March of the Widebeams

[David Mack]

9 minutes ago, frangar said:

I have been thinking along those lines…trouble is it would have to be a post in the middle to allow two narrowboats to pass….and as my OH pointed out I often go down the middle if nothing is coming.

Doesn't everyone go straight down the middle except when passing an oncoming boat? I always do. A width restriction extending out from each side leaving a central 8ft-ish gap should do the trick, it just means narrowboats travelling in opposite directions would have to pass wholly inside or wholly outside the tunnel. But I guess most do that anyway - an approaching boat will hold back if it sees a boat soon to exit the tunnel.

[ditchcrawler]

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

Doesn't everyone go straight down the middle except when passing an oncoming boat? I always do. A width restriction extending out from each side leaving a central 8ft-ish gap should do the trick, it just means narrowboats travelling in opposite directions would have to pass wholly inside or wholly outside the tunnel. But I guess most do that anyway - an approaching boat will hold back if it sees a boat soon to exit the tunnel.

You would only need it one end

[frangar]

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

Doesn't everyone go straight down the middle except when passing an oncoming boat? I always do. A width restriction extending out from each side leaving a central 8ft-ish gap should do the trick, it just means narrowboats travelling in opposite directions would have to pass wholly inside or wholly outside the tunnel. But I guess most do that anyway - an approaching boat will hold back if it sees a boat soon to exit the tunnel.

That would work…might need a “chamfer” to guide boats much like Harecastle…and some method of operation from the towpath for both sides….would one on the towpath side work?? I know that would leave you running along one edge….of course any unlocking should also be chargeable to cover the costs. 

2 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

You would only need it one end

That would just end up with a widebeam stuck in the tunnel…..

[David Mack]

16 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Do you really think that folk that don't give a toss about the rules are not going to have a battery powered angle-grinder on board ?

A wide boat recorded by CRT' spotters one side of the tunnel, then a few days later the other side, without it having booked a passage, while at the same time the barriers have been damaged? A good case for criminal damage I would have thought. The penalty might be minimal, but an email from CRT to all wide boat licence holders reporting that one of their number now has a criminal conviction might be quite effective.

[MtB]

35 minutes ago, frangar said:

I have been thinking along those lines…trouble is it would have to be a post in the middle to allow two narrowboats to pass….and as my OH pointed out I often go down the middle if nothing is coming. But I can honestly see that being imposed if there is an incident and HSE got involved….or tunnel pilots..or manned entrances…it really doesn’t bear thinking about 

 

Actually the most likely solution to widebeam entitled arseholes ignoring the rules will be traffic lights. Half an hour one way, half an hour red both ways to clear the tunnel, half an hour the other way. 

 

A nice passive solution not requiring any staffing, PLUS it solves the "LED headlight brighter than the sun" problem currently developing.

[GUMPY]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Actually the most likely solution to widebeam entitled arseholes ignoring the rules will be traffic lights. Half an hour one way, half an hour red both ways to clear the tunnel, half an hour the other way. 

 

A nice passive solution not requiring any staffing, PLUS it solves the "LED headlight brighter than the sun" problem currently developing.

Would have to be odd and even hours at Blisworth as there are people who take longer than half hour to traverse the tunnel.

 

 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Loddon said:

Would have to be odd and even hours at Blisworth as there are people who take longer than half hour to traverse the tunnel.

 

 

 

Or even better, odd and even dates!! 

 

Which could led to trouble with night time transits. Mind you, who in their right mind would go through in the dark...?

[matty40s]

27 minutes ago, frangar said:

 

That would just end up with a widebeam stuck in the tunnel…..

..and the problem is..

[David Mack]

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

Actually the most likely solution to widebeam entitled arseholes ignoring the rules will be traffic lights. Half an hour one way, half an hour red both ways to clear the tunnel, half an hour the other way. 

Didn't a couple of boats get jammed in Barnton or Saltersford not so long ago when one of them entered during the 'red' period?

Just now, matty40s said:

..and the problem is..

The narrow boats it holds up, while trying to reverse the full length of the tunnel.

[Alan de Enfield]

35 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I doubt it on newish wide beams, 

 

I suggest it is the mentality of the owner, a law-breaker is a law-breaker, irrespective of owning a fat-boat or an anorexic-boat.

[frangar]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Didn't a couple of boats get jammed in Barnton or Saltersford not so long ago when one of them entered during the 'red' period?

The narrow boats it holds up, while trying to reverse the full length of the tunnel.

Yes and exactly!!
 

If widebeams won’t book I’m not sure they would take notice of traffic lights!! 

[matty40s]

50 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Do you really think that folk that don't give a toss about the rules are not going to have a battery powered angle-grinder on board ?

You honestly think that someone can lean down from one of these humongous widebeams and angle grind something at water level.....spiderman maybe...

[frangar]

1 minute ago, matty40s said:

You honestly think that someone can lean down from one of these humongous widebeams and angle grind something at water level.....spiderman maybe...

They would probably just get wedged…and expect CRT to sort it for them…..

[David Mack]

3 minutes ago, matty40s said:

You honestly think that someone can lean down from one of these humongous widebeams and angle grind something at water level.....spiderman maybe...

[ditchcrawler]

9 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Would have to be odd and even hours at Blisworth as there are people who take longer than half hour to traverse the tunnel.

 

 

I think CRT may be suggesting that you transit tunnels at 2MPH but their maths is as good as some of their spelling

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, frangar said:

They would probably just get wedged…and expect CRT to sort it for them…..

 

And the most annoying thing is, CRT will bend over backwards to sort it out for them. Look at those WBs that get stuck in that bridge near warwickshire fly boats....

 

They should be left to reverse back to where they were craned in, IMO.

[frangar]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

And the most annoying thing is, CRT will bend over backwards to sort it out for them. Look at those WBs that get stuck in that bridge near warwickshire fly boats....

 

They should be left to reverse back to where they were craned in, IMO.

Very true!! 

[dmr]

24 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think CRT may be suggesting that you transit tunnels at 2MPH but their maths is as good as some of their spelling

 

Interesting mix of imperial and metric units,   boats are 57 or 70 foot long and 7 foot wide but this history can easily be metricated, but boat speeds must be imperial, I guess because the 4mph limit is such a part of canal convention??. They could just reduce it to 4kph because the canals are all a bit shallow these days. 😀

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Do you really think that folk that don't give a toss about the rules are not going to have a battery powered angle-grinder on board ?

So the first time they are ground off make them permanent reinforced concrete.

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

Doesn't everyone go straight down the middle except when passing an oncoming boat? I always do. A width restriction extending out from each side leaving a central 8ft-ish gap should do the trick, it just means narrowboats travelling in opposite directions would have to pass wholly inside or wholly outside the tunnel. But I guess most do that anyway - an approaching boat will hold back if it sees a boat soon to exit the tunnel.

Surely it is only the exit/entrance which needs restricted.  If narrowboats entered through a restricted entrance they could then move to the sides as and when needed.

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, Jerra said:

So the first time they are ground off make them permanent reinforced concrete.

 

Whatever is used to make the 'restriction' needs to be readily removable since C&RT have sad that fattys can use the tunnel / canal if they register and obtain permission to move.

making a permanent reinforced (immovable) restriction means that C&RT cannot remove it for access.

 

Until C&RT actually give maximum dimensions for each canal, (which I do not think they can if the dimensions are at odds with those specified in Section 104 of the Transport Act 1968, which C&RT are legally obliged to adhere to) there will continue to be problems.

C&RTs new 2021 T&Cs which now state 

 

9. Suitability of the Boat for the Waterway

9.1. The Boat should be fit for navigation on the Waterway where it is intended to be Used.

9.2. You should take reasonable steps to ensure that Your Boat’s Dimensions are suitable for the Waterway you will Use.

9.3. You must make sure that Your Boat will pass through, under or over any structures You will Use.

9.4. You must not cause, or be likely to cause, damage to the Waterway, structures, or any boat because of Your Boat’s Dimensions.

9.5. Your Boat's Dimensions will not, or be likely to, obstruct the Waterway or hinder navigation.

9.6. Conditions 9.2-9.5 apply to the total dimension of two or more boats that are breasted-up, towing or otherwise connected

 

can only be enforced if the boats dimensions are in excess of those detailed in the Transport Act 1968

 

So, for example the max beam on the Oxford is 2.13m

 

 

 

[Jerra]

12 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Whatever is used to make the 'restriction' needs to be readily removable since C&RT have sad that fattys can use the tunnel / canal if they register and obtain permission to move.

making a permanent reinforced (immovable) restriction means that C&RT cannot remove it for access.

 

CRT can easily say they can't have use of it.  They make up their own rules as they go along normally so why not on this.

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

CRT can easily say they can't have use of it.  They make up their own rules as they go along normally so why not on this.

Would be in breach of the '68 Act.

[Alan de Enfield]

25 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Would be in breach of the '68 Act.

 

 

It would just be another to add to the list - their T&Cs breach legislation in several areas, notably

 

1) The right to board your boat without notice.

2) C&RT charging you for moving your boat if you have casued an obstruction (BW fought and lost at least one case in which they alleged such a right to charge for doing so).

3) Providing anyone they decide should have it with your personal details.

 

To quote Nigel Moore (RIP)

 

It should be clarified that much of the T&C's are a repeat of, or reference to, byelaw provisions, and enforceable in law by the method prescribed (not by unlawfully making them a contractual condition for issue of the licence). Those cannot be said to be foisted upon us via the T&C's, justly or unjustly.

 

Others are sensible guidelines without the force of law, which boaters would do well to adhere to. But yes, certain other morally and legally objectionable ones do purport to dispense with statutory protections – and consent to share one's personal information where that would conflict with the current law would be amongst them

Edited December 31, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[Tacet]

18 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

It would just be another to add to the list - their T&Cs breach legislation in several areas, notably

 

1) The right to board your boat without notice.

2) C&RT charging you for moving your boat if you have casued an obstruction (BW fought and lost at least one case in which they alleged such a right to charge for doing so).

3) Providing anyone they decide should have it with your personal details.

 

 

Does either of the first two breach legislation?  If so, which enactments?  

 

If CRT pushes it luck in refusing to grant a licence unless you accept its T&Cs - it might well be out of order.  But if I give CRT the right to board my boat without notice, I can't see legislation is breached any more than if I gave you the same right.