March of the Widebeams

[Tam & Di]

16 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

And there is another problem, wide beams were encouraged when the locks were widened, it may not have been successful but they did say it was suitable for them. 

[MtB]

43 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

 

 

I LURVE their phone number!!

[Athy]

"Telephone: Tring 10". How simple things were in those days (1930s?) MtB: our posts crossed.

The name is indistinct but looks like "Cradley"; is it?

Edited November 4, 2021 by Athy

[GUMPY]

11 minutes ago, Athy said:

"Telephone: Tring 10". How simple things were in those days (1930s?) MtB: our posts crossed.

The name is indistinct but looks like "Cradley"; is it?

Think it says Grand Union Canal Company on the cabin 😄

[BEngo]

Just love those Nav light mountings.  Bet they were interesting in Blisworth and Braunston tunnels, not to mention the Blue Lias bridge'ole.

N

[David Mack]

27 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Think it says Grand Union Canal Company on the cabin 😄

And the boat's name, Progress, is across the stern coaming.

13 minutes ago, BEngo said:

Just love those Nav light mountings.  Bet they were interesting in Blisworth and Braunston tunnels, not to mention the Blue Lias bridge'ole.

N

Presumably demountable.

[GUMPY]

19 minutes ago, David Mack said:

And the boat's name, Progress, is across the stern coaming.

I assumed it was Progress but couldn't see that on my phone.

[Tam & Di]

Also had wheel steering when built - I don't think that lasted too long. In 1956 she looked like this, but was sunk and rather derelict when we bought her in 1961. I converted her for living and sold her 10 years later when we started a-WaterWaving with Towcester. We did cruise Uxbridge to Braunston several times and to Camp Hill once. Commercial carrying had virtually finished, but we did meet the occasional pair - luckily BWB did still carry out a bit of dredging back then and we had no great difficulty.

 

Ta

[Ray T]

1 hour ago, Athy said:

"Telephone: Tring 10". How simple things were in those days (1930s?) MtB: our posts crossed.

The name is indistinct but looks like "Cradley"; is it?

The boat is PROGRESS. Photo from Waterways World April 1991.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2021 by Ray T

[Tam & Di]

26 minutes ago, Ray T said:

 

 

I've not been in touch with Chris for quite a while, but I believe he unfortunately had to abandon restoration work on Progress - I'll try to find out when we're next back in UK. The thread is about "widebeams", but notably Progress at 12'6" beam is also an oddity at 75' long. Modern boats at that size with no corresponding hydrodynamic hull shape really would be a severe unsteerable liability.

 

Tam

[Captain Pegg]

19 hours ago, roland elsdon said:

Guilty as charged. But there was historical precedent! 
We just used to remove the fenders and turn the rudder on certain bcn locks, and go downhill backwards on the Avon, which Im sure David would have approved of given some of his antics.

 

71' 6" long ex-working boats (just) fit all nominally 70' x 7' BCN locks because the 7' wide portion of these boats is not 70' long.

 

Reading individual parts of the maximum craft dimensions in isolation is trying to solve a 3D problem in 2D or even 1D. It's too simplistic to be representative of the reality.

 

I don't think there is any doubt that a 71' 6" x 7'' 0" boat that is rectangular in plan would not fit these locks because it couldn't be backed right up against the centre of the cill and even if it could the single leaf bottom gates would not clear the far corner of the boat. What the maximum craft dimensions say is that a rectangular boat of 70' x 7' would fit these locks because (presumably) it would fit within the lock clear of the extremities to which the cill intrudes upon the width between the chamber walls and clear of the full sweep of the gates.

 

If the dimensions aren't read in combination they are mathematically meaningless. Also, if read in that way it then follows that they don't say any boat exceeding 70' won't fit but rather that they cannot say it will fit. The only definitive test of whether a boat is suitable dimensionally is whether or not it does fit under it's normal means of propulsion and without damage to the infrastructure. In scenarios where an owner chooses to take a boat on a navigation for which it exceeds the maximum craft dimensions in one or more, but not all, dimensions, I don't think an immediate breach of licence Ts & Cs is committed but the risk clearly shifts from CRT to the boater.  

 

It is likely to be for similar reasons why what I suspect are nominally 12' 6" wide boats do not fit through this nominally 12' 6" wide bridge (and that's before you even consider things such as measurement accuracy and build tolerance).

 

Designing a craft to the absolute maximum craft dimensions is not a wise move even if you have faith in CRT to be able to maintain the infrastructure to those dimensions.

 

Personally I have doubts that CRT fully understand how the published dimensions are constructed and how they have been measured, particularly in respect of width and air draft in combination.

 

[Ray T]

PROGRESS was tried with wide butty EAGLE.

 

One issue that arose was that EAGLE had to be bow hauled through the locks.

[Steilsteven]

1 hour ago, Ray T said:

PROGRESS was tried with wide butty EAGLE.

 

One issue that arose was that EAGLE had to be bow hauled through the locks.

How would that be an issue ''that arose'' when narrow boat pairs had been doing the same on narrow canals for decades?

The whole idea of towing a butty was defeating the object of a wideboat anyway.

 

Keith

[Tam & Di]

27 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

How would that be an issue ''that arose'' when narrow boat pairs had been doing the same on narrow canals for decades?

The whole idea of towing a butty was defeating the object of a wideboat anyway.

I've seen the photo before but don't know what was going on there - possibly Eagle was being moved for some specific reason. The one I put on was dated 1956. Some time after that someone 'in the office' decided to have part of the sidedeck cut away as shown here to accommodate a crane. That so insensed George "The Crane" Beauchamp (sp?) that the top fell off the mudbox while in his care at Cowley Peachey tip and Progress sank, subsequently magically refloating when we bought her in 1961.

 

The 'widebeam' issue is probably not dissimilar to the 'towpath moorer' one - when it was just the rare occasional event there was no serious problem, but once it moves towards being the norm then there is. Once you combine the two issues and have widebeams with permanent towpath moorings ......... well!  🤷‍♂️

 

Tam

[DerekB]

6 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

I LURVE their phone number!!

We lived in a place when i was a kid that was out in the sticks and we had a 3 digit phone number 🙂

Edited November 4, 2021 by DerekB

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, DerekB said:

We lived in a place when i was a kid that was out in the sticks and we had a 3 digit phone number 🙂

 

Even as recent as 40 years ago the Gliding club phone number was "Buckminster 385"

Back in the 50's we were "Gotham 262" and as there were not enough lines we had a 'party line' with the neighbours so we had to rattle the cradle to tell them were using the phone.

[DerekB]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Even as recent as 40 years ago the Gliding club phone number was "Buckminster 385"

Back in the 50's we were "Gotham 262" and as there were not enough lines we had a 'party line' with the neighbours so we had to rattle the cradle to tell them were using the phone.

Our's was that till at least 1987 when we moved away. Dallas 325 was the number 🙂 

[chris9digits]

Hi Tam & Di , my apologies I just tried to send you a PM but I have had to open a new account and am not allowed to send messages.  The "Progress" project is alive and kicking, both Stephen and I are fully committed to seeing "Progress" as close to the original press photographs as possible. We have however been through a lumpy period of obstacles and ill health that have slowed the project considerably, as you know I choose to work alone so if I have a bad day / get sidetracked or even take a break "slow progress" becomes "no progress".

At present I am about 2/3rds of the way through the shearing, I have reinstated the frames to cater for the original size of side decking and the project is moving along at a steady if unspectacular rate. I have chosen not to update on this particular forum because of the anti wide-boat lobby, however I would like to thank all those who have been so supportive and really look forward to seeing you if you get time when you are over.

Happy boating, Chris.

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, chris9digits said:

I have chosen not to update on this particular forum because of the anti wide-boat lobby,

 

That's sad, and unfortunately a misunderstanding on your part.

I'm sure that there is no one on the forum who is 'anti-fat-boat', what everyone is against is 'fat boats' using narrow canals, damaging structures, getting stuck etc etc.

Many modern 'widebeams' are pig ugly obese narrowboats and are generally very un-aquadynamic and shows by the erratic steering exhibited.

Proper wide BOATS (not skips) are a beauty to behold.

 

Right boat in the right place and everyone is happy.

 

(I own a 14 foot beam boat, recently left the Rivers and canals and gone 'back to sea')

Edited November 4, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[tree monkey]

33 minutes ago, chris9digits said:

Hi Tam & Di , my apologies I just tried to send you a PM but I have had to open a new account and am not allowed to send messages.  The "Progress" project is alive and kicking, both Stephen and I are fully committed to seeing "Progress" as close to the original press photographs as possible. We have however been through a lumpy period of obstacles and ill health that have slowed the project considerably, as you know I choose to work alone so if I have a bad day / get sidetracked or even take a break "slow progress" becomes "no progress".

At present I am about 2/3rds of the way through the shearing, I have reinstated the frames to cater for the original size of side decking and the project is moving along at a steady if unspectacular rate. I have chosen not to update on this particular forum because of the anti wide-boat lobby, however I would like to thank all those who have been so supportive and really look forward to seeing you if you get time when you are over.

Happy boating, Chris.

I for one would love to see some build photos and follow the progress of the build, I suspect the anti wide boat thing is more wrong boat wrong place issue.

[Ray T]

@chris9digits Chris, lovely to see you posting again with an update. As others have said it is wrong boat, wrong waterway, not the fine work  on PROGRESS you are doing.

I for one have missed your updates on PROGRESS

[Rose Narrowboats]

I'm another that would love to see updates again.

[Tam & Di]

That's really good to know Chris.

 

Tam

[George and Dragon]

Received this afternoon:

Notice Alert

Grand Union Canal
Location: Braunston Tunnel
Starts At: Braunston Tunnel
Ends At: Braunston Tunnel

Thursday 4 November 2021 until further notice

Type: Booking Information 

---

 

Original message:

 

Please remember that wide beam boats wishing to travel through the tunnel must book passage.

Please ensure you use our online booking system.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/planning-your-boat-trip/booking-your-passage-online

Passage needs to be booked 48 hours in advance, and can be booked Monday - Friday (Exc bank holiday and weekends).  Wide beams need to be ready at the entrance of the tunnel for 7:45am. 

 

Did someone transit the tunnel without booking? What happens when you enter the tunnel and meet a widebeam midway through? Who reverses out?

[Bee]

Would love to see some pics and an update on 'Progress' Incidentally our boat is 11` 4" so not anti wide boat as such but I am grumpy enough to consider some wide boats an abomination and their builders to be knaves who deserve to be put in stocks and have rotten cabbages flung at them for wasting tons of perfectly good steel to produce a slightly pointed box.