not much fun hoping that the Coroner says "he was in the right".

[peterboat]

5 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

But you're not ploughing the mud of the Oxford Canal, Peter.

Wouldn't dream of going there Graham, even the GU has no attention for me, the issue is that good boats swim well poor boats don't and size doesn't cause that its design. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by peterboat

[davidg]

2 hours ago, Ray T said:

This boat was built for its original owner at Warwickshire Fly Boat Co.
 I believe it is styled on a South Sea Island Outrigger, the original intention was to float it along the GU and hence to the coast to have a mast, sails and outrigger fitted.

This never happened and the boat was sold on.

 

 

 

Not quite Ray, we would never have built something so.........err, distinctive. The boat first appeared tied up on the offside near Nelson Lane bridge in Warwick. It was subsequently moved to WFBCo and the bulbous bits added to create more internal space so the owner could live on it.

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

I happily give way to any other boat, its often easier, quicker and more pleasant than trying to prove you have right of way.

Almost always on approaching a bridge hole with an oncoming boat, even if closer than a 50-50 situation, I will give way. I take the view (arrogantly?) that I will probably stop sooner than they will and, in any case, why hurry? Just the place to win a brownie point or two! Certainly better than having  head-on collision. Only once did have someone who not only failed to slowdown but came through as fast as possible and ran into us as he could not control his boat.

[matty40s]

I am surprised that CRT has not included the Leicester Line summit in this directive

Similar problems up there now Borth Kilworth marina has opened, at least 5 widebeams in there last year, with an even shallower, more reedy, overgrown and narrower canal to block up.

[roland elsdon]

Patience. They have a new logo to design for the no entry to oversize things sign. They dont know about Foxton and watford being narrow. After all the inclined plane has double size caissons. 

[Ray T]

44 minutes ago, davidg said:

Not quite Ray, we would never have built something so.........err, distinctive. The boat first appeared tied up on the offside near Nelson Lane bridge in Warwick. It was subsequently moved to WFBCo and the bulbous bits added to create more internal space so the owner could live on it.

@davidg Thank you for the update, always willing to learn.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Ray T

[frangar]

33 minutes ago, matty40s said:

I am surprised that CRT has not included the Leicester Line summit in this directive

Similar problems up there now Borth Kilworth marina has opened, at least 5 widebeams in there last year, with an even shallower, more reedy, overgrown and narrower canal to block up.

The Boats at South Kilworth have been told they aren't allowed onto the summit pound....and to be fair they dont seem to escape. I believe the other waterways like the Leics arm to welford & the South oxford to napton are being dealt with although I too cant understand why it isn't being done as one....I believe for some reason CRT got flack from Widebeam owners which might say more about the owners than CRT

[BWM]

2 hours ago, peterboat said:

Wouldn't dream of going there Graham, even the GU has no attention for me, the issue is that good boats swim well poor boats don't and size doesn't cause that its design. 

The most excellent hull design counts for very little when a large build up of silt and a narrow channel is thrown into the mix.

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, roland elsdon said:

Patience. They have a new logo to design for the no entry to oversize things sign. They dont know about Foxton and watford being narrow. After all the inclined plane has double size caissons. 

Where is  Stotty when you want him

[ditchcrawler]

Its not a new thing wide beams in Braunston ?

 

[matty40s]

Latest marvelous 68ft x 12ft design imported from Poland, it has to go through either Braunston or Blisworth tunnel as well as lots of lovely historic bridges to get anywhere, wheel steering, glad it's not going to be me ?

[frangar]

50 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Latest marvelous 68ft x 12ft design imported from Poland, it has to go through either Braunston or Blisworth tunnel as well as lots of lovely historic bridges to get anywhere, wheel steering, glad it's not going to be me ?

Do we know if it’s going to be a moving target or is going to lurk in a marina to leap out on the unwary??