The Fat Ones are revolting.

[Robbo]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

 

Oh very droll, now what about the real answer?

There was a list (from CRT) of the canal dimensions and length but I can't find it at the mo.

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, Pluto said:

Yes, you are wrong. As built, there were around 1200 miles of narrow canals, compared to around 1800 of wide waterways. Of course, the latter include river navigations.

I am afraid that doesn't answer my point.  I am seeking information specifically of canals not waterways.  In fact your figure suggests to me i might be right.  It just needs more than 600 - 650 miles of wide navigable waterway which isn't a canal and then I would be right.  Looking at the map I feel there may well be more than the 600 - 650 miles.

[Robbo]

5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

So the majority of the system is open to widebeams, contrary to the continuous but we can only access part of the system yes a part but the majority of the system.

Oh very droll, now what about the real answer?

Unfortunately for widebeams the system is split into North and South.    A Narrowboat can do all, I can only do a third. (if narrow canals are roughly a third of the total, if it's around half the total then I can do even less).

Edited July 4, 2018 by Robbo

[Jerra]

3 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Unfortunately for widebeams the system is split into North and South.    A Narrowboat can do all, I can only do a third. (if narrow canals are roughly a third of the total, if it's around half the total then I can do even less).

A third of the canals or a third of the wide waterways?

[Robbo]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

A third of the canals or a third of the wide waterways?

Was a rough guess, third of all waterways, but it's less looking at Pluto's figures, it's more third of all areas, I can do majority in the North, but I can't do any in the Middle or get to the South.

[Jerra]

4 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Was a rough guess, third of all waterways, but it's less looking at Pluto's figures, it's more third of all areas, I can do majority in the North, but I can't do any in the Middle or get to the South.

From your map it looks as if you would have more choice in the south, but surely your cruising area is a matter of personal choice just as if you had chosen say the Broads.

[Robbo]

2 minutes ago, Jerra said:

From your map it looks as if you would have more choice in the south, but surely your cruising area is a matter of personal choice just as if you had chosen say the Broads.

I would say it's the other way around, North looks to have more cruising options.

[mrsmelly]

2 minutes ago, Jerra said:

From your map it looks as if you would have more choice in the south, but surely your cruising area is a matter of personal choice just as if you had chosen say the Broads.

And there lies the problem. to cruise all the connected waterways it must be narrowbeam anything over seven feet cannot move between north and south and as our country is so tiny anyway those of us that cruise the system must use narrowbeam ☹️. There are other factors such as length but that is not as big a restriction as beam.

[furnessvale]

The only thing I note about this narrow v broad argument is that the narrow system is a unified 70ft x 7ft. (give or take the odd inch)

 

The broad canals and rivers are a hotch potch of different gauges and no one boat can fit all the gauges.

 

If I have to start narrowing my fat boat by 2 or 3 ft, or shortening it by up to 10ft, it is hardly a unified system like the narrow canals.

 

Having said that, I too am sad that Brindley bottled out at Harecastle.  A unified 14ft x 70ft gauge would have been more than useful on a national scale.  I have no doubt it would have been the catalyst for further improvements which would have seen commercial canals still in use today.

 

George

[Robbo]

What came first narrow or wide, why was majority wide at 14ft to take two narrow boats if 70ft was also popularstandard?

[mrsmelly]

1 minute ago, Robbo said:

What came first narrow or wide, why was majority wide at 14ft to take two narrow boats if 70ft was also popularstandard?

Wide came first by hundreds if not thousands of years. Bloody accountants buggered it up.

Edited July 4, 2018 by mrsmelly

[Pluto]

42 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I am afraid that doesn't answer my point.  I am seeking information specifically of canals not waterways.  In fact your figure suggests to me i might be right.  It just needs more than 600 - 650 miles of wide navigable waterway which isn't a canal and then I would be right.  Looking at the map I feel there may well be more than the 600 - 650 miles.

To answer fully then, for the UK as a whole, there were 1257 miles of narrow canal, 1539 miles of river navigation, and 1952 miles of canal over 7 feet wide.

 

Our canals have only become a 'system' as pleasure use increased. As originally built, they served local and regional needs much more than as a through route using several canals, though the narrow midlands canals did supply some coal to London, but not a significant amount overall. It is pretty difficult to identify through traffics from the figures kept by individual canals which have survived.

 

Re Brindley and the decision to build narrow canals;it was much more the principal investors in the canal who were uncertain about the likely return deciding to reduce the cost, and thus their investment. The UK is really too small and too built up to have a modern waterway system as there is not really enough water to supply canals with large locks.

[Phil Ambrose]

5 hours ago, Jerra said:

This is true but we post on "canalworld" which means we are (in general) talking about canals.  I don't see the sense in people harping on about canal boats not being the only sort of boat, of course they aren't but on a canal forum and in context it is surely sensible to accept there place as one of the most (if not the most) suitable boat for canals.

I wouldn't mind betting a very large proportion of members actually boat on rivers.  I have been a member since 2009 and have lived aboard for almost 20 years and guess what I've never been on a canal , lots of rivers but never a canal   

Does this make me unfit to be a member of CWDF

Phil 

Edited July 4, 2018 by Phil Ambrose

[ditchcrawler]

A boater told me this week that you are not allowed to moor a fat boat on parts of the K&A now, I have seen no evidence of that but one place he mentioned was Bradford

 

[Robbo]

7 minutes ago, Pluto said:

To answer fully then, for the UK as a whole, there were 1257 miles of narrow canal, 1539 miles of river navigation, and 1952 miles of canal over 7 feet wide.

 

Our canals have only become a 'system' as pleasure use increased. As originally built, they served local and regional needs much more than as a through route using several canals, though the narrow midlands canals did supply some coal to London, but not a significant amount overall. It is pretty difficult to identify through traffics from the figures kept by individual canals which have survived.

 

Re Brindley and the decision to build narrow canals;it was much more the principal investors in the canal who were uncertain about the likely return deciding to reduce the cost, and thus their investment. The UK is really too small and too built up to have a modern waterway system as there is not really enough water to supply canals with large locks.

Do you have the stats for just CRT waterways?

[mrsmelly]

4 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

A boater told me this week that you are not allowed to moor a fat boat on parts of the K&A now, I have seen no evidence of that but one place he mentioned was Bradford

 

He is partly correct. At the top of BOA lock from the waterpoint past the boatyard and pub opposite is signage stating no moorings for widebeams. Its prob due to it being narrow enough there on the approach to the congested area.

Edited July 4, 2018 by mrsmelly

[Robbo]

11 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

A boater told me this week that you are not allowed to moor a fat boat on parts of the K&A now, I have seen no evidence of that but one place he mentioned was Bradford

 

Understandable. ?

[Pluto]

7 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Do you have the stats for just CRT waterways?

In 2000 BW were making claims as to the size of the waterway network, about which they were being questioned. They asked me to produce figures for which I went through navigation Acts and various returns for the whole country, not just the BW/CRT system. It was certainly a comprehensive investigation into total waterway length, for which I divided waterways into canals with locks 7ft and below, those with locks over 7ft, and river navigations. I broke the network down into 370 specific lengths, which should give some idea of the complexity of the work. It would be easy to go through the figures and quibble, such as are navigable drains a canal or a river. However, the figures are probably representative for the inland waterway network as a whole, even if they are not quite what people expect.

[David Mack]

28 minutes ago, Pluto said:

 The UK is really too small and too built up to have a modern waterway system as there is not really enough water to supply canals with large locks.

For a given level of goods to be moved, then using narrow boats in narrow locks, or half that number of wide boats in wide locks will surely use the same amount of water.

[Ray T]

2 hours ago, Athy said:

....or the Ashby to....well, you get the idea.

Boat people always called The Ashby, The Moira cut, which originally got to .....Moira! 

[Athy]

1 minute ago, Ray T said:

Boat people always called The Ashby, The Moira cut, which originally got to .....Moira! 

Quite correct, yes.

[Paul C]

It doesn't really matter what percentage of the system a widebeam can use anyway, because say if it could reach 50% of the network, it just means it would use the bits it could, twice as much (that assumes a boat uses the network evenly). Putting it another way, a 12 month licence entitles you to use the network for ..... 12 months.

[GUMPY]

27 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Putting it another way, a 12 month licence entitles you to use the network for ..... 12 months.

No it doesn't. It entitles you to be on CaRT waters, nothing about going anywhere.

[Pluto]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

For a given level of goods to be moved, then using narrow boats in narrow locks, or half that number of wide boats in wide locks will surely use the same amount of water.

I did say large locks, meaning modern commercial boat sized. Apart from water supply, which is even more restricted today than when canals were built because of water supply for the population and industry, the other problem is the cost of loading and unloading cargo, which is greater for water transport than for road or rail. To over come this, cargo needs to be carried long distances to make commercial carrying viable today. To have a modern waterway network, cargoes would have to be carried by one boat across the North Sea and into the European waterway network. I cannot see that happening, or money being provide for associated waterway improvements necessary, given the current political outlook. We don't produce much now that needs carrying, andf if you were building new industries, it would be more sensible to build them on the coast where they can be accessed easily by the river/sea type of vessel.

 

To get back to your original statement, it is certainly true that the size of boat does not greatly affect the water usage, but if you look at the more successful canals, by the start of the 20th century they were reaching, or over, their maximum carrying capacity. Given the recent weather, the summit of the L&LC would almost certainly be closed by now, and former canal engineers would expect the ability to carry 2 million tons annually was the limit in this country. Ours is a small island, with limited water resources. Of course, you can back pump, but that is the sign of a poor canal engineer or investors who do not understand the problems of working a canal.

[zenataomm]

Trying to define this more accurately reminds me of when Waterways were talking about wide boat licences years back.

They defined narrow boats as being not wider than 6' 10", which promptly put the wind up Grand Union boat owners.

 

So how have they worded it this time, I've searched on line to no avail?