"Trevor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Well, I guess the first important question has to be this then - is there a >map / schematic of the UK river and canal system available which includes >the 'pinch spots' that would preclude further passage?
There are several that show which routes are narrow gauge and which are wider gauge (there are several wider gauges). To summarise brutally, there are four regional networks of waterways which accept a broad craft, among which broad craft cannot navigate. They are: - The Broads, which is unconnected navigationally to the rest of the UK network. Too bad, as to create a waterway between the Little Ouse and the Waveney would be easy. So easy that it was first suggested in the 1640s, but so far has not been accepted as financially feasible. - The North, which contains waterways to Nantwich, Kendal (eventually), and Market Harboro. Think of it (not quite correctly) as the watersheds of the Trent, Yorkshire Ouse, and Mersey. - The Fens, which is based on the watersheds of the Great Ouse and Nene, but which may before too long have broad waterway connections to the South and the North regions (projects to create these are very active). - The South, which is based on the watersheds of the Severn and Thames. The North and the South have a narrow-beam navigation between them, i.e. the summit of the Leicester line of the Grand Union canal. This canal is actually broad beam, but the lock flights at its ends (Foxton and Watford) are narrow. At Foxton, the Foxton Pland, a broad lift, is moving slowly towards restoration. At Watford, a dry-cradle broad lift would be relatively inexpensive to build. The South and Fens are joined navigationally by a short narrow canal, the Northampton arm of the Grand Union. This could be bypassed at reasonable cost by a vertical lift and short new canal at Weedon. >I'd first read this as 'Broads' craft LOL - which at around 12ft beam >certainly do have significantly more living space per metre! I'd suspect >that they would be quite restricted though and the idea of being squashed >between staithe and probably ten tons plus of iron travelling at 4MPH, >whilst in a plastic hull, really didn't bear thinking about :-( Such a damaging collision *very* seldom happens. You can infer this from all the decades-old plastic craft around. However, it is true that steel craft are stronger than plastic ones, which the owner of a steel one can take comfort from when he is cuddling up to a hundred-of-tonnes commercial in a Belgian lock. >Cruising Europe is a dream that will probably never come to fruition Er, UK is part of Europe. So you are already planning to do this. > - for many reasons, the least of which would have to include the total > isolation >from the rest of the family Think "mobile broadband", which also gives you inexpensive phone calls via Skype. With the speed of trains through the Tunnel, and the inexpensive of Ryanair, much of mainland Europe is actually no farther away functionally than many parts of UK. >Several years ago I remember seeing a narrowboat crossing the channel under >its own power, with an escort I might add! The skipper was Chris Coburn, who has a habit of such trips (he has been around the west of Wales too, for example). His narrow boat is *very* specially prepared. His escort was a barge, btw. Such trips should *never* be attempted with a standard narrow boat. If you really have to take such a craft to the other side of the channel, put it on a truck. But why would you want to have one in mainland Europe? Despite what some people will tell you, they really are *not* suitable for the mainland waterways. >the wakes from passing ships were 'on occasion rather more frightening than >the sea state'! Having done the crossing several times in my barge, I fully concur. Those ferries are dangerous, and their behaviour suggests, er, a degree of arrogance. >I do not now remember whether it was the same boat that then authored >several articles, mainly in the 'small boat' magazines, about managing on >the larger French canals - many of which still have quite a lot of >commercial traffic, albeit in much larger barges and strings; they noted >that many of the (free) town quays had bollards and piles 'rather too far >apart for comfort' IRC, plus either non-existent or non-policed speed limits >- great fun if you were looking for a quiet night in with a glass or three >of red :-) Having cruised quite a bit in France, I can say that I managed to find quiet moorings well over 95% of the time, and that many communities now have (usually free) moorings for visiting pleasure craft (some even provide free electricity). Inland cruising on the other side of the Channel is generally wonderful. For example, my last trip there included going up the Meuse from Namur to the top in central France. It is very beautiful (rocky gorges, etc,), and historic (many interesting fortifications, etc., as this part of the world has been fought over for millenia, and there are the sad memorials at Verdun). And you get to stop at Dinant (Belgium), which will never let you forget that it is the birthplace of Adolph Sax (who invented the saxophone, among other instruments). Levity aside, being the owner of a (3.8 m wide) barge based in the South, I can assure you that it provides much potential for cruising and a very comfortable living environment. Do give such a craft a thought. Adrian . Adrian Stott 07956-299966
