'Splash' gave an interesting comment last week after the tragedy on Canaltime boat Olesea (127) at Alrewas on August 1st.
He points out that Canaltime boats have no front exit, so when you are offloading your crew, you usually have to bring the stern in to the bank, which often means reversing in.
The MAIB report on the accident (pdf) described the sequence of events, which included reversing the boat in so that someone could jump off to secure the boat. And in reversing to allow someone to jump off with the rope, the steerer's fate was sealed.
The report was quick to jump to a conclusion (pardon the unfortunate turn of phrase) about safety. It focused on the height of the taffrail at the back and the amount of training the crew receive. It never mentioned the lack of a forward exit, or 'well deck'.
I'm not sure why Canaltime boats have no forward exit, but I'd heard somewhere that they originally thought it was a safety feature - perhaps that everyone could be safely at the back where the steerer (or 'helmsman', as the MAIB report mistakenly calls him) can keep an eye on them.
I'd argue that without a conventional front exit, Canaltime boats are less safe than conventionl hire boats. This is because it's human nature for the kids to want to sit at the front, and they end up sitting where no one can see or get to them. And they do. They always do. I've rarely seen a Canaltime boat with kids that doesn't have them festooning the bow.
So much for the MAIB inspector's report.

Very interesting series of comments. I had not heard of this [Canaltime] accident before but spent a week on one of these boats about four/five years ago and was very unhappy about the lack of forward access.
I have been on several other canal holidays and when booking via RCI I always stipulate "no Canaltime boats" and make a point of my belief that they are not safe.
Not only embark/disembark, but having to always use the gunwales during cruising, and when the aft table is raised anyone inside is impeded in getting out. Plus there is nowhere to sit or do any of the daily chores and see the scenery pass by.
I did contact Canaltime after the first holiday to see if they were going to change this ridiculous situation, and was treated in a very offhand manner-: that they knew more than I did, that it was to stop bows being flooded in locks, and they were right, so there!
There are always weeks available via RCI even high summer when the rest of the UK is booked solid. Either they change or go under, preferebly with no-one aboard.
Posted by: Tina | Wednesday, 10 January 2007 at 12:28 PM
As a further on from my last comment..
It would be interesting to email MAIB and see what they have to say about the bow situation..
Could it be that CanalTime somehow made sure that they didn't mention it?
Speculation.. yes probably.. but anything is possible!
Posted by: Sam | Sunday, 05 November 2006 at 09:43 PM
Hi Andrew.. nice to see you picked up on the point.. I was quite suprised that it wasn't covered.. especially when they said about the boat having to reverse to drop crew off at the stern.. just strikes me as a bit 'hard' - especially fo hirers who may not have much expereince.
My family always say when we pass one of their boats.. 'it's an accident waiting to happen'..
Posted by: Splash - (Sam) | Sunday, 05 November 2006 at 12:23 PM
Margaret, I'm being a curmugeonly pedant. The man who was in charge of a narrow boat in the old working days was normally called a 'steerer', not a 'helmsman'. I'm not sure if the latter word is used on rivers, but it's a 'steerer' on canals.
I emphasised the point in order to question if a 'marine accident' team really had the right credentials to investigate a narrowboat accident. If they get this point wrong, are there other aspects they might have overlooked?
'Splash' makes a very interesting point, which is not covered or mentioned in the official report.
Posted by: Andrew Denny | Friday, 03 November 2006 at 01:18 AM
You write:
"perhaps that everyone could be safely at the back where the steerer (or 'helmsman', as the MAIB report mistakenly calls him) can keep an eye on them."
What is wrong with the term 'helmsman'?
The OED gives the definition of a 'helm' as, 'the tiller or wheel by which the rudder is controlled'.
Does this term 'helmsman' only apply on sea-going craft?
Marg
Posted by: Marg Muir | Friday, 03 November 2006 at 12:21 AM
I understood that the decision to not have front doors on Canaltime craft was to reduce the possibility of sinking them through using gate paddles too early.
Graham
Posted by: Graham | Thursday, 02 November 2006 at 09:00 AM