David Cragg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I seem to remember that heading north on the GU at around B104 above > Braunston but before Wigrams that, according to his book, John Lilly in > Arthur got jammed in a bridge hole. After much use of chisels to free him > from the bridge - narrowed with BW concrete edging he had to retreat south. > Arthur was a Liverpool short boat - however wide they are. But is the > concrete still there?
Arthur did indeed have trouble, but that was for a couple of reasons. First, when the work was done in the 1930s to increase the gauge between Braunston and Brum, most of the bridges were left unchanged. Most had bridgeholes that were wide enough, but the arches of a number are still of a shape in which they curve inwards almost right from the water level which means that the gunwales of a full-beam craft can jam on them. Second, Arthur is a Leeds & Liverpool short boat, and they are slightly beamier than two breasted narrow boats, so you could argue it is actually bigger than the intended gauge anyway. Third, it isn't so much concrete, but the unfortunate practice in some cases of piling having been done through bridgeholes on the water side of the original bank protection, which of course narrows the water surface through the holes. As Mike reported, the GU company tested the results of its works in the 1930s, and decided that the upgraded route was not sufficient to pass craft of Grand Junction gauge on a commercial basis, and even craft of 3.8 m gauge were infeasible as they could not pass each other in a lot of places. So the current situation is that it is possible to get a craft up to about 4.3 m wide through, depending on the shape of the craft, but that is not guaranteed. BW has an set advisory (but not mandatory) maximum beam for the route of 3.8 m. However, just to confirm how things are, my barge is 3.8 m wide, but I could not get it through the bridge at the bottom of the Stockton flight because the brick arch on that bridge is starting to fail and is becoming slightly more m shaped than n shaped and my barge's cabin top is quite tall quite near the gunwale. Incidentally, BW's advisory maximum extends further south, but it entirely possible to get a full-GJ-gauge craft as far north as Braunston without significant trouble. Forget Berko. "Mike Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >But in practice it never really functioned as a barge canal for the whole of >its length. As early as 1805, when plans for the (Old) Grand Union (i.e. >Norton to Foxton) were being made, the Grand Junction Company successfully >blocked its being built to barge width, as they didn't want the problem of >barges off the Trent & the links throgh Leicestyer using Blisworth & >Braunston tunnels, necessitating one-way working. So the broad locks on the >northern sections of the GJC were used not by broad boats but by pairs of >narrowboats. This use of "buttying" long predates the introduction of motor >boats. Mike, IIRC this was Act 2 of the saga. I believe that in Act 1 the GJCC originally very much wanted a barge route to Brum and the Trent, but various other canal companies went ahead with building to narrow gauge. It was only when GJCC realised its hopes were unlikely to be achieved that it started worrying about one-way working through the tunnels. Of course, much later, it worked hard again to achieve broad gauge on the Leicester line (the channel and bridgeholes of which are all broad) by building the Foxton plane broad and planning to do the same at Watford, as these are the only narrow locks on that route. That's still a very good idea today. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
