Jump to content

The Fat Ones are revolting.


zenataomm

Featured Posts

25 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

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?

It’s now 7’ 1”

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/35602-licensing-futures-decision-summary-response.pdf

Edited by Robbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Robbo said:

I hope they don't interpret that to say that if you can currently get through Lock 9 at napton you pay the narrow boat rate, but if you can't you pay the wide-beam surcharge!

That would seem a bit unfair for boats like mine that always could get through, but now can't because their locks are collapsing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my day it was Rodbaston and lock 60 (?) non towpath side, Cheshire locks.

 

Both my Small Woolwich boats were over 7' 1" according to the original gauging sheets. 

Although I can't imagine field teams from licensing roaming the towpaths wielding tape measures, it does concern me as it's the thin end of the lock.

 

Is HNBC fighting this?  I've checked their website and can't see anything. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pluto said:

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.

That was the idea of the BACAT* and LASH^ systems, wasn't it? IIRC, destroyed by the power of the dockers' union at the time.

 

*BACAT Barge Aboard CATamaran

^LASH Lighter Aboard SHip

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ray T said:

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

And on maps it’s the “Ashby De La Zouch”. Well, it is on Google Maps, Waze and my car satnav.  

 

It’s open at Moria now too... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some BW Stats :

 

British Waterways
Statutory Navigation Authority - Public Corporation
Two-thirds canals, one-third rivers

England – 2,929 km, Scotland – 491 km, Wales – 120 km
Narrow Canals 764 locks (2.13m beam)
Broad Canals 749 locks (4.34m beam)
Rivers 143 locks (4.56m beam)
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zenataomm said:

Is HNBC fighting this?  I've checked their website and can't see anything. 

 

Good question, to which I don't actually know the answer.

 

They ought to be involved, because taken verbatim, anybody who owns an ex working boat that can be measured at any point as more than 7' 1" could have the surcharge levied on their licence.

 

I think the bye-laws define narrow boat as less than 7' 3" beam, which frankly would have been a better dimension for them to use, (if only because it is already defined therein).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

Could we get an EU grant to widen the system to take containers with an outboard strapped on the back driven by an Arduino?  

This has already been done, i've seen more than one that would fit that description in London. 

3 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

 

Good question, to which I don't actually know the answer.

 

They ought to be involved, because taken verbatim, anybody who owns an ex working boat that can be measured at any point as more than 7' 1" could have the surcharge levied on their licence.

 

I think the bye-laws define narrow boat as less than 7' 3" beam, which frankly would have been a better dimension for them to use, (if only because it is already defined therein).

The 7' 3" standard fits with my understanding of maximum narrow boat dimensions, it would seem odd to change that now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem to me an unfortunate duplication of a standard if we have two different widths described as the real thing.

I can only surmise that the trainee graduate who was tasked to come up with a maximum figure to define the beam of a narrow boat knew naff all about history.

 

I suppose when you're making it up as you go along there's not a lot of use in knowing about how they built Steam powered Small Josherwich  butties back in the Boer War when Churchill was on the throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

I hope they don't interpret that to say that if you can currently get through Lock 9 at napton you pay the narrow boat rate, but if you can't you pay the wide-beam surcharge!

That would seem a bit unfair for boats like mine that always could get through, but now can't because their locks are collapsing!

Last time we went through Napton locks (last year) they were doing some work on that one, so one hopes that it will now be more widely navigable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/07/2018 at 22:50, zenataomm said:

 

From what I can see if you can afford to foul up a canal with an overwide boat then you can afford to pay for the relevant licence for it. If you restrict it to Rivers you can have the cheaper river only bit of paper for your window.

So far I haven't heard a realistic point of argument from their camp.

 

So what actually is their problem? 

 

I think it's you and your ilk who have the problem and I don't accept your basic premise that wide boats foul up the broadbeam canals any more than narrow boats foul up narrow sections of canals.

 

I've seen plenty of instances of narrowboats not being able to get through and navigate because of other narrowboats "fouling up the canal" as you put it, and I'd bet that happens much more often than due to broad beam boats causing the obstruction. 

 

So it's you who has the problem. 

 

Personally I do stick to rivers and only use the connecting ditches when I have to, but I can tell you that on the whole it's no cheaper for a licence. So I don't particularity care if CRT puts an extra levy on broadbeam craft because I already pay length x beam. What I care about are the nasty divisive attitudes of some  narrow boaters who smile and wave as they go past but would stab you in the back given half a chance just because you have a different boat. 

Edited by blackrose
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Athy said:

Last time we went through Napton locks (last year) they were doing some work on that one, so one hopes that it will now be more widely navigable.

 

It isn't at the moment - it is very much too narrow.

 

We got very stuck a few months back.

 

Story here.

 

I'm told it may get some rebuilding don this winter, but I have heard of so many planed remedial works over the yeras that didn't actually happen, that I will omly believe it as and when its completed, (and I've been through!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours 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.

Would be loads of water if they built it to Scotland!! ? Shame they never built the contour canal dont think narrowboats would have been welcome on it though or even existed because of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, blackrose said:

 

I think it's you and your ilk who have the problem and I don't accept your basic premise that wide boats foul up the broadbeam canals any more than narrow boats foul up narrow sections of canals.

 

I've seen plenty of instances of narrowboats not being able to get through and navigate because of other narrowboats "fouling up the canal" as you put it, and I'd bet that happens much more often than due to broad beam boats causing the obstruction. 

 

So it's you who has the problem. 

 

Personally I do stick to rivers and only use the connecting ditches when I have to, but I can tell you that on the whole it's no cheaper for a licence. So I don't particularity care if CRT puts an extra levy on broadbeam craft because I already pay length x beam. What I care about are the nasty divisive attitudes of some  narrow boaters who smile and wave as they go past but would stab you in the back given half a chance just because you have a different boat. 

Well I've had a word with my ilk, and we have decided you have shot from the hip and may have possibly hit your own foot.

 

If you read what I said and not what you think I said you may realise two things: -

 

1. I don't have a problem with wide beam boats (except maybe on narrow beam canals, like The N Oxford) I used to own one on the Trent (as explained in the same post you quoted)

2. The problem I was referring to was why their owners don't want to pay as per their footprint.

 

As for your opening comment, I never said that, you're the only one so far that has.

 

You don't make it very easy to support your side when all you have appeared to do is read the title of the thread and then shot off a reply based on what you expect is a snipe at wide beam boats.

Just in case you are still seeing red and not the wood for the trees.  I was asking why are so many Wide Beam Boaters revolting about paying extra because they have a wide beam boat?

 

Yes you are right I have been much more inconvenienced by the person on the back of a narrow, narrow boat who has no idea what he/she is doing than I have by the person on the back of a wide, narrow boat. 

However that's the person, not the boat. 

Having said that I don't relish meeting a wide'y in the narrows and do wonder how many have considered the inevitability of two of them meeting in the narrows.  Hence my observations of the 1930s, where obviously nobody had.

Irony at its best, the GUCCC creation was called "Progress" it should have been renamed "Lack of"

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

 

It isn't at the moment - it is very much too narrow.

 

We got very stuck a few months back.

 

Story here.

 

I'm told it may get some rebuilding don this winter, but I have heard of so many planned remedial works over the yeras that didn't actually happen, that I will omly believe it as and when its completed, (and I've been through!).

Come to think of it, I do remember your saying a while ago that you had never taken Flamingo down the Oxford - now I know why!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Athy said:

Come to think of it, I do remember your saying a while ago that you had never taken Flamingo down the Oxford - now I know why!

Well its been down the Oxford - just not very far!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, alan_fincher said:

Well its been down the Oxford - just not very far!

 

Sorry Alan, I should have said "South Oxford" (which, come to think of it, begins at Braunston, so your comment is still valid).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Meanderingviking said:

My revolting fat boat clogging up the Grand Union, not! You're all jealous of the space and comfort ?

20180705_113620.jpg


Ah, but it is not moored on a narrow bit, on a bend, and with masses of heavily overhanging tress opposite.

You really must try harder!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, blackrose said:

I think it's you and your ilk who have the problem and I don't accept your basic premise that wide boats foul up the broadbeam canals any more than narrow boats foul up narrow sections of canals.

 

The one thing I would say Mike, is that you can't base any view you might have of wide beams on (say) the Grand Union on what it was like when you were doing it really quite a few years ago now.

Back then I was fairly relaxed on the topic - there wen't many, and those there were didn't tend to move much.

Now the number of wide beams is mushrooming at an alarming rate - my guess is it would be no exaggeration to suggest there are now at least 5 times the number there when you were last regularly there, (quite possibly more than that).

 

What was not a particularly significant issue has now ballooned into what I consider to now be very bad news indeed.

And of course the problem grows with every passing year, with reliable evidence that virtually every new boat being craned in on the Grand Union is a wide beam, and almost no new narrow boats now being built, (or at least not a significant proportion now of new boat deliveries).

 

I don't know how to solve the problem, but a problem it most certainly now is.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....and another one. 70 x 12 feet, going to Calcutt......this ones owners are saving money for the licence hike by having only one rope on the boat. ......and not getting the bowthruster tube blacked (although this may be offered as standard by Collingwood as none of their boats lifted in here in the last 2 years   have had it blacked ).

 

 

Edited by matty40s
Link to comment
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.