Leaderboard

Onionbargee has raised a number of points in various posts, not all of which have been fully answered, mainly because some research was necessary. Regarding the Harleyford Aggregates / Hanson gravel contract, Denham to West Drayton, onionbargee suggested that the carriage rate barely covered the costs in the case of the narrow boats. I have spoken to the operator (Phoenix Canal Carriers) who is happy for me to pass on some comments. Firstly the rate for the carriage and for discharge was a confidential, commercial matter between BW, the contractor and the narrow boat operator and was not divulged to anyone. So onionbargee's comment must have been made on the basis of third party information or conjecture / rumour. Either way Phoenix people say they were happy with the rate which provided enough return to cover costs and also sufficint income as anticipated. Pheonix would put a boat or boats back on the job if it were to re-start. Secondly, the conveyor was provided with the aid of a Freight Facility Grant from the DfT. This grant was based on the value of lorry miles saved by not going through congested areas as presviously stated. Today, while FFGs are not now available (except in Scotland) an operating grant is (Modal Shift Revenue Support) and this applies to rail and water. As Laurence says the conveyor could be put back to working order if needs be - but that would need Hanson to take the initiative, which they hopefully will when their own resources are fully stretched again. The barges were designed by and built for BW and were not grant aided. They were then owned and operated by Land & Water as part of its larger contract with BW. It was the intention that at the end of the contract they would pass back into the maintenance fleet and the waterway manager tells me they are used as required on the lower part of the River Lee as part of CRT's weed management. As Laurence comments the design was not particularly successful though BW were to be applauded for 'thinking outside the box' even so. They did use water ballast as stated. With regard to waterway maintenance most is done 'in house' and lock repairs and gate replacement (200 pairs a year on average) is a good example - a huge task. In house work includes monthly inspection, Construction (scheduled work), Customer Operations - calls to defects (known as 'notifications'), water control, and planned preventative maintenance. Plant and equipment and large tools are hired in as this has several advantages including cost saving and removes the need for tool maintenance 'in house'. Each waterway manager has an annual budget of about £8 million and about 80 staff of whom 75% are 'bank staff'. The Trust has taken on 22 new apprentices – 2 in each of the 11 waterways areas; they are mainly in the joinery and bricklaying trades and will help keep the heritage skills on the waterways alive. An exception to this is major (long line) dredging which is managed and carried out by contractors (Land & Water currently) though some waterway managers have their own in house dredging teams for spot dredging - this is the case with West Midlands and the North East. A very considerable increase in dredging (including spot dredging) is planned. The other other large contracted out works include vegetation management, reservoir refurbishment and maintenance, and major repairs etc. I hope that is of interest. Kind regards David L (NE Waterway Partnership).

Your last comment seems to be implying it was me despite my post. I know full well I closed every lock. I am human, I may have missed one just the same as you might, but I can not recall doing so. Let's look at it from a different point of view. You say there were a couple of pounds emptied and as you say it was "local yoof" I assume you are not blaming me for that too. To empty the pounds I guess some of the paddles were opened by the local yoof, which given that even if the vandal locks were left open would still require a windlass of equivalent tool, therefore it must have been a premeditated act of ill intention. If they were locals arriving with the tools to open the paddles it is highly likely they would have the tools to open the vandal locks as well, afterall they are hardly a sophisticated key. I would point out that I am a single hander and you will have realised that I stopped and closed all the gates after leaving, so why would I find it too much effort to push the locks back up after I have closed the paddles. As you say, it's not difficult. Given my experience with this post I would like to make a general point to users of this forum. I have read comments on other topic encouraging the original poster to name and shame. Now I know this did not happen here and I thank the OP for that, but I would ask you to refrain from doing so as it is possible things may not always appear as they first seem to you, and you may end up accusing innocent person. In this case I have named myself because I know I was that boat, but I also know I closed those vandal locks.

I thought our reps had achieved something. They agreed the mooring strategy . The IWA is happy with it. The boaters, if they can't be bothered to vote or join anything get what they deserve

Hi The link below lets you check the food hygiene status of a catering establishment- pubs and restaurants etc http://ratings.food.gov.uk/search/en-GB?sm=1 I was shocked to see that the eatery in a marina I use achieved zero stars- I wont name it- but was disgusted. My favourite pub in the village got 5 stars- so I know where I'm eating now

It's time to 'fess-up Tim - - - - - - Some of us know that most days you just do a 3hr tootle down and up the Trent!!!!!! (And then have the gall to excuse it as 'work'!)

Really?

Not bothering

Hi A solid fuel stove will easily heat that size narrowboat. There is absolutely no need for central heating. Tim

The 2005 regs are the current ones for private boats. There is a review in progress at the present time, that will make quite a number of small tweaks, but I don't think they have yet come in to force, and I'm guessing they will not have done until yours is completed. I'm happy to be proved wrong on that, but could find nothing quickly on BSS site that gives implementation date for changes, and you can clearly only go by the guide available there, until they provide an updated version - it would seem unfair to expect you to comply with things not published as the current guide. Nothing in the BSS relates to hull condition, or "sinkability" of your boat, nor requires it out of water, so there is no significance in whether you have a BSS done before or after blacking. If you are smarter than me, (not hard!), you will book it as much of that full two months early as possible, because it gives you best chance of sorting any small problems it turns up, before expiry of your old one. I find it hard to advise on particular things to look out for. Once upon a time I would have said things like dates on gas hoses and fire extinguishers, but I have to admit that my last two examiners, (two different ones last year, one for each boat), seemed far more relaxed about what is "in date" than had been the case when I had one done 4 years earlier. The good news is that if your boat passed 4 years ago, at least the regulations haven't changed since, so you should not find yourself looking to comply with a host of things that you didn't need to at the last inspection. EDITED TO ADD: This thread a few yeras out of date now, but because the regs are the same, may give you a few ideas, if you have the time to scan though it.... Previous BSS Checks Thread

A quick update for everyone. I met with a director of the marina in question on Thursday afternoon of last week. He agreed to refund my deposit but refused the survey fee, or even part of it. Oddly, when I asked for a written confirmation that the funds would go back into the account they came from, I was presented with a page to sign that stated I was acknowledging receipt of the refund. I asked for the page to be re-written to clearly indicate that the refund would be made the next day. It was made within 24 hours. Before I left the marina, I was told the contract was between the marina and myself and not an individual seller! That would back up what a lot of people have said and was certainly something I should have noticed and questioned to start with. The director also pointed out that social networks and the like were an area that they were concerned about and asked if I could remove my postings. I said I was not prepared to do that but would say we had a meeting which was productive and amicable and led to a refund of my deposit. Since then I received an email from the editor of Towpath Talk. It read as follows: "Dear Roy We have been in contact with Whilton Marina regarding your problems surrounding the purchase of a narrowboat. We understand this has now been settled amicably but please could you contact Abby Steele at Whilton Marina on 01327 842577. Kind regards Janet" I have not included email or postal address or direct dial phone number for obvious reasons. I have also not bothered to contact anyone at the marina and am disgusted they should have used the magazine to pass on their message. I'm obviously a tad tetchy!

Yes they have elected Representatives but the problem is who do they represent? I presume you think it is ok for one of those representatives when approached about a problem by a boater to be told "Join a boaters group". Now I call that recruitment not representative. The boaters group he suggested was the one he also represented. It was said to me last week by a senior CaRT employee on the phone that they for example did not realise how badly CCers were represented by any boaters group. Why did I hire a car do a 360 mile round trip last week to go to a meeting at CaRT to voice the concerns of CCers? Because no one else speaks up for them. What are our representatives doing to solve the problem of non moving CCers? Nothing!!! Myself and Steve have spent most probably 3-4 hours on the phone discussing this subject so that we can come up with a document to present to CaRT. Just endorsing a Mooring Document without consulting other boaters to discover how it will effect them is meaningless. If you put yourself up to represent a group of people then please consult with those people. Some on here have mentioned MP's well at least they make themselves available via surgeries, I have an appointment with the local MP for the area where I am next Saturday to discuss Housing Benefit for boaters. If HB could be made easier then we might be able to start solving some of the problems of those without a mooring. Ah but was Ivor Caplan there as a Council Member or representing his "Boaters Group"? He certainly was not representing me......

The council were elected. They don't seem to be representing boaters, in my opinion. It took a handful of us to do more in 2 hours than council members seem to have done in 5 months. How do I know this? Because you lot have been discussing the meeting we had intensely on 3-4 threads on this site. Asking for minutes-report from the meeting, why dont you ask your council rep who was there? Ivor Caplan. It's being discussed on FB and other forums. Now if someone would be kind enough to show me something from the elected council? Some don't give a toot what happens, fair enough. I don't see the reason to stop those that do. What are you afraid of I ask myself.

Exactly right; they can move it so that it no longer creates an obstruction, no more. The concept is illustrated in the following Section 19, which gives powers to move [on notice] boats moored alongside a length of canal bank which they need to work on. If the nearest place to which they can safely move it is “not readily visible from the place from which it was removed”, they have to let the owner know where they have moved it to. Whatever others may believe, I don’t claim the section gives an "unfettered right to move any overstaying boat", period – I agree that is “beyond what is granted”. I don't make such a claim, simply because there is no such offence as “overstaying”. There is no power to set up signs designating permissible lengths of time, there is no power for officers to instruct you to move on etc, etc. BW were given powers to propose bye-laws giving a measure of such control, but until the pressure of leisure boating grew to where it is now, there was never any perceived need for such laws or powers. If you don’t adversely affect others, you commit no wrong in the absence of a law against what you do. The “problem” insofar as it is a problem in a few “honey-pot” areas, is a problem created by inconsiderate boaters adversely affecting each other, and should be correctable by boaters between themselves instead of bleating for the waterways authority to acquire more powers over us. Since when did the free British adopt such a cringe-worthy mind-set? CART cannot set up “a charging regime for those who overstay” because there ain’t no such offence, and because CART can’t charge for any use by boats of the waterways which is permitted free of charge in the enabling Acts and not expressly over-ridden by modern legislation. Note Johnson’s comment on the new proposed bye-laws, Part VII on moorings: Section 51 [“Directions as to mooring”] – “Whilst provisions of this nature may not have been considered necessary in the 1960’s (when the GCB were introduced) the very significant growth in use of the network since then and the difficulties with congestion that can now occur at certain locations in busy periods gives rise to the need for such a byelaw. The power to give directions is not unfettered and may only be exercised when one of the circumstances in paragraph (4) apply.” Of course, the problem for CART, as for all such bullies, is that they are not content to have an enforceable rule, they want maximum sanction and for breach of the regulations to be criminal offences. The proposed new bye-laws are not Johnson’s invention, albeit preparation of them was a target for his bonus points the other year – he just did a ‘cut & paste job’ from the 1990 Bill that was presented to Parliament. It was precisely because BW then had also insisted on the criminal sanction, that they ended up having to withdraw the provisions, muttering darkly about the future problems in store. Other than the nasty despotism revealed in demanding such sanctions, the provisions themselves are largely sensible, albeit a little more caution in the wording would be advisable. Perhaps if they agree on de-criminalisation of the offences they will stand a better chance on getting Secretary of State approval this time around.

And likewise the poet and the carver, the only difference is that three of them produced accidental art, the latter two deliberate art. BTW I bet there were loads of begrudgers when the canals were built too - scandalous, desecrating our countryside with their hideous constructions, it shouldn't be allowed! There must be better things to spend the money on.

Seems to be a genuine question from the OP Is it it necessary to be quite so mocking?

Having spent most of my life campaigning and protesting against the use of peat in fertilisers to protect the rapidly diminishing peat bogs, and seeing the success of these campaigns with the large scale adoption of peat free composts, I am a bit concerned about the use of peat as a fuel source. Apart from the huge value of them as wildlife habitats peat bogs are a massive carbon sinks and cutting the peat, for fuel or compost, releases the CO2 into the atmosphere, reversing their beneficial effect. I know there are sceptics who don't believe in global warming and the like, which is fair enough, but those who do may want to bear this in mind.