March of the Wide Beams

[john6767]

10 hours ago, GRLMK38 said:

They appear to be lost (?), it is now moored at Willoughby Wharf on the North Oxford.

hopefully not opposite the boat with the offside mooring on a floating pontoon!

[matty40s]

11 minutes ago, john6767 said:

hopefully not opposite the boat with the offside mooring on a floating pontoon!

The sign there is a bit rich. 

'Slow Down moored boat and obstruction'

[Jess--]

5 minutes ago, matty40s said:

The sign there is a bit rich. 

'Slow Down moored boat and obstruction'

there is something fairly substantial under the water where the pontoon is, sounded like brick / concrete when I found it (before the pontoon was there)

nice walnut tree (harvestable from the bridge)

[peterboat]

On 11/25/2017 at 20:05, matty40s said:

Splendid

Looks like one of waddingtons boats nice sheffield size beastie

[john6767]

11 minutes ago, matty40s said:

The sign there is a bit rich. 

'Slow Down moored boat and obstruction'

Factual though!

[jenevers]

On 25/11/2017 at 15:12, Naughty Cal said:

Bloody nuisance these widebeams. 

Great to see a “proper”  boat on the move.

Note virtual absence of wash, as it skims along.

[Dr Bob]

1 hour ago, jenevers said:

Great to see a “proper”  boat on the move.

Note virtual absence of wash, as it skims along.

...at 0.5 mph

[Naughty Cal]

1 hour ago, Dr Bob said:

...at 0.5 mph

Probably not even that. It had stopped to let us past the rafted up widebeams 

Not sure where the old girl is now. Poem has been moored on the Lincoln long term moorings longer then we have been in the area but since we took these photos has disappeared from the moorings. 

[GRLMK38]

5 hours ago, john6767 said:

hopefully not opposite the boat with the offside mooring on a floating pontoon!

It's (or was) the other side of the road bridge i.e. Braunston side.

[Joe Bourke]

3 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

Probably not even that. It had stopped to let us past the rafted up widebeams 

Not sure where the old girl is now. Poem has been moored on the Lincoln long term moorings longer then we have been in the area but since we took these photos has disappeared from the moorings. 

Poem was at Knottingley on the slip I believe

[john6767]

6 hours ago, GRLMK38 said:

It's (or was) the other side of the road bridge i.e. Braunston side.

And like it is wide there, with the reeds on the offside, or have they been cleared?

[jenevers]

On 11/01/2018 at 12:34, Dr Bob said:

...at 0.5 mph

Wouldn’t be much of a wash at 3 mph either. 

[Jagrat]

On 06/10/2017 at 18:51, GRLMK38 said:

Did I see a new fatboat sail away being craned in at Braunston today?

 

On 06/10/2017 at 16:28, Captain Pegg said:

Those are the same numbers I was looking at to arrive at 17' (approx 5.3m).

My point though was that the navigation was constructed wider than those dimensions and therefore could be maintained fit for wider boats than are presently allowed. Exactly how wide and under what restrictions would need to be calculated.

JP

This is what I recently sent to a CRT Senior Manager !!

further to our lengthy telephone conversation, I still feel that your organisation is failing to fully appreciate the issues and concerns regarding 12' widebeam boats on canals designed specifically for narrowboats of only 7' beam.

I wish to make clear and put in writing my deep concerns and once again say that as stated by Matthew Symonds in his email to me that I believe this is a 'navigational safety' issue. He quotes the trust's "advisory list of waterway dimensions" which clearly states that the various narrow canals can accomodate a maximum beam of "7ft" and qualifies the fact that these limitations "will limit where craft above certain dimensions will be able to safely navigate" thereby identifying this as a navigational safety issue.

I live and cruise on the canals all year round and know full well the numbers of inexperienced boaters who appear on the system each year having little or no practical experience. 

They generally tend towards travelling too fast and panic when encountering any unexpected traffic or a navigational obstruction, the result being an over reaction selecting high revs and sometimes reverse gear !

I do know that allowing widebeam boats onto canals which were designed for narrow beam boats is a huge mistake and ignoring the issues or disowning the problem on the basis that, to quote  Matthew Symonds' email once again, "I have not been able to identify any Trust rule or byelaw that explicitly restricts the passage of wide beam boats" simply doesn't cut the mustard. This is without doubt a Navigational Safety issue and to say that CRT does not have the authority to deal with it is ludicrous to say the least.

CRT has a duty of care to all its customers and I simply cannot see how ignoring such a clear and obvious health and safety issue can be construed as anything other than failing in that duty.

[Jagrat]

This an extract of a recent e Mail I’ve sent to a Senior Manager of CRT

it is our duty to hold their feet to the fire if we are not to loose this treasure over the coming years

further to our lengthy telephone conversation, I still feel that your organisation is failing to fully appreciate the issues and concerns regarding 12' widebeam boats on canals designed specifically for narrowboats of only 7' beam.

I wish to make clear and put in writing my deep concerns and once again say that as stated by Matthew Symonds in his email to me that I believe this is a 'navigational safety' issue. He quotes the trust's "advisory list of waterway dimensions" which clearly states that the various narrow canals can accomodate a maximum beam of "7ft" and qualifies the fact that these limitations "will limit where craft above certain dimensions will be able to safely navigate" thereby identifying this as a navigational safety issue.

I live and cruise on the canals all year round and know full well the numbers of inexperienced boaters who appear on the system each year having little or no practical experience. 

They generally tend towards travelling too fast and panic when encountering any unexpected traffic or a navigational obstruction, the result being an over reaction selecting high revs and sometimes reverse gear !

I do know that allowing widebeam boats onto canals which were designed for narrow beam boats is a huge mistake and ignoring the issues or disowning the problem on the basis that, to quote  Matthew Symonds' email once again, "I have not been able to identify any Trust rule or byelaw that explicitly restricts the passage of wide beam boats" simply doesn't cut the mustard. This is without doubt a Navigational Safety issue and to say that CRT does not have the authority to deal with it is ludicrous to say the least.

CRT has a duty of care to all its customers and I simply cannot see how ignoring such a clear and obvious health and safety issue can be construed as anything other than failing in that duty.

[b0atman]

what about the paragraph which was in Nicholsons grand union canal section about recommending no wide beam past a certain point ? not got the book to hand but i thought it referenced BW.

 

[alan_fincher]

31 minutes ago, b0atman said:

what about the paragraph which was in Nicholsons grand union canal section about recommending no wide beam past a certain point ? not got the book to hand but i thought it referenced BW.

Not strictly what it actually said, which was......
 

Quote

No wide beam craft should moor on-line between Berkhamsted and Braunston.

So OK to cruise on it apparently if you could avoid tying up(!)

(It was still on the Nicholson map edition copyright 2006, but I don't have a newer one to check.)

[zenataomm]

Being a little more pragmatic in my problem solving rather than quoting regs. and what was once written in a book years ago; I foresee fisticuffs on the day.

Knowing how much aggravation my 6' 10" beam nb can cause fisherfolk when I pass another nb on a wide canal I can only guess the outcome of two bloated boats meeting: -

* On The N Oxford

* On a windy day

* Where others moor up

* With overhanging scratchy branches on the off side threatening expensive paint jobbies

* During a fishing match

Now call me unreasonably gleeful, but I would pay good money to witness this and if someone can arrange it I'd even sell coach tickets for those wishing to witness (deckchairs included).

Awaiting market forces to create the need I am in the interim prepared to perm any 3 from the 5 above.

 

Edited January 14, 2018 by zenataomm
My bacon was under done and running amock in the kitchen

[dmr]

Trouble is, CaRT would prefer not to see themselves as a navigation authority but to "rebrand" themselves as an outdoor "leisure and wellbeing provider". I have noted on several occasions of late that they no longer mention rules but prefer to create "guidelines", and do this in a way to keep everybody happy. This may well be foolish because ambiguity is a recipe for conflict, especially when everybody is led to believe that they are in the right.

Like London, its probably too late to fix this problem, builders are making widebeams as fast as they can and people who are more interested in floating homes than boats and navigation are keen to buy them. If CaRT did try to limit them then I suspect a wealthy widebeam owner would instigate a court case and I also suspect CaRT would be on dodgy ground.

There is I believe a rule that boats should be appropriate for the waterway that they are on, but a good solicitor could easily demonstrate that CaRT have not applied this fairly.

..........Dave 

Edited January 14, 2018 by dmr
added a bit more

[Ray T]

The North Oxford Summer last year.

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Ray T said:

The North Oxford Summer last year.

Looks like some dredging is needed - cannot get anywhere near the side.

That tow-path needs some attention as well - maybe speak to Sustrans and get it tarmaced over.

[furnessvale]

4 hours ago, zenataomm said:

Being a little more pragmatic in my problem solving rather than quoting regs. and what was once written in a book years ago; I foresee fisticuffs on the day.

Knowing how much aggravation my 6' 10" beam nb can cause fisherfolk when I pass another nb on a wide canal I can only guess the outcome of two bloated boats meeting: -

* On The N Oxford

* On a windy day

* Where others moor up

* With overhanging scratchy branches on the off side threatening expensive paint jobbies

* During a fishing match

Now call me unreasonably gleeful, but I would pay good money to witness this and if someone can arrange it I'd even sell coach tickets for those wishing to witness (deckchairs included).

Awaiting market forces to create the need I am in the interim prepared to perm any 3 from the 5 above.

 

If I am coming the other way with my narrowboat, I will be pulling into the towpath and letting the fat boat take the hit.

George

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

If I am coming the other way with my narrowboat, irrespective of the 'rules of the road' and passing port side to port side I will be pulling into the towpath and letting the fat boat take the hit.

George

Good plan - maybe he will think the same.

A few years ago the Irish Government decided to investigate the feasibility of changing to drive on the 'other side of the road', millions were spent in the planning but the Consultants (Paddy & Mick Consultants) suggested that they should have a trial period to allow everyone to get used to the idea.

It was proposed that vehicles driving North to South should remain on the left hand side of the road, whilst those driving South to North would drive on the Right hand side of the road. The trial did not last very long.

Edited January 14, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[furnessvale]

49 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Good plan - maybe he will think the same.

 

I see you added a bit for me.  Of course, I will be tying up for lunch.  He can always do the same and the occasions I simply MUST move these days are few and far between.

George

[Jagrat]

4 hours ago, dmr said:

Trouble is, CaRT would prefer not to see themselves as a navigation authority but to "rebrand" themselves as an outdoor "leisure and wellbeing provider". I have noted on several occasions of late that they no longer mention rules but prefer to create "guidelines", and do this in a way to keep everybody happy. This may well be foolish because ambiguity is a recipe for conflict, especially when everybody is led to believe that they are in the right.

Like London, its probably too late to fix this problem, builders are making widebeams as fast as they can and people who are more interested in floating homes than boats and navigation are keen to buy them. If CaRT did try to limit them then I suspect a wealthy widebeam owner would instigate a court case and I also suspect CaRT would be on dodgy ground.

There is I believe a rule that boats should be appropriate for the waterway that they are on, but a good solicitor could easily demonstrate that CaRT have not applied this fairly.

..........Dave 

Unfortunately, I think your not far from the truth

they CRT are trying to be something they were never intended to be and appear to avoiding taking on the mantle of Navigation Authority 

Also, I’m sure some wide beam owner would challenge any reasonable action taken by CRT to restrict areas of the system they are allowed to cruise

[MtB]

Yes they seem to moan enough about being unable to move between south and north when licence charges are discussed, despite the majority of them rarely moving anywhere.