In message
-sept
ember.org, at 02:54:30 on Sun, 3 Jan 2016, Recliner
remarked:

Canal boats can't hold as much
as a train, and I doubt they could even hold as much as a lorry.

Surely more than a lorry?

A narrowboat and butty carry about 52 tons between them.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
() wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 18:47:45 -0600,
wrote:

The traditional boundary between sea and waterway used to be the Pool
of London, between Tower and London Bridges.

For what purposes? BWB licences, for example.
BWB and its successor have never been involved with licences for the
Thames, over the years the non tidal bit has been controlled by the
Thames Conservancy, Thames Water,National Rivers and now the
Environmental Agency. You have to get a separate licence for the
Thames. quite straight forward to visit nowadays as since the BWB boat
safety examinations were brought in a few decades ago the Thames
operators will accept the BWB /CART certificate for a visit on the non
tidal section. PLA on the tidal bit may require a bit more like a vhf
radio to be available.
Before any old tub could be on a canal but not pass the Thames
requirements
Not sure, just the rule as I learned it as a nipper. I think the PLA's
authority doesn't extend upstream of London Bridge.

I don't know if they have always used the same boundary points but
pilots for ships have different areas over which their knowledge
applies . The PLA website at the moment states they have 12 who are
River Pilots working between Gravesend and London Bridge and in
addition 3 Bridge pilots who have the ability to Pilot up to Putney
Bridge. Others will be qualified to navigate the channels from the
open sea , some may be qualified for more than one zone.
That could be why you have heard London Bridge mentioned as a boundary
but it is not the PLA one,they have only employed the Pilots
themselves since the 1980's
The PLA covers the tidal Thames up to Teddington where there is a
marker post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_o...File:PLAmarker.
JPG

Thanks for putting me right.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message

-septembe
r.org, at 02:54:30 on Sun, 3 Jan 2016, Recliner
remarked:

Canal boats can't hold as much
as a train, and I doubt they could even hold as much as a lorry.

Surely more than a lorry?

A narrowboat and butty carry about 52 tons between them.

Shall we say 2 lorries?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

With the larger lorries in use today I think 3 could probably do the job of a pair of narrowboats. The lorries would each need a driver and could do London to Birmingham as an example in about half a day, so about 1.5 working days worth of labour. London to Birmingham by canal normally takes about six days and the pair of boats would be worked by a crew of two, so about twelve working days worth of labour.

'Fly' boats working through the night could do the trip in about 52 hours, but then you'd need extra crew to work the extra hours. Given that there are about 100 locks to work through between London and Birmingham this timing was pretty good.

You can walk from London to Birmingham along the towpath, as I have done many years ago when I had better legs, in about the same time as it takes by normal boats.

About the only way to get the costs down would be much larger craft, which would need much bigger canals.

On 03.01.16 17:18, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 08:41:28 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 02:54:30 on Sun, 3 Jan 2016, Recliner
remarked:

Canal boats can't hold as much
as a train, and I doubt they could even hold as much as a lorry.

Surely more than a lorry?

A narrowboat and butty carry about 52 tons between them.

Usually a Motor and Butty would have a minimum of two working it
,often the boatmens wife so that is 26 tons per person, Far less than
most lorries. It isn't just a problem for the small dimensioned
canals of most of the British interconnected system the small gauge
being a result of available water supplies. When I first got
interested into Canals commercial traffic on the UK system had albeit
finished except for the odd hobby operation and the Roses Lime juice
run which finished in 1981, so we looked a little in envy at the
Peniches in France which were still earning their keep on waterways
many of which conformed to the Freycinet standard that the French
Government imposed in the1890's. This standard allows vessels of a
size that will carry around 300 Tonnes. Best part of 45 years later
even those canals are now carrying a fraction of the traffic they once
did unable to compete with road. Canals like railways especially
larger size waterways have staff off the vehicle to pay as well,Lock
keepers,Bridge operators ,dredger crews etc etc. and then you have
transshipment costs.
Inland Waterways really only start to become economic with bulk loads
in vessels carrying 1000's rather than 100's of tonnes. You see them
on the Continent because such craft can use Rivers like the Rhine or
the Seine which penetrate the hinterlands for far greater distances
that we have available in the UK. Some modern (ised) really large
artificial navigations do exist but really work in conjunction with
the rivers such as the Rhine Danube Canal finally finished in the
1990's after 30 years of construction. Even than has seen a drop in
traffic .
We have a bit of a romantic notion with canals in the UK
gaily painted boats crewed by a family living on them, the reality
that with the coming of the railways most canal boatmens wages dropped
so much that they could no longer afford to rent a house for the
family so that family had to cram in a small cramped cabin in not
ideal living conditions. Before then boats were operated by two paid
males though one was often just in their teens.
And our small canals are "pretty" , building something that could
carry economic sized vessels would involve more disruption than HS2 or
a Motorway. Not that we have enough water for one any way. The
Continent have the Alps to gather theirs.

G.Harman


I wasn't talking about building anything new, rather than using the
existing infrastructure like the Grand Union or Caledonian.

It would not surprise me if a couple of hipsters would try to use the
canal to ship goods to their start up business to show how
environmentally friendly they are and thus better market themselves as
well as to justify their extortionate prices.

There was traffic on the Grand Union from 2003 shipping gravel from a pit near Denham to a depot at Stockley Park. I believe that the pit is now worked out and the traffic has ceased.

There is still barge traffic on the Thames tideway delivering aggregates but the wharfs are tidal.

In the rest of the country there are still deliveries to wharfs on the lower part of the Manchester Ship Canal. I think that there is still some bulk traffic onto the various tributaries of the Humber which can take 480 tonne capacity barges.

In article ,
() wrote:

With the larger lorries in use today I think 3 could probably do the
job of a pair of narrowboats. The lorries would each need a driver
and could do London to Birmingham as an example in about half a day,
so about 1.5 working days worth of labour. London to Birmingham by
canal normally takes about six days and the pair of boats would be
worked by a crew of two, so about twelve working days worth of labour.

'Fly' boats working through the night could do the trip in about 52
hours, but then you'd need extra crew to work the extra hours. Given
that there are about 100 locks to work through between London and
Birmingham this timing was pretty good.

You can walk from London to Birmingham along the towpath, as I have
done many years ago when I had better legs, in about the same time as
it takes by normal boats.

About the only way to get the costs down would be much larger craft,
which would need much bigger canals.

You're obsessed with narrow boats again. This thread was about barges and
lighters on the Thames.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 03/01/2016 22:02, wrote:
In article ,
() wrote:

Snipped vaguely interesting bit on boats

You're obsessed with narrow boats again. This thread was about barges and
lighters on the Thames.


And you are obsessed with Cambridge, in particular the taxi service
therein (and yes I know it's not meant to be called a taxi service), but
we have to put up with it...

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 09:23:02 -0800 (PST)
wrote:
'Fly' boats working through the night could do the trip in about 52 hours, =
but then you'd need extra crew to work the extra hours. Given that there a=
re about 100 locks to work through between London and Birmingham this timin=
g was pretty good.

You can walk from London to Birmingham along the towpath, as I have done ma=
ny years ago when I had better legs, in about the same time as it takes by =
normal boats.

About the only way to get the costs down would be much larger craft, which =
would need much bigger canals.

The French managed it 100 years before our canals were even started. We always
do build too small in this country presumably because the upfront costs are
always considered more important that the long term revenue.

--
Spud

In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

On 03/01/2016 22:02, wrote:
In article ,
() wrote:

Snipped vaguely interesting bit on boats

You're obsessed with narrow boats again. This thread was about barges
and lighters on the Thames.

And you are obsessed with Cambridge, in particular the taxi service
therein (and yes I know it's not meant to be called a taxi service),
but we have to put up with it...

Eh? We have no freight traffic to speak of on the Cam.

--
Colin Rosenstiel