Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 17:44:14 GMT
4.2m then. Thats about 13'9" and 5/16 or maybe 11/32ths give or take a spider Good find John
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 20:40:48 GMT
Someone on cwdf found an older version of the PDF which shows 4m beam for the K&A dating back to end of July 18. I did a metadata search specifically so that I can look toweringly clever. www.get-metadata.com/result/7ca65373-5e4f-47fd-b1cb-391f4dab4543So its not related to the works at the lock. Unless they planned ahead
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 21:04:26 GMT
Someone on cwdf found an older version of the PDF which shows 4m beam for the K&A dating back to end of July 18. I did a metadata search specifically so that I can look toweringly clever. www.get-metadata.com/result/7ca65373-5e4f-47fd-b1cb-391f4dab4543So its not related to the works at the lock. Unless they planned ahead They had problems at the same lock last year, but I suspect there is more to this story than we realise. CRT are constantly looking at ways to make things awkward for boaters on the k&a.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 21:11:34 GMT
Yes but narrowing a lock by a few inches is only going to have an effect on a very small number of boats because people will tend to be advised to have somewhat narrower vessels. In general.
Its interesting but not convinced it is particularly anti boater due to the tiny number of boats which would have problems.
Eta if you mean there is a drive to close the K&A again yes I think that might be a possibility and I have mentioned it before.
It closed before for some reason so it seems possible it may close again.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 4, 2019 21:22:48 GMT
The BW publication of lock dimensions dated 2004 gives maximum craft dimensions for the K&A from Bath to Reading as 4.12mtrs in breadth.
The CaRT publication being quoted giving a maximum breadth of 4 mtrs, specifically states to begin with that “The dimensions in this document are a rough guide only.”
So it is not that the published width of the canal section has decreased in reality, simply that CaRT have become more vague with the figures and rounding them down – and covering themselves with the disclaimer as to their being a rough guide only.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 21:28:20 GMT
I noticed that.
So as I suggested earlier we have a slightly ridiculous situation where a navigation authority do not publish fixed data about the width/beam of boats which can be used on the waterway or sections thereof.
I guess if there are some iffy bits of brickwork about and considering it is quite old infrastructure it is better to gradually round it down.
Its unlikely to get wider.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 4, 2019 22:25:47 GMT
The most comprehensive data both historical and current is gathered together in an Excel document published by Mr Graham Holland, Head of Asset Management for the dredging department of BW back in 2011 - www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/meetings/wusig/MOC-dimensions-comparison-v3-110311.xls He describes the work as follows – “ The spreadsheet has individual lines for data on each canal and river navigation, and where it has been possible to do so, for individual sections of each navigation.
• Cols 4 to 7 represent previously used MOC dimensions back to 1998 showing how they have changed (if at all) over the years. In some cases it has been possible to determine the logic that was used at the time to determine the most appropriate MOC dimension. There are no records of this process. However in other cases the logic that led to the chosen dimension cannot be determined.
• Cols 8 to 12 represent the 1975 Fraenkel Report dimensions of boats using the canals during a period of 9 months prior to the 1968 Transport Act. Cols 10, 11 and 12 show the calculated maintenance standard of width and depth, and the resultant dredge depth using the methodology outlined in that report. and what they would mean for MOC
• Cols 13 to 20 give published maximum craft dimensions from BW, Nicholsons, and Bradshaws.
• Cols 21 to 27 show the summary results for minimum width and depth contained in BW’s 2009 pinch point data on which the current BW website is based.
• Cols 28 to 31 represent the BW Head of Asset Management’s interpretation and suggested MOC dimensions to be discussed, agreed and used by BW to compare with all future hydrographic survey data. The MOC dimension for each navigation will act as a trigger point to BW to indicate siltation problems in the navigation, and to commence the process of ancillary data gathering in preparation of developing and agreeing a dredging project. “
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 4, 2019 22:48:01 GMT
As @jenlyn123 said the lock has been slowly collapsing for a while and has been signed for nb to go in and out singularly.
I wonder if at that point it was narrowed down to protect themselves and rebuilding they just used those figures.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 5, 2019 4:49:31 GMT
It's much cheaper to change the paperwork than correct the screw up at the lock. Anyone naive enough to think CRT are not capable of such deviousness needs to think on. (That's not aimed at anyone in particular). If there's anyone who hasn't woken up to the reality of what cart are really like by now, then they are dead from the neck up. There is enough evidence of their behaviour now, from enough different people. Personally I've been shouting about it for six years, but people don't want to believe there is a navigation authority that are wilfully destroying the waterways. They will fail and something will replace them, but let's hope they haven't fucked it up beyond all repair before then. Funny you should say that as I was coincidentally having a run through this of 2017 on Canalworld: www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?/topic/91800-canal-and-river-trust-sign/(which includes this, which has again cropped up recently here: " “CRT has the power to make the licence subject to such terms and conditions as it thinks fit by virtue of section 43(3) of the Transport Act 1962, section 14 of the British Waterways Act 1971 and section 16 of the British Waterways Act 1995.” Lucy Barry, Associate Solicitor-Advocate, Shoosmiths LLP. " What's concerning is that CRT are evidently free to make rules up as they fancy, and there is no-one to stop them.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 5, 2019 4:50:30 GMT
So it goes back to MM's question of when and what did they change Changed on the 25th April after their inspector of works realised they had fucked up. Thought had occurred!
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 8, 2019 9:47:48 GMT
Here we go, from the horses mouth, from analworld
Thanks for all the comments....
I'm the owner of the boat in question. To clear up a few points:
- The boat in question is exactly 13'6 beam
- She has been through the lock in question (In both directions) several times throughout the years without incident.
- The lock chamber itself is 13'10-13'11
- The engineers on site said that if we were 13'6 we should get through (We are)
- We got stuck on the newly built brickwork on the lower exit which now measures a maximum of 13'5
- Whilst the published dimensions are NOW 13'1, this is a recent change (That we weren't aware of - nobody told us that they had narrowed the canal). It used to be 13'6. Basically, they changed the rules of the game mid-play.
Edited 19 minutes ago by wiltshirewonderer
So much for the witterings of the "fenders down cart apologist".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 9:55:17 GMT
Here we go, from the horses mouth, from analworld Thanks for all the comments.... I'm the owner of the boat in question. To clear up a few points: - The boat in question is exactly 13'6 beam - She has been through the lock in question (In both directions) several times throughout the years without incident. - The lock chamber itself is 13'10-13'11 - The engineers on site said that if we were 13'6 we should get through (We are) - We got stuck on the newly built brickwork on the lower exit which now measures a maximum of 13'5 - Whilst the published dimensions are NOW 13'1, this is a recent change (That we weren't aware of - nobody told us that they had narrowed the canal). It used to be 13'6. Basically, they changed the rules of the game mid-play. Edited 19 minutes ago by wiltshirewonderer So much for the witterings of the "fenders down cart apologist". Like I've mentioned previously, magnet man is a bullshit merchant, tells more stories than jackanory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 10:11:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 8, 2019 10:14:32 GMT
Here we go, from the horses mouth, from analworld Thanks for all the comments.... I'm the owner of the boat in question. To clear up a few points: - The boat in question is exactly 13'6 beam - She has been through the lock in question (In both directions) several times throughout the years without incident. - The lock chamber itself is 13'10-13'11 - The engineers on site said that if we were 13'6 we should get through (We are) - We got stuck on the newly built brickwork on the lower exit which now measures a maximum of 13'5 - Whilst the published dimensions are NOW 13'1, this is a recent change (That we weren't aware of - nobody told us that they had narrowed the canal). It used to be 13'6. Basically, they changed the rules of the game mid-play. Edited 19 minutes ago by wiltshirewonderer So much for the witterings of the "fenders down cart apologist". Like I've mentioned previously, magnet man is a bullshit merchant, tells more stories than jackanory. He will still argue that it was something behind the gates and the boater had left his fenders down.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 9, 2019 10:31:33 GMT
As pertinent to this topic, the full length of the K&A was granted ‘Cruiseway’ status commencing April 18 2011. At that date whatever the existing dimensions of the navigation were, those had to be at least maintained, enforceable by any member of the public applying to the High Court for an appropriate Order under s.106 of the Transport Act 1968.
The information provided by the Assets Management department of BW records the minimum breadth in 2009 for the Tyle Mill (lock 99) to Bath section, as 4.20 mtrs (at lock 41). That should be the minimum standard that since 2011 must be legally maintained throughout that section.
CaRT later issuing revised reduced dimensions therefore, is not merely legally ineffective, it is flaunting contempt for the statutes that bind them; should they wish to achieve reduction of their maintenance obligations, then as I have said previously, they are obliged to take formal steps through application to the Secretary of State.
It is a sad reflection on the current management that even BW with its poor track record had actually lobbied alongside the K&A Canal Trust for re-classification of the central sections of the K&A from ‘Remainder’ status. For its successor to reverse the trend under Parry & Co, is naturally to be expected, but is a tragedy nonetheless.
It would be most appropriate for the wide beamers suddenly prevented from access to take the necessary High Court action preemptively; certainly, at the least, if any adverse action was taken against them for alleged offences as per byelaws relating to vessels suitable for the waterway, then the best and most appropriate Defence would involve a counter-claim for failure to comply with Statute. The same applies to full length narrowboats respecting the Midlands, and L&L boats respecting the section between Wigan and Bingley – and indeed anywhere else where statutory dimensions are no longer being maintained.
Even if CaRT played their ‘get-out-of-gaol-free’ card in response, pleading poverty, that would at least raise the profile of the issue in public awareness, and hopefully engender sufficient protest and threat of withdrawing voluntary contributions to achieve a reversal of the trend.
There is a definite irony in the NABO article on the upgrade in status back in 2011 –
“BW regards the Kennet & Avon Canal as a blueprint for successful waterway restoration and regeneration. The restored canal managed by British Waterways, working with volunteers from the local community and local authorities, is one of the inspirations behind plans to establish a new ‘national trust’ for the waterways.”
One cannot even claim that BW hoodwinked government into believing that the system would benefit from the privatisation of the organisation; they candidly predicted deterioration for a numbers of years until ‘levelling off’. No such thing as a steady state of deterioration of course, but government were too keen to offload their responsibilities to pay sufficient attention, focussing instead on the ludicrously optimistic assurances that voluntary financial support would massively increase what had been BW’s income outwith government grants.
But despite the government’s failure back then, there is still a chance that they could be made to see the consequences of their error now.
|
|