Kennet & Avon depth
A Stott
wrote:
>I notice that although the Kennet and Avon canal can take boats of up to
>21.95m, with a beam of 4.18m, it only allows a draft of 1.07m. Is this
>because it needs to be dredged, or is it because the locks themselves are
>the limit?
Where on earth did you notice that?
The correct figures are:
Beam 4.3 m (the lower number was temporary, as a result of a lock
wall moving at Foxhangers, now fixed)
Draft 1.2 m (my barge, drawing ~1.1m went through with no problems
except rubbing the bottom in the Bath-Bradford pound. Since then, the
water level on that pound has been raised 15 cm. Draft would be even
greater, except that the concrete in the Bath-Bradford pound was put
in too shallow, and the pound is being maintained 25 cm below the
original weir level as well. The sills are about 1.4 m down. The
channel (everywhere) was originally 1.8 m deep.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
Phone +44-7956-299966
Neil Arlidge
"Marc Donovan" <don...@dnrc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3c1e13a6.7013404@localhost...
> I notice that although the Kennet and Avon canal can take boats of up to
> 21.95m, with a beam of 4.18m, it only allows a draft of 1.07m. Is this
> because it needs to be dredged, or is it because the locks themselves are
> the limit?
Nononono!....it can't possibly need dredging, BW have just had 25Million
Squids to spend on it! ;-)
--
Neil Arlidge, nb Earnest - Commode D'Or © TNC on Tour.
Follow the travels of Neil and the TNC in hire-boats, Beatty and Earnest at
http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk
See nb Earnest being built at http://www.nbearnest.co.uk
See the newsgroups photo call at
http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk/Photocall.html
Ian Clarke
> Ta, thanks for that. Is the air draft figure correct at 2.29m?
>
Is this a general bridge height, or an isolated one-off?
IanC
A Stott
wrote:
>st...@enable.telinco.com (A Stott) said:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:00:00 GMT, don...@dnrc.co.uk (Marc Donovan)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I notice that although the Kennet and Avon canal can take boats of up to
>>>21.95m, with a beam of 4.18m, it only allows a draft of 1.07m. Is this
>>>because it needs to be dredged, or is it because the locks themselves are
>>>the limit?
The dredging on much of the K&A was *not* down to original profile,
but to a lesser standard agreed under the grant scheme before the BW
original standard commitment was made. It certainly is not 1.8 m deep
in most dredged places.
>>
>>Where on earth did you notice that?
>
>http://www.canals.com/canaldatmet.htm
Don't believe everything you read. This sounds like a repeat of an
earlier "official" (therefore clearly to be questioned) set of
dimensions given by BW.
>
>>The correct figures are:
>>
>>Beam 4.3 m (the lower number was temporary, as a result of a lock
>>wall moving at Foxhangers, now fixed)
>>
>>Draft 1.2 m (my barge, drawing ~1.1m went through with no problems
>
>Ta, thanks for that. Is the air draft figure correct at 2.29m?
I think nearer 2.4 m. The Newbury Parkway (temporary) bridge was 2.1
m, and has been raised by, I think, over 30 cm. There is a new(ish,
probably 30 years old at least) flat bridge near Hilperton which I
think is now the lowest. Anyone have exact info on this point?
>
>Hmm, 1.2m seems to be what most 18 to 20m barges I've seen are pulling.
>Could it be that the site above is giving the minimum levels that are
>guaranteed, and if it's higher you're lucky? Or does the management of the
>canals guarantee anything about anything, and a person could end up stuck
>somewhere because someone arbitrarily decided to reduce the levels by 20cm
>on a particular stretch?
The people who guarantee depth will probably also tell you the cheque
is in the mail.
>
>What size/type barge do you have, anyway?
21.3 m X 3.8 m X 1.1 m (on the skeg) X 2.1 m.
Mike Stevens
news:3c164744...@news.uk.worldonline.com...
> The dredging on much of the K&A was *not* down to original profile,
> but to a lesser standard agreed under the grant scheme before the BW
> original standard commitment was made. It certainly is not 1.8 m deep
> in most dredged places.
Back in 1994 Wendy & I cruised the whole length of the K&A. At that time
the London Canal Museum had just been donated a tug which was located
somewhere at the western end of the canal and were considering whether to
bring it back to London by water or by road. They were concerned about the
draught, especially through the concrete-lined section around Limpley Stoke
and asked us to take some measurements on that section. So we probed with a
boat-pole at a considerable number of places on that stretch. Our log
records "Seems OK: we're getting a consistent 4'6" (1.38m) less a few
inches of silt. One local boater warned us of places where lumps of stone
have fallen in, creating problems for deep-draft boats."
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat "Felis Catus II"
Old grammarians never die, they simply parse away.
Web site http://www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Michael Cobb
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:00:00 GMT, don...@dnrc.co.uk (Marc Donovan)
> wrote:
>
> >I notice that although the Kennet and Avon canal can take boats of up to
> >21.95m, with a beam of 4.18m, it only allows a draft of 1.07m. Is this
> >because it needs to be dredged, or is it because the locks themselves are
> >the limit?
>
> Where on earth did you notice that?
>
> Draft 1.2 m (my barge, drawing ~1.1m went through with no problems
> except rubbing the bottom in the Bath-Bradford pound. Since then, the
> water level on that pound has been raised 15 cm. Draft would be even
> greater, except that the concrete in the Bath-Bradford pound was put
> in too shallow, and the pound is being maintained 25 cm below the
> original weir level as well. The sills are about 1.4 m down. The
> channel (everywhere) was originally 1.8 m deep.
When it was first opened there was a problem at Bulls lock just outside
Newbury. The river crosses at the bottom of the lock and a weir that
maintained the level had not been restored. There were therefore problems
getting over the bottom cill going upstream. At that time the draft would
normally be under a metre.
Michael Cobb
nb Touch and Tell
Greg Chapman
> For this stuff I'm relying on the
> information in http://www.canals.com/canaldatmet.htm, which was
compiled by
> John Russell [waterman(at)vossnet.co.uk]
You could also take a look at http://www.waterwaysguides.co.uk
Information that is published there is submitted by boaters actually
using the waterways, rather than from official figures.
Not that I promise answers to your particular questions.
--
Greg
http://www.waterwaysguides.co.uk
(for updates to Nicholson, Imray and (coming soon) Pearson Guides)
Alex / Mr R@t - n23 reading / [J10] [2.33za]
> I notice that although the Kennet and Avon canal can take boats of up to
> 21.95m, with a beam of 4.18m, it only allows a draft of 1.07m. Is this
Excuse my ignorance here - i'm a newbie when it comes to boats etc but as
you may guess I have lived around the Kennet area for some time now.
Is the draft that bit of the boat that goes *below* the water?
AFAIK the channel of the Kennet in Reading is *far* deeper than 1.07m [the
waters here are a popular place for suicides to end it all] but is that
because the Kennet there is a proper *river* and the *canal* bit actually
starts a bit further upstream at Newbury?
Is there an official definition of the difference between a river and a
canal?
Alex
--
Alex / Mr R@t - netw0rk 23 - reading free party portal
"rats ate my water pipe". [genuine post, from news:uk.d-i-y]
correct e:mail is : <golf><romeo><tango>23<AT>ratcotel<DOT>net
network23 reading: http://www.ratsnest23.org
Alex / Mr R@t - n23 reading / [J10] [2.33za]
> >AFAIK the channel of the Kennet in Reading is *far* deeper than 1.07m
>
> Yes, but we're talking about the minimum draft along the *entire* Kennet
> and Avon canal, which goes from Reading to Bristol, passing through
Newbury
> and Bath on the way. Individual sections will have a draft greater or
equal
> to the "minimum draft" of course.
Aha - its getting clearer [sort of]. So the Kennet and Avon Canal is the
*whole lot*, starting where it joins the Thames at the East of Reading all
the way up to Bristol, including what many Redingensians call the *River*
Kennet, of which the bits that flow through our town/city are certainly deep
and fast flowing...., although I guess this is a "canalised" river...
Thanks for your help, you are helping explain stuff I have been wondering
about since I was very young!
Mike Stevens
in message news:%OnS7.2777$pb4.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "Marc Donovan" <don...@dnrc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3c2cf898.14216552@localhost...
>
> > >AFAIK the channel of the Kennet in Reading is *far* deeper than 1.07m
> >
> > Yes, but we're talking about the minimum draft along the *entire* Kennet
> > and Avon canal, which goes from Reading to Bristol, passing through
> Newbury
> > and Bath on the way. Individual sections will have a draft greater or
> equal
> > to the "minimum draft" of course.
>
> Aha - its getting clearer [sort of]. So the Kennet and Avon Canal is the
> *whole lot*, starting where it joins the Thames at the East of Reading all
> the way up to Bristol, including what many Redingensians call the *River*
> Kennet, of which the bits that flow through our town/city are certainly
deep
> and fast flowing...., although I guess this is a "canalised" river...
In reality it's a bit more complicated than that. Originally there were two
natural rivers, the Kennet and the (Bristol) Avon. The Avon was tidal to
somewhere above Bristol and navigated to there. But further upstream on the
Avon, and the whole of the Kennet, suffered from the usual problems that
made rivers difficult to navigate - in short not enough water at some
times and places and too much at others.
Then in the middle-18th Century, parts of the rivers were improved to allow
navigation, by putting in weirs to control the water levels and locks to
take the boats past the weirs. This activity created the Avon Navigation
from Bristol to Bath and the Kennet Navigation from Reading to Newbury. In
towns, rivers, whether navigable or not, tended to get confined between
solid embankments to make the distinction between land and water a clear one
and to (try to) keep each in its proper place. This had the effect of
making the river narrower and therefore deeper and faster. The bit of the
Kennet through Reading which is know as Brewery Gut is a notable example of
this.
Next, in the closing years of the 18th Century, it was decided to build a
canal (originally proposed as the "Western Canal" but later officially named
the "Kennet and Avon Canal") connecting the two. This was an artificial
waterway dependent for its water supply on reservoirs and pumps. In fact
the transition at Newbury from the river navigation to the canal wasn't at
all an abrupt one, as the Kennet navigation had been improved on a number of
occasions by inserting artificial canal-like sections to shorten the course
and make it deeper, and the first bit of the canal did make use of the river
as its channel for part of the way. So as you go from a few miles
downstream of Newbury to some way upstream of Hungerford you start in a
"pure" river navigation, and the canally bits gradually increase as a
proportion of the total until you realise you're now on a "pure" canal. The
transition from river to canal at Newbury is now of very little significance
except to historians. The change at the other is much more sudden as you go
down the "pure canal" Widcombe Locks, under a very "canally" bridge and
arrive suddenly on the broad, majestic waters of the Avon a little way below
the famous Pulteney Weir.
The Kennet Navigation, the Avon Navigation and the Kennet and Avon Canal
were built and operated by three entirely separate (but overlapping)
companies of proprietors, but over time the canal company bought out the
other two, so that the whole route from Reading to Bristol (actually to
Hanham, the last lock on the Avon Navigation just outside Bristol) came
under the same ownership, and the name of the canal came to be applied to
the whole lot.
Nowadays people aren't very consistent in using the names. Some people
refer to the whole thing as the K&A, other stick to the original names of
the three section and still others jump happily from one usage to the other.
speedy2
The thing no-one seems to have mentioned/remembered is that last winter, the
Limpley Stoke section was completely drained, the section from Claverton to
Bath being already dry with the relining operation, and the opportunity was
taken to raise the water level throughout from Bradford to Bath by 6". The
only stretch left in water was Dundas footbridg to Claverton, and we all had
to take our boats from the moorings at Dundas etc, to this stretch, while
they did the work. This happened just as F&M was hitting, so we we had to
leave our boats out till clearance was given in the Spring. Tim Wheeldon's
moorings on the Somersteshire Coal Canal had to have the banks raised too,
or the water would have overflowed back into the valley!
So now the whole Bradford to Bath stretch through the valley is at long last
deep enough for us at least not to scrape the bottom - and our bottom is
vee-shaped, and we draw 14" ! We always scraped at the towpath edge when
tying up in the Limpley Stoke to Avoncliff concrete-bottomed stretch :(
Flat bottomed boats must have really suffered...
Dave. Hailey Wood, Dundas.