March of the Wide Beams

[cereal tiller]

2 minutes ago, matty40s said:

I do like this advert.......

 

BOAT FOR SALE:

Name:  DOWN THE HATCH 70ft 2in x 13ft 6in (reported) wide beam cruiser narrowboat for sale 

 

Selling to buy a narrowboat.

Cruising, G U Canal - £158,000

http://ebtk.co.uk/resources/stats/click.php?c=629&e=427&o=1030&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2F3251abnb

They all get there in the End?

[MtB]

"Selling to buy a narrowboat."

 

Something 10ft 6in wide will seem narrow after that abomination!

[john6767]

14 minutes ago, matty40s said:

I do like this advert.......

 

BOAT FOR SALE:

Name:  DOWN THE HATCH 70ft 2in x 13ft 6in (reported) wide beam cruiser narrowboat for sale 

 

Selling to buy a narrowboat.

Cruising, G U Canal - £158,000

http://ebtk.co.uk/resources/stats/click.php?c=629&e=427&o=1030&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2F3251abnb

That wins the ugliest boat prize, although the interior is quite nice (did I say that out loud).  I wonder why they want a narrowboat, were they disappointed about how far up the North Oxford they could get 

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, john6767 said:

I wonder why they want a narrowboat,

 

I bet they got fed up with meeting widebeams coming the other way....

[Athy]

12 hours ago, john6767 said:

That wins the ugliest boat prize, although the interior is quite nice (did I say that out loud).  I wonder why they want a narrowboat, were they disappointed about how far up the North Oxford they could get 

I have to agree that the interior is not without its appeal. I see that it was designed as a luxury hotel boat; perhaps the owners are giving up that business and want a boat for just themselves.

[alan_fincher]

13 hours ago, matty40s said:

I do like this advert.......

 

BOAT FOR SALE:

Name:  DOWN THE HATCH 70ft 2in x 13ft 6in (reported) wide beam cruiser narrowboat for sale 

 

Selling to buy a narrowboat.

Cruising, G U Canal - £158,000

http://ebtk.co.uk/resources/stats/click.php?c=629&e=427&o=1030&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2F3251abnb

 

Quote

Is presently hotel boat for 2 guests

 

Oh FFS! - That's well worth clogging up the Grand Union for then.  At least the two guests have plenty of rear deck to come and gomgoozle the queue of boats behind!

[X Alan W]

That being equal to other hotel boats to make it pay with 2 guests would put the price in the telephone directory class  I would guess the lack of bookings/turnover is the reason for the up for sale they perhaps think they cancarry out the same service on a NB for a more reasonable charge

[peterboat]

20 hours ago, Detling said:

Hmmm when did you last cruise that section. There are several sections where the width of the visible water between the towpath and the trees is not even enough for two narrow boats to pass without the Braunston bound boat stopping and edging into the trees, it is not actually possible to have both boats moving at once. If you were unfortunate enough to meet a wide beam on one of these sections you would be practicing your reversing skills for a few hubdred yards, as they have no reverse as we all know. To be fair to the widebeam if you get behind a boat towing a butty on that section progress is about watching the snails go past on the towpath, due to the chaos of meeting traffic. It is also one of the most used  stretches of canal in the Midlands

None of the narrow/widebeams I have owned or steered have reversing properties!!!

[zenataomm]

On ‎21‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 15:04, Alan de Enfield said:

Absolutely correct, but unfortunately no suggestions as to how each of the problems may be resolved.

Greenie for 'correctly identifying the questions'

Good point.  I think that like all problems that emanate from an outcome of people's actions or attitudes the solution is better if it's adopted by the people concerned rather than imposed by rules or even legislation.

At the end of the day people support that which they helped to create, and will rebuff what they are told to do.

There will always be those who when showed a rule will take it as a personal challenge.  I recall over the years the number of unpopular changes that individuals were prepared to go to jail in order to fight ........ crash helmets, drink driving, seat belts

We don't want laws for this petty issue. The responsibility for what Fat Boaters try and do with their craft must always be theirs alone.

Waterways could add a paragraph to their info packs or licence documentation simply pointing out that The Oxford Canal/Coventry Canal/Stratford Canal/Birmingham & Worcester/Leicester Section/ Northampton Arm/BCN/Shropshire Canal/Trent & Mersey (North of Burton on Trent)/Ashby Canal/Caldon Canal/ ...... (and any I've missed out) are not suitable for boats over 7ft wide. Owners of boats exceeding 7ft beam should not attempt to navigate these waterways without understanding the likelihood of them causing damage to other people's property and the infrastructure for which they will be personally responsible.

By demonstrating the large number of navigations not suitable to them paints a more realistic picture than the ones that are.

After they've got jammed in a bridge 'ole a few times, not been able to pass another boat or been able to find a nice place to moor for the night, they'll soon refocus their thoughts and revisit their options.

Hardly anybody these days rides without a helmet or drives without a seat belt. It's moved into custom and tradition, we need the same to happen with fat boats and thin canals.

 

[Captain Pegg]

Are we losing sight of perspective here?

The places I can think of where broad waterways meet narrow waterways are Huddersfield, Ducie Street, Middlewich, Barbridge, Nantwich, Burton-on-Trent, Foxton, Stourport, Droitwich, Worcester, Stratford, Kingswood, Camp Hill, Napton, Braunston, Wolvercote, Oxford, Norton, Marsworth and Bulbourne (or wherever the Wendover arm leaves the GU). Some of those are theoretical due to restrictions having been created.

So of all of those the total mileage available to wide craft accessing narrow canals off broad waterways is about 15 miles. 13 miles of that is Hillmorton to Napton of which five miles is technically wide canal (even though it is no more suited than any other part of the north Oxford). So overall the 'problem' is 0.5% of the network. It can't be beyond the wit of man to sort it.

There are two solutions - either construct some narrows or dredge a wider channel and clear the vegetation. I'll have the benefits of the latter and take my chance with the occasional widebeam thanks.

JP

 

[Dr Bob]

3 hours ago, zenataomm said:

Good point.  I think that like all problems that emanate from an outcome of people's actions or attitudes the solution is better if it's adopted by the people concerned rather than imposed by rules or even legislation.

At the end of the day people support that which they helped to create, and will rebuff what they are told to do.

There will always be those who when showed a rule will take it as a personal challenge.  I recall over the years the number of unpopular changes that individuals were prepared to go to jail in order to fight ........ crash helmets, drink driving, seat belts

We don't want laws for this petty issue. The responsibility for what Fat Boaters try and do with their craft must always be theirs alone.

Waterways could add a paragraph to their info packs or licence documentation simply pointing out that The Oxford Canal/Coventry Canal/Stratford Canal/Birmingham & Worcester/Leicester Section/ Northampton Arm/BCN/Shropshire Canal/Trent & Mersey (North of Burton on Trent)/Ashby Canal/Caldon Canal/ ...... (and any I've missed out) are not suitable for boats over 7ft wide. Owners of boats exceeding 7ft beam should not attempt to navigate these waterways without understanding the likelihood of them causing damage to other people's property and the infrastructure for which they will be personally responsible.

By demonstrating the large number of navigations not suitable to them paints a more realistic picture than the ones that are.

After they've got jammed in a bridge 'ole a few times, not been able to pass another boat or been able to find a nice place to moor for the night, they'll soon refocus their thoughts and revisit their options.

Hardly anybody these days rides without a helmet or drives without a seat belt. It's moved into custom and tradition, we need the same to happen with fat boats and thin canals.

 

Well said that man. Have a greenie.

[Dr Bob]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

Are we losing sight of perspective here?

The places I can think of where broad waterways meet narrow waterways are Huddersfield, Ducie Street, Middlewich, Barbridge, Nantwich, Burton-on-Trent, Foxton, Stourport, Droitwich, Worcester, Stratford, Kingswood, Camp Hill, Napton, Braunston, Wolvercote, Oxford, Norton, Marsworth and Bulbourne (or wherever the Wendover arm leaves the GU). Some of those are theoretical due to restrictions having been created.

So of all of those the total mileage available to wide craft accessing narrow canals off broad waterways is about 15 miles. 13 miles of that is Hillmorton to Napton of which five miles is technically wide canal (even though it is no more suited than any other part of the north Oxford). So overall the 'problem' is 0.5% of the network. It can't be beyond the wit of man to sort it.

There are two solutions - either construct some narrows or dredge a wider channel and clear the vegetation. I'll have the benefits of the latter and take my chance with the occasional widebeam thanks.

JP

 

...but the problem is that the CRt will do neither. We are therefore left with the situation we now have. At least they have done some cutting back at the Napton end but large sections between Napton and Braunston have not been cut back, and Braunston seems to be a magnet for launching them. I think Zenataomm's post above is the best way forward and gives the responsibility to the fat boat owners. That will never happen either!

[zenataomm]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

Are we losing sight of perspective here?

The places I can think of where broad waterways meet narrow waterways are Huddersfield, Ducie Street, Middlewich, Barbridge, Nantwich, Burton-on-Trent, Foxton, Stourport, Droitwich, Worcester, Stratford, Kingswood, Camp Hill, Napton, Braunston, Wolvercote, Oxford, Norton, Marsworth and Bulbourne (or wherever the Wendover arm leaves the GU). Some of those are theoretical due to restrictions having been created.

So of all of those the total mileage available to wide craft accessing narrow canals off broad waterways is about 15 miles. 13 miles of that is Hillmorton to Napton of which five miles is technically wide canal (even though it is no more suited than any other part of the north Oxford). So overall the 'problem' is 0.5% of the network. It can't be beyond the wit of man to sort it.

There are two solutions - either construct some narrows or dredge a wider channel and clear the vegetation. I'll have the benefits of the latter and take my chance with the occasional widebeam thanks.

JP

 

I never assume anything that others plan to do. I was talking to a couple on their fat boat tied up outside the restaurant at Braunston.  They told me next year they're going up the Trent.  I asked if they'd planned it, as I was curious how they were getting to it.  The reply was "of course, we've invited some friends along". I wonder which of the junctions where broad meets narrow and how many they inconvenienced?

Like I said it's only education at the end of the day. 

[ditchcrawler]

I understand there are several wide beams in Barby Marina

[furnessvale]

41 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I understand there are several wide beams in Barby Marina

Perhaps part of the answer is to only allow marinas on narrow canals to have an entrance onto the canal that is just wide enough for a narrowboat?

George

[zenataomm]

48 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I understand there are several wide beams in Barby Marina

Both Barby and the new Dunchurch one nearby.

[alan_fincher]

10 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I understand there are several wide beams in Barby Marina

 

10 hours ago, furnessvale said:

Perhaps part of the answer is to only allow marinas on narrow canals to have an entrance onto the canal that is just wide enough for a narrowboat?

George

And then pack as many wide beams into the marina as is physically possible!

[dmr]

15 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

Are we losing sight of perspective here?

The places I can think of where broad waterways meet narrow waterways are Huddersfield, Ducie Street, Middlewich, Barbridge, Nantwich, Burton-on-Trent, Foxton, Stourport, Droitwich, Worcester, Stratford, Kingswood, Camp Hill, Napton, Braunston, Wolvercote, Oxford, Norton, Marsworth and Bulbourne (or wherever the Wendover arm leaves the GU). Some of those are theoretical due to restrictions having been created.

So of all of those the total mileage available to wide craft accessing narrow canals off broad waterways is about 15 miles. 13 miles of that is Hillmorton to Napton of which five miles is technically wide canal (even though it is no more suited than any other part of the north Oxford). So overall the 'problem' is 0.5% of the network. It can't be beyond the wit of man to sort it.

There are two solutions - either construct some narrows or dredge a wider channel and clear the vegetation. I'll have the benefits of the latter and take my chance with the occasional widebeam thanks.

JP

 

You are correct, we are getting upset about a small problem on a very small part of the system so its probably not worth worrying about it (worrying is like a rocking chair, it gives you something to do but gets you nowhere )

Of more concern is the many many miles of wide canals that are full of widebeams (handled by inexperienced or just selfish owners) where lack of dredging, vegetation, or just a large number of moored boats are no longer really suitable for widebeams. Thats a bigger problem and much harder to fix. There are lots and lots of places on the K&A where I can not safely pass a bigger widebeam. I suspect that some of the wide canals where not built to allow two widebeams to pass and a load of widebeams to be moored.

And there are both a Heron and a Kingfisher moored on adjacent trees right outside my window.

...............Dave

[zenataomm]

dmr ........

Everything you say is right.

It is more difficult to argue fat boats on fat canals whether they are handled badly or moored badly.  I guess what is pertinent here is that taking them onto a narrow canal is even more foolish and is easier to criticise.

You are also accurate in commenting that even The Grand Onion was proven to be unsuitable in the 30s for such traffic. Who could forget the incident when The Grand Union Canal Co. wide boat "Progress" certainly didn't when she met The Bushell Bros. built wide boat "Lard Arse" on the Tring summit (check on Google Earth, they're still there, nose to nose)

If it didn't work then when the cut was regularly maintained and dredged, I don't see it as being sensible today. Shaving the beam to 12ft or even 10' 6" to me seems silly especially as you can't traverse tunnels without a load of Hoo - Haa.

Lessons have been learnt in other parts of society. Who remembers the fraught expressions on young Mothers trying to manoeuvre twin buggies through shop doors?  It took a while but the industry now makes buggies for twins that are in tandem instead, how sensible for everybody?

 

Congrats on the nightingale and owl outside your window, at least your dinner is assured.

Edited November 23, 2017 by zenataomm
Had to stop a fight on my doorstep as Help the Aged and Air Ambulance both want my old clothes without considering I want to wear them.

[Athy]

16 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

you can't traverse tunnels without a load of Hoo - Haa.

 

...and as the commercial hoo-haa traffic has now ended, doubtless very few go through them nowadays.

[zenataomm]

53 minutes ago, Athy said:

...and as the commercial hoo-haa traffic has now ended, doubtless very few go through them nowadays.

The Nikkei doesn't even list Hoo - Haa anymore, and hasn't done so since artificial Flim - Flam first floated.  I think that was at Maida Vale tunnel.

[Athy]

13 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

The Nikkei doesn't even list Hoo - Haa anymore, and hasn't done so since artificial Flim - Flam first floated.  I think that was at Maida Vale tunnel.

Your erudition never fails to impress.

[Iain_S]

2 hours ago, zenataomm said:

(snip)

 

Congrats on the nightingale and owl outside your window, at least your dinner is assured.

Not much eating on a nightingale ...

[rusty69]

1 minute ago, Iain_S said:

Not much eating on a nightingale ...

But Owl ice cream is lovely I hear.

Edited November 23, 2017 by rusty69

[cuthound]

3 hours ago, zenataomm said:

You are also accurate in commenting that even The Grand Onion was proven to be unsuitable in the 30s for such traffic. Who could forget the incident when The Grand Union Canal Co. wide boat "Progress" certainly didn't when she met The Bushell Bros. built wide boat "Lard Arse" on the Tring summit (check on Google Earth, they're still there, nose to nose)

It's enough to make you cry...