Talk:Widebeam

Measurements[edit]

Copied from Template talk:Convert#Feet and Inches or Feet and a decimal

For an subject whose roots are in the 18th or 19th century and using definitions based in imperial units, would it not make more sense to use imperial first and add the metric in parenthesis? {{convert|7|ft|1|in|m}} => 7 feet 1 inch (2.16 m) looks better IMHO. I know we are all being forced into SI these days, but this is a historic topic, not 21st C research! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boaters tend to measure their boats in feet and travel by the mile (the the website canalplan.uk goes one further and uses miles and furlongs). However the Canal and River Trust (licensing authority) uses metric in their public communications (the CRT people who actually build the lock gates measure, and talk, imperial), consequently the CRT publish measurements in metric, for example on the new licences the CRT website states 'In addition to length-based pricing, from April 2020 two additional pricing bands for boat widths over 2.16 to 3.24m (7ft 1” to 10ft 7¾”) and those over 3.24m width (10ft 7¾”) will be introduced.' Similarly the CRT publish metric for the measurements of the canals. So it makes for a more accurate Wikipedia article on canal boat sizes to to use metric, particularly as a half inch width can mean the difference between a boat fitting or not fitting into a lock, besides widebeams are a relatively new addition to British waterways and have, as the CRT acknowledge become popular in London due to the price of "bricks and mortar",[1] and it is CRT sources I have used to construct the article. Oddly (I think) many widebeams are being built in Poland and then shipped to the UK.

Boaters use millimetre measurements to describe the thickness steel in a boat but talk about lengths in feet. I know most people are perplexed by British people being bi-measurement—who else buys petrol in litres and measure engine sizes in ccs and thinks "miles per [imperial] gallon" and horsepower, goes to a pub and buys whisky in mLs and beer in pints—but this has been going on in Britain since the 1960s. -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about mm steel, I suspect that is relatively recent - it certainly used to be fractional inches in the '70s. More to the point, the 1931 modernisation of the GU specifically set the locks at a nominal 14' to permit a narrowboat pair or a widebeam boat, so perhaps "relatively new addition" is a little bit dubious. Earlier, of course, canals like the K&A or L&L were widebeam. The adoption of metric by the CRT for public communications will be PC, as you say the ones who do the work still use the traditional units. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Thank you for your edit on 11 April 2020 that added a history section, however user:Arrivisto you provided no sources for any on the information you added. As the rest of the article is fully cited, I am CHALLENGING you to provide citations in the near future for the text you added, because I will remove any text that is not supported by citations. Also as the rest of the article is in metric measurements with imperial measurements in brackets, please follow that style (see WP:UNIT); and it is "14 ft" not 14' (WP:UNITSYMBOLS § Specific units). -- PBS (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:PBS "Also as the rest of the article is in metric measurements with imperial measurements in brackets, please follow that style". I beg to differ! In "Narrow Boats: Care & Maintenance" 1995 by Nick Billingham (then technical editor of "Canal & Riverboat" magazine), he writes (page 13)"boating is one of the few fields of modern technology that seems to ignore metric units almost completely; the steel plate thickness is the only thing regularly measured in metric, in millimetres. Boats continue to be measured in feet & inches, and tanks hold gallons. Ask most boaters what a 15-metre long boat looks like, and you'll get blank stares. Even the most modern diesel engines, awash with metric-sized bolts, are fitted with gearboxes that have AF, Whitworth or UNC bolts ..." (etc!). It seems I am the only one marching in step, and perhaps the entire article needs to use the measures that were current in the 1750s when the English canals were first created. No doubt you will be able to assist in this. I propose to add some citations shortly. Arrivisto (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:PBS You may have noticed that I have continued to develop this article, and have done my best to make it more readable and informative. Further to your earlier comments, perhaps you might indulge me by retaining only imperial measurements (feet) in the History paragraph, while using converted metric dimensions elswhere? Arrivisto (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better to keep consistency in the presentation of lengths throughout the article particularly as many readers will have no idea how long a 57 foot boat is because they think in metres (it is telling that with the current British lockdown (or lockup) everyone in the media and government[s] in Britain have been talking about "two metres" and not "two yards" or "six feet" social distancing). -- PBS (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely many readers will have no idea what a 17.4 m boat looks like. It must be about 17 yards, so call it 51'? You need to keep the conversions in, ideally the original measurement first followed by the converted form. As regards distancing - its a fathom apart. :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"many readers will have no idea what a 17.4 m" which is the reason for providing the measurement in feet in brackets immediately following the metric length. -- PBS (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ask any UK canal boater "What is the longest a narrowboat may be" and you will invariablyget the answer "72 feer". Ask again what the optimum length is to navigate the majority of canals, and you will get the answer "57 (or 58) feet". Ask why a widebeam may not negotiate narrow canals, and you will get the answer, "Because only a a 6'10" narrowboat may fit into a narrow lock". QED! I am not a luddite, and I would very much like the UK to adopt full metrication;but in ssme things (pints of beer, people's height and weights, boat lengths), people persist in thinking in imperial terms. If one must have metric equivalents on this page, I suppose that's fine; but put feet first, and metres in brackets afterwards. Arrivisto (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see us disagreeing that we should follow the consistency rule for the article. Three points:

The article is written for the general reader not a canal boater.
The CRT uses metric in its publications and inevitably this article uses CRT sources.
Widebeams (as a type of wide narrowboat) as a separate vessel category to a barge is a relatively new concept and has only become popular (numerous) in the 21st century and more so the last decade.

If the CRT used imperial measurements than I too would lean towards using imperial first. However as widebeam is defined by the CRT in metres and the dimension restrictions of navigations are also given in metric by the CRT, I do not agree that the article should be inverted to place imperial measurements first with metric measurements second. -- PBS (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

The citation style of this article is WP:CITESHORT using {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} etc where appropriate.

@user:Arrivisto I have left some of the citations you have provided as long inline citations along with the text that they support, pleas provide full citations where I have added "^{[full citation needed]}". One this is done if you are uncomfortable with citation templates I will convert them (full citations include author, year, title [edition], location, publisher, ISBN if it exits and the page range see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Books).

I have also marked two citations with "^{[unreliable source?]}". Here are copies for further discussion:

"The Pros And Cons Of Buying A Widebeam Boat". Whilton Marina. 26 August 2014. Retrieved 18 May 2020. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
"March of the Widebeams". Canal World. 1 May 2018.

They were added to support the sentence:

Most leisure users on the canals use narrowboats, and there is a certain amount of resentment shown by some narrowboaters (the "anti widebeam brigade")

They are Wikipedia unreliable sources (see WP:SOURCE).
They do not support the content of the sentence "Most leisure users on the canals use narrowboats" (You need a reliable sources such as CRT licence numbers or a published survey to prove that) and "there is a certain amount of resentment shown by some narrowboaters" (this also needs a reliable source that defines what "some" are, as "some" could be as few as two and as many as 30% or so of those who own or operate a narrowboat. Without a reference to a quantity "some" falls foul of WP:WEASEL).

-- PBS (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the sentence that starts "Most leisure users on the canals use narrowboats" along with the unreliable citations that supported it. -- PBS (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arches and clearence[edit]

The article currently states "a further restriction is that, if a cruising widebeam is to negotiate bridges and tunnels, its air draft must allow adequate clearance."

Most narrowboat sides slope slightly inwards from gunwale. I presume this is so the top edge of the roof does not hit the arch of a bridge (because if the bridge had straight sides (like a lock) there would be no need for this feature).

I can see that in certain circumstances that an arch might be a problem, forcing widebeams to have a lower roof (than a narrowboat), but given that the bridges and tunnels on a navigation were designed to take boats of the same width as the locks, presumably they arch in such a way that they will accommodate wide and narrow boats of the same height. Are there any documented cases where this is not true? -- PBS (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to check on a case-by-case basis. Some of the later widening schemes were to allow a narrow pair to breast up in a lock and thereby save time. Bridges and particularly tunnels are hideously expensive to change, so might not be to the full 14' gauge. For instance the GU from Braunston to Birmingham was improved 1931-1934 to accommodate 12'6" width boats, but 14' in the locks. BTW, the sloping inwards is called "tumblehome". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the name Tumblehome#In narrowboat design. As to the text it is rather the other way around. If we add statements such as that highlighted in green then we need a source to support it (that the heigh of widebeams need to be lower than narrowboats on certain canals). -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]