Jump to content

March of the Wide Beams


rustynewbery

Featured Posts

41 minutes ago, StephenA said:

?????

So I guess you mean Harecastle, but that’s a but of an obtuse response!  I was thinking of ones that are lights controlled not keeper, does Harecastle work on an actual fixed schedule any way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, john6767 said:

So I guess you mean Harecastle, but that’s a but of an obtuse response!  I was thinking of ones that are lights controlled not keeper, does Harecastle work on an actual fixed schedule any way?

I put ??? because there are several tunnels that work on fixed schedules : Preston Brook and Saltersford Tunnels immediately spring to mind. Some ague that barnton is timed as well

Foulridge is on scheduled traffic lights....

Edited by StephenA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

The 'blame' for this situation lies with the Grand Union company; it was they who opened up north of Braunston for wider craft with their ill-fated widening of the Napton & Warwick and Warwick & Birmingham canals. Before that I believe the stop narrows at Braunston toll house was only wide enough to pass narrow beam boats. Personally I think it a great shame this scheme ever happened. However we can't change the fact that it did happen and we must deal with the consequences.

It was also that scheme which gave rise to the real anomaly in this debate; namely that the section of the south Oxford between Braunston and Napton that is part of the wide route from London to Birmingham is surely even less suited to wide beam craft than the north Oxford beyond Braunston?

Both the GUCCCo and BW trialed wide beam working on the GU. Both attempts were deemed a commercial failure. The boats used were Progress (motor) and Eagle (butty). There were several reasons for the lack of success: The butty had to be bow hauled through the locks as in narrow canals. One of the bridges around Knowle (I think) hadn't been altered in the 1930's scheme. Thirdly the locks at Camp Hill were never widened as the 1930's grant was exhausted by the time work reached them.

6775339322_7e312065b7.jpg

 

As a side, I often muse what would have happened if a breasted pair met the above?

For comparison:

18881931_822592884560689_2812038195841856961_n.jpg

 

See here regarding the stop lock at Braunston https://canalworld.net/forums/index.php?/topic/93425-britain-afloat-narrowboat-episode/&page=2

 

Edited by Ray T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

As a confirmed narrow boater and student of canal history with little interest outside of narrow craft made from steel or timber you might think it's obvious where my sympathy will lie. However I don't agree with the premise of the OP at all.

< snip >

So I would say put the effort into campaigning for dredging and particularly vegetation management instead of telling others where they should or shouldn't take their boats. Ultimately it may just be doing canals more harm than good.

JP

Yeah but that thing pictured in post 17 isn't just an offence to good taste.

It's worse than that.

It's fugugly!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

The 'blame' for this situation lies with the Grand Union company; it was they who opened up north of Braunston for wider craft with their ill-fated widening of the Napton & Warwick and Warwick & Birmingham canals. Before that I believe the stop narrows at Braunston toll house was only wide enough to pass narrow beam boats. Personally I think it a great shame this scheme ever happened. However we can't change the fact that it did happen and we must deal with the consequences.

I've written on this before, but we owned the GUCCC widebeam craft Progress that was used for the ceremonial opening of the widened section Braunston-Birmingham at Hatton in 1937. We cruised London to Braunston several times in the 60s and on up to Camp Hill twice. Progress was 74' x 12'6". FMC also had an experimental craft Pioneer, but that was broken up by the time we came onto the canals late 50s.

That said, Progress and Pioneer were both experimental craft and the experiment was abandonned as it was too problematic for the standard narrowboat traffic at bridges and tunnels in particular.

I love wide beam vessels and we worked several in the London area. Our ex-partner Tim Wood still continues with some 4 Leeds and Liverpool shortboats and a couple of Dutch work flats we brought over in his WHH fleet of maintenance craft, though we took ourselves off to France where a wide craft is in its proper element.

I do have to agree that although the Grand Union can cope with a handful of wide vessels it is not practical for there to be as many as there are now unless at least major dredging and tree lopping operations were to be carried out.

 

tam

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting responses on my thread here.

A Dutch barge is quite aesthetic and best suited for canals and rivers that can accommodate them.....these so-called wide beam boats built to a narrowboat profile are so butt ugly, but each to their own! And do not belong on the north Oxford. 

I still maintain that a narrow canal is just not suitable for any other craft. End Of.  Some pictures attached may help those unacquainted with the north Oxford understand what the issues are.  I don't even subscribe to the view that if all the offside vegetation was cut right back it would be OK for wide beams.  I draw 2ft 6", small beer for an ex working boat, so would still struggle to find enough water even if the cut was dredged to original dimensions - which it won't be.  Below is the canal between bridges 83 and 84 Nox1.jpg.e2dcd25d8402e2ac0ec1fbdb52ead918.jpg

Below is the cut between br90 and 89 in Braunston looking both ways.

I rest my case

Nox3.jpg.7ee5a31b99b8758beae755b140f06aec.jpgNox2.jpg.180458aa542b0371be453ceba9461687.jpg

Nox1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those Braunston photos in the previous post are precisely where I saw a fatboat set off from in August. Fortunately nothing came the other way, at least not at that point.

I also do not subscribe to the view that it would be alright if the vegtation was managed better (or at all!). However, I do think CRT should not do the one thing (allow fatboats on to an unsuitable canal) without also doing the other (keep the vegetation under control). That would at least help a bit in regards to fatboats and immensely in the case of narrowboats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just had a walk around the completed sections of Dunchurch Pools. Still work in progress, but suits us at the moment.

There are seven fat boys moored in the marina. God help all should they ever all go out together!   Unlikely I know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the first picture that 'rustynewbery' has posted, would you even get two narrow boats pass each other without one of them landing up in the trees? This is why CaRT need to do a lot more trimming back of these trees. I’m on the K&A at the moment between Bath and Bristol on the river section, the trees here need some serious trimming back despite the river being wide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, F DRAYKE said:

Looking at the first picture that 'rustynewbery' has posted, would you even get two narrow boats pass each other without one of them landing up in the trees? This is why CaRT need to do a lot more trimming back of these trees. I’m on the K&A at the moment between Bath and Bristol on the river section, the trees here need some serious trimming back despite the river being wide.

2 narrowboats with ease (and no damaged paintwork) or at least that was the case last thursday when I came through.

there was a widebeam waiting patiently to head towards napton though, sat just clear of everything and leaving enough space for narrowboats to pass

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is any one aware if C&rt are quoting a max  beam measurement for the wide boats? or is 14' beam still a goer for the GU. I ask because there used to be bridges at Stockton & Blue Las that would not pass a pair breasted up if these have not been widened (which I doubt) a boat of 13' or wider will come to an abrupt halt or it would do if the bridges are still as they were some years back, this along with the narrows with vegetation, over hanging trees, coping stones that have fallen in the cut & the posible inexperience of some wide boat owners who don't venture out on the cut often being mostly moored could lead to some more stressful moments than the meeting of 2NB's at these locations The GU tried 12'6"beam& didn't continue&  in those days the cut was in better condition both width & depth wise & generally the steerers/crews were more expieranced Just Curious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2014 I counted 48 widebeams tied up between Cowroast and Stoke Bruerne.

In 2015 there were 56.

In 2016 there were 78.

This year I was too disheartened to count,  but there were at least half a dozen tied up in stupid places.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, X Alan W said:

Is any one aware if C&rt are quoting a max  beam measurement for the wide boats? or is 14' beam still a goer for the GU. I ask because there used to be bridges at Stockton & Blue Las that would not pass a pair breasted up if these have not been widened (which I doubt) a boat of 13' or wider will come to an abrupt halt or it would do if the bridges are still as they were some years back, this along with the narrows with vegetation, over hanging trees, coping stones that have fallen in the cut & the posible inexperience of some wide boat owners who don't venture out on the cut often being mostly moored could lead to some more stressful moments than the meeting of 2NB's at these locations The GU tried 12'6"beam& didn't continue&  in those days the cut was in better condition both width & depth wise & generally the steerers/crews were more expieranced Just Curious

From a BW document that I'm not sure ever became anything more than a draft version....

GRAND UNIONCANAL

 

Braunston to head of Camp Hill Top Lock

 

 

Maximum dimension

Absolute maximum*

Length:

72ft (21.95m)

78ft (23.77m)

Beam:

12ft 6ins (3.81m)

N/A

Draught:

N/A

N/A

Headroom:

6ft 6ins (1.98m)

N/A

 

Additional Cruising notes:

1.      Boats up to 14ft (4.27m) beam may be able to navigate this section, but some bridges have low arches and may not be passable, depending on cabin profile.

2.      Locks are more than 14ft (4.27m) wide so two narrowboats can safely share.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, koukouvagia said:

In 2014 I counted 48 widebeams tied up between Cowroast and Stoke Bruerne.

In 2015 there were 56.

In 2016 there were 78.

This year I was too disheartened to count,  but there were at least half a dozen tied up in stupid places.

 

I did Ivinghoe to Stowe Hill in mid December, and counted 67.

I was moving a widebeam.....

Which is now in the London area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, X Alan W said:

Is any one aware if C&rt are quoting a max  beam measurement for the wide boats? or is 14' beam still a goer for the GU. I ask because there used to be bridges at Stockton & Blue Las that would not pass a pair breasted up if these have not been widened (which I doubt) a boat of 13' or wider will come to an abrupt halt or it would do if the bridges are still as they were some years back, this along with the narrows with vegetation, over hanging trees, coping stones that have fallen in the cut & the posible inexperience of some wide boat owners who don't venture out on the cut often being mostly moored could lead to some more stressful moments than the meeting of 2NB's at these locations The GU tried 12'6"beam& didn't continue&  in those days the cut was in better condition both width & depth wise & generally the steerers/crews were more expieranced Just Curious

There is a limit on the tunnels (well I can speak specifically about Blisworth and assume - assume makes an ass out of u and me - Braunston is the same especially with its little wiggle as is the remainder of the waterway) is as follows:

  • Width: 12' 6"
  • Airdraft: 7'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Leo No2 said:

There is a limit on the tunnels (well I can speak specifically about Blisworth and assume - assume makes an ass out of u and me - Braunston is the same especially with its little wiggle as is the remainder of the waterway) is as follows:

  • Width: 12' 6"
  • Airdraft: 7'

Really? How come two narrowboats can pass anywhere in these tunnels then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is the Max beam that is allowed 12' 6" will still be a bit of a hand full if they are built to or near the 70' length  I'm thinking having sufficient wiggle room in terms of length x width will be quite something to receive your stoppage E mails reading UFN there is a stoppage at xxxxxx reason 2 wide boats jammed in narrows & over hanging vegetation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Leo No2 said:

That's a little bit silly. We are talking widebeams here and that's the maximum width for a widebeam.

But its not specifically the tunnels that restrict the maximum beam to 12'6", which is what you seemed to be suggesting. The whole canal from Berko to Camp Hill has an 'official' maximum of 12'6", although the absolute physical restriction is only a couple of bridges on the Warwick canals.

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.