Leaderboard

To those who oppose the idea of a centralised voice for boaters, how about an alternative. With the wonders of the internet, we can relatively easily put together a simple voting infrastructure (I can help with this). So, instead of going to CRT and demanding this or that, our representative can simply state that "80% of the boaters we represent are extremely concerned about this or that". This way, no member has any obligation to the group at all, no member is ever required to go along with the view represented by the group, but we can still be an official structured organisation who CRT can be forced to listen to. We can go further with this structure, how about a system for highlighting and voting on problems. Eg: "300 boaters have been directly affected by the damage to the water point at XYZ, a further 600 are concerned it may affect them in the future and 2000 more think this is a significant issue that requires attention". It could also provide an easier means to provide positive feedback (which CRT seem to want, and does help let them know that they're on the right track). Eg: "80% of boaters feel that the new winter mooring scheme this year is an improvement on previous years". All this is pretty easily achievable with modern technology. I can put something together, if there is significant interest in this idea.

Perhaps it would have been more prudent to understand how this ridiculous set up is making people feel before accusing them of 'taking their bat and ball' The fundamental need for a charities survival is to listen to its service users, my advice, feedback or whatever is for CRT to return to the boardroom and work out a way that you can achieve this instead if the usual bleating 'we need your suggestions' nonsense. For what is quite a large charity it's a bit embarrassing isn't it? Basic fundementals are being missed and yet you are all taking a salary. Take some tesponsibility! Most importantly learn how to take critasism as well as money. You might just learn something. I'm glad you have responded and I hope you can understand that this isn't personal, but I also hope you can take this back to your colleagues.

This thread has made me really sad – having been out of phone and email reception for 24 hours I log back on to read of a horribly precipitous end to what was proving to be a very constructive movement that Cotswoldman has been leading. I first met him and other boaters last November along with John Dodwell and other colleagues and since that time, we’ve started changing the way we do quite a few things. It takes time to make the effects of change apparent, and I know that there’s frustration at the time it takes for people to see a difference. But that’s life in the fairly complicated world that we’re in where a sizeable percentage of 35,000 boaters have the passion and time to help us with policy and decision making. We’re continuing to strive for better performance and with our new CEO’s fresh impetus, there’s never been brighter prospects for boater relationships with the Trust. Cotswoldman doesn’t like the user group format, but we’ve never said their format is cast in stone. If people have suggestions for reforming them to make them more inclusive and productive, please email them to me at sally.ash@canalrivertrust.org.uk . All that Vince was trying to do was to improve communications with and between boaters by extending the reach of the meeting arrangements that exist already. Perhaps a good start might be a re-naming to ‘boater meetings’ and a re-think of the invite list. How big should they be? How local? Who should lead them and set the agenda? Vince, Simon and senior managers who’ve had the opportunity to engage with Cotswoldman’s meetings definitely appreciate what he’s done. We’re just sad that he’s taking his bat and ball home because he sees only one way of skinning the cat. There’s a lot of nonsense too in the postings about boaters being marginalised etc. That is not our view and quotes have been taken out of context just because it appears to make exciting copy for a forum post. Sally Ash

Gosh, where to start with all these comments! On boaters being marginalised, what I meant was that we don't have a 'marginalise the boaters' agenda, but if that's how lots of you feel, then obviously we've got to do something to change that feeling. Making changes to the existing user group format, including more voices, different agenda, more/different Trust representatives taking part and possibly changing the name would seem to us the logical and most efficient approach. It's not clear to me how introducing yet another separate suite of meetings would be better but if I've missed something, do tell me. What else should we be doing to make boaters happier and more trusting of us without prejudicing our other funding streams?. 'Where do we see boaters in the bigger scheme of things?' was another question someone asked. Answer is 'at the very heart of what we do'. Navigation and boaters after all constitute our 'usp'. The really sad thing about today's discussion is the apparent need to polarise - you're either the CRT voice of darkness, or the boaters' voice of the angels. Issues are never black or white and it feels to me as if people often jump to conclusions on the basis of about 5% of the relevant information. The plague of social networks I guess.

Hold on a minute...in the context of this current thread, so far we have seen one email from one individual. We share the disappointment and frustration felt by Cotswoldman and Jenlyn and it is a great shame that things have reached this stage so soon. Let us not throw out the baby with the bath water just yet. Perhaps there is the opportunity for Mr Dodwell to sit down with Cotswoldman and Jenlyn and explain his comments face to face. After all, apart from the email, he has not exercised his right to reply so we don't yet have his response to the furore to consider. Now, I'm not defending CaRT and if what he said represents the view of the trust then it is indefensible and needs to be challenged. However, we have all written things without considering the impact of our words and later regretted writing them. Perhaps on reflection, he may consider what he wrote to be wrong and ill thought out. How about a cooling off period and an attempt to get round the table and find out once and for all whether we boaters, 30% funders, are to be treated with disdain and high arrogance or whether we can have a constructive dialogue. Then we will know where we stand. At the moment every one is up in arms and flying off the handle. Peace in our time....maybe....if not, Calm Down & Carry On

Surely a professional coordinated response would be to not blame social media, it's only as good as its input. Why not look at how you can utilise it to your advantage. Again I appeal to you to drop your pointing finger and go back to the basics of communication. You recognise that even without a negative agenda the trust is making people feel marginalised which is a great start. I'd focus on that. Rob

Dave and I are booked for this meeting. Up until this recent announcment I felt it was a great opportunity to get to talk to some of the people who the likes of us can't always readily speak to about my experiences of what CRT are doing (which is in the main a very positive view) As others have mentioned, individuals experiences of CRT are coloured by what they see happening on their own patch. I tend to have two patches (I am greedy) The patch I regularly use for boating, an area within 2 days cruising of Calf Heath on The Staffs & Worcs. This does not appear to have declined at all or changed significantly since CRT took over. I have been very impressed by the speed of the repair on the Wolverhampton 21 and the openness of the communication about the problem and updates on the process. My second area of interest is The Chesterfield Canal and my experience of what Sean McGinley (CRT Area Manager) has achieved along there since donning a CRT hat is excellent. The way the people looking after this area listen to the people who know about the canal and know about how the canal needs managing is brilliant. I think it is very fair to say that if it were not for this forum and Facebook keeping me in the loop about what is happening elsewhere on the system I would be feeling CRT were the sort of organisation I could trust implicitly and I would not feel any need to worry or complain. I do want to express my concerns about what I hear is happening elsewhere, the things that are unjust to boaters. I want to express my concerns that these things are not rolled out to the rest of the canals. I am now a little worried about that social. I am worried that if the CRT reps that are due to go feel there is such a strength of feeling against them it will not be a social event but they will turn up to get their ears bashed then they may pull out and another opportunity for effective communication is lost. I think as others have said, we do need to give credit where credit is due. There are a lot of CRT employees that are doing an excellent job and they are much happier working for CRT than they were for BW. They have embraced the new ways and are getting good results in the process. We need to ensure we give praise where praise is due. I am also due to be involved in another stint of volunteering next month. Trimming overhanging vegetation on The Chesterfield Canal. In the light of this new communication I needed to think whether I still wanted to be involved with that but I don't feel we should cut our noses off to spite our faces. Giving cash is a different thing. Once cash is handed over we, as boaters have no say in where our money is directed. Volunteering to do something that improves the canal for boaters is still a very positive thing to do. We need to be aware that while we (boaters) see ourselves as the most important canal users we do only contribute 30% of their income and realistically we all know that is insufficient to keep the canals navigable for us. We need to embrace CRT volunteer schemes in our local areas where we can improve the canals for our own benefit (cutting overhanging vegetation) and encourage non boaters in our area to join in as well. It will improve the canal for boaters at little cost to CRT

IWA's not broken, it's just different. It's a charity beholden to its charitable aims, and those charitable aims are not exclusively boating-focused. As such, it doesn't principally exist to represent its members, let alone solely its boating ones. It's also a charity of a certain age and, like many such, tends to be small-C conservative in both its outlook and its processes. Several recent chairmen have tried to shake it up a little (John Fletcher in particular) but haven't always found it easy. I have a huge amount of respect for IWA and a lot of its volunteers (though I agree the CRT Council election didn't necessarily show them in the best light). It does vast amounts of good work which you never see. Nationally, at the moment, it's putting lots of time into HS2 and CRT's business licence consultation; and it's pretty much the only organisation that monitors and responds to the endless stream of local planning applications that could affect the waterways. But that's not to say it should be the only organisation out there.

Effective communication is paramount for any organisation or group to work well. John and Jenlyn (and Alan Fincher who I know has also dedicated a significant amount of time and energy into this) have been doing a grand job and we are all very grateful for that. Perhaps because they are seen as individuals it is impossible for CRT to quantify how many people or indeed who they speak for. Of course many individuals have their own gripes but what these guys have been doing is taking those individual gripes, weeding out the ones that have no bearing on anyone but the individual and taking the rest along with the evidence that our eyes are supplying for them and forming them into a justifiable issue to be raised with CRT. If they need a mandate to say "we" (the forum) gives them the power of our individual voices then let's get it organised. Richard (RLWP) when you attend that meeting the key word has to be communication. What do they need "us" to do to allow our voice to still be heard. People who suggest joining The IWA would help - how is that so? John Dodwell is an IWA representative and he has shown his colours. Perhaps if more boaters had considered the options a little more carefully when voting for representatives we might have had a truly independent voice to speak for us instead of the IWA / CRT coalition that is governing the boaters now. When are the representatives up for re-election?

I was trying to remember the word (curse my enfeebled brain at this late hour) and I finally did. A mandate. That's the key. John and jenlyn didn't have a mandate to represent anyone and it's therefore easy for CRT to ignore them - indeed, there'll be those who claim that CRT should ignore them because of this. But to ignore a sanely constituted organisation with 1,000 members is maladministration, especially as groups with <100 members are represented at NUF etc. Whatever you might think of CRT, they won't do that. It needn't split the forum at all. At the very most you could have one sub-forum only open to group members, but you wouldn't need even that. You just have to make sure that the elections are restricted to group members, and that the elected 'committee' (or steering group, or whatever you want to call it) takes care to act in accordance with its stated aims and the view of its members. I've been on a board that functions like that (the OpenStreetMap Foundation) and it works fine.

But the restoration of the canals wasn't strictly speaking to make the boaters the raison d'etre of the canals. Many of the past and present restoration programs include large parts of local communities that are not boaters. True, they like to see them, but they also partake because it will also become an attractive amenity. And in my mind, that is what it is. An amenity. Those who use it heavily, boaters, pay more, and light users such as your dog walkers etc, indirectly through taxes etc. I work on the canals for a living, but there are many people that need to get over themselves and understand that the canals are not all about boaters anymore. It goes far wider than that. Give the CRT a chance. Look how long it took the National Trust and the likes to really get up and running and look how well respected they are now.

Trouble is, people, most of what has been expressed here patently highlights one of the biggest obstacles you face. Polemics, especially from a minority, do not a reasoned discussion make and a failure to understand the other side's stance, which seems endemic here is, in my humble opinion, only leading you up a blind alley. So far, there have been over 200 posts, mostly indignant, made in response to something someone within CART has said. That number can be pared down considerably by itemising each contributor, something which I can't be bothered to do, but let's be overly generous and say there are 100 individuals having their say here. 100 keyboard warriors, all having a pop. For just one moment, step outside your narrow, computerised view of the world, and try looking at that response from an "outsider's" point of view, someone who perhaps neither knows or (heaven forfend!) even cares about "The Canals". Then, in turn, try looking at it from CART's viewpoint. You're a minority. A minority that doesn't matter to them. They must be laughing themselves silly at your calls to the barricades, your calls for withholding licence fees, your proposed reporting of every minor/major defect! (By the way, anyone know what happened to money they donated to the T&M breach?) Much as I feel for the two or three people mentioned in dispatches here, those three who tried to meet the CART lot and have, evidently, failed, I cannot but think that their efforts were doomed from the start. Those of us who, like me, took a very bleak view of CART from the off will be, regretfully, vindicated. The old saying, "You cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear" comes to mind, when one regards the BW/CART transition. How could it be otherwise? The same old lot (never mind the people on the ground- they don't matter in the overall scheme of things) get charged by the Government with the continued running (with a brand new name!) of an increasingly expensive and deteriorating edifice that appears, at least to a tax-paying outsider, to be populated by lucky people in pursuit of their various hobbies. An edifice that Cameron and his lot were only too glad to shed the responsibility of running and of being held responsible for when it all goes tits-up. Very sorry and all that, but of course CART are intent on speaking only to supposedly organised groups with a mandate-why would they waste their time in discussion with a tiny, disparate group of mostly self-interested people who, in the main seem to have a vastly inflated view of their own self-importance? There are far more boaters "out there" that neither know nor care about CWF and its members, and who will, for the foreseeable future, go on paying the ever-increasing and ridiculous sums of money that these charlatans demand. And the charlatans know that.

I know Alan Fincher had a go with them about that seems they did not listen or take it on board or maybe as we only contribute 30% of income they do not care how they treat us

matty40s - I asked how often you had boated on the South Oxford, and said that it was no worse this year than any of the previous years. I struggle to see how you can see this as a personal attack on you. Accusing me of trolling, and telling me to fek off certainly is personal against me, My expressed views are genuinely held. I know they are running against the grain of the majority of posters on this thread, but if we can't have a civilised discussion on on a discussion forum, then I am seriously unimpressed. I love the canals, spend over 150 days per year on the cut, and wish it could be more. I don't want to see decline, and so far, I think it's more perception by relative newcomers than real. I happen to disagree with some of the tactics which have been used,to try to engage with CRT, however well intentioned, and I deplore some of the vitriol which has been directed at one of the trustees, based on a percieved and I mean perceived affront of the snippet of the email which which was published in the original post. I will admit that I havent been south of Anyho since early June. I will be migrating back south to the K&A in a couple of weeks. If things have really deteriorated since then, I will acknowledge it - but please do not accuse me of trolling just because my opinion does not agree with yours.

Hi everyone, As promised, just keeping up to date with our progress. We put an offer in today and (subject to survey) it has been accepted! I can't tell you or type how excited and nervous and strange I am feeling! I've started doing weird things like housework to keep my mind from exploding completely!!! Just got to get the deposit in so that it can be officially taken off the market and then all the other scary stuff so got lots to sort out...... Is this realllllllllly happening??? Hahahahahaa!

Your first post was poorly thought out and showed a lack of understanding of the situation but eh, it is complex. However, your second post is just rude and douchey. Who do you think will listen to you now? Pardon? I'm sorry, I can't hear you over all the insults.

I can manage the Wigan flight fine, but if I ..sniff...get one of those....horribly worded letterheads...sniff....I think I'll die....

And so peace broke out. Until the next time. Seriously, a couple of thoughts have occurred to me while reflecting on this thread. First, one thing that's very much in evidence is passion. More than one poster has spoken of it. I believe that passion exists in CRT as well as among forum members. That's one reason language has sometimes been undiplomatic. But the bottom line is that, even if we don't agree on how things should be done, we all - yes, ALL have the same overall goals (I think Tuscan has summarised the situation pretty neatly here). That means that, provided we don't let spats like this divert us too much, we have a great future to look forward to - the energy expended here is a fraction of the whole and much more is being put into the waterways; how can we lose. It reminds me a little of industrial relations on the railway (certainly in the late 1980s/early '90s). There were vehement disagreements about how things should be done. There was the annual pay round sabre rattling dance. But - with exceptions - both sides were able to work together and produce a setup that had the lowest subsidy of any in Europe, that worked as well as any and that was in a virtuous spiral of improvement even in the depths of the 1980s recession. I don't see why shouldn't be able to do as well, given the energy and commitment and passion that's on show upthread. Second, can we beware of using enemies (real or imagined) to create group cohesion? Sure, it can be an excellent way of getting a disparate group working together. (I've deliberately sown 'enemy' talk for precisely that purpose on occasion, so I know it works.) But ultimately it doesn't create a stable group that will keep going in the long term. That has to come about through the group struggling through the bonding process and learning to work together. And the group I have in mind here isn't CWDF, it's CWDF and C&RT working together for the future of our waterways. The reason I say this is that I'm a little concerned by the tendency to dismiss (sometimes even demonise) IWA. (It's even more in evidence in the 'Lock ladder consultation' thread.) I think there's a lot wrong with IWA - and here I will come out and say I am an IWA member, and say it from that perspective. I think that's partly because it is an older organisation and, like all old organisations, has come to be run by committee people and organisation people - the type who enjoy rules, constitutions, standing orders, procedures, stuff like that. (If you think IWA's bad, just look at the synodical government structures of the Church of England - another organisation I admit to being a member of.) My circumstances mean I simply can't get involved in IWA's formal structures, my 'awkward squad' instincts mean I couldn't bear to for more than one or two terms if I did, so my contribution is to volunteer at the National and I leave it at that. But that's by the by. The really important point is that IWA are not an enemy. They may be too wrapped up in organisational stuff to be a helpful friend/ally. They certainly have a wider remit than just boaters (and could be subject to Charity Commission interest if they didn't represent those wider interests) but I believe they, too, ultimately want what's best for the waterways. So I want to suggest that our task is to release the passion we all have and find ways to work together in using it. In that, I think CWDF may have a particular role beyond being another route for views to be conveyed to C&RT, for I suspect what's going on here may ultimately catalyse others (IWA and far beyond) to raise their game. I think, thanks to the individuals who have taken the initiative, CWDF is already punching far above its weight (if C&RT will forgive a warlike metaphor), but I believe that could well end up being among our lesser achievements in the longer run. About time I shut up, perhaps. Here's to the future!

Tut! Thats really norty, but I love it :-)

It's crooked, it only let me vote once.......

Personally I think that all VM should be charged for the way llangollen, gloucester, etc are. You still have 14 days on the towpath for free.

Yes indeed...a curse on anything that might give the ordinary person a voice!

It was one of those 10 million who broke into my boat and stole my TV and other items. This attitude really needs stamping on NOW, the longer this attitude exists the harder it will be to change

It is, indeed VERY much the point. We should be the raison d'etre, and we need to forcefully say so. Not from any "canals are for boats and everybody else can go hang" sentiment, but because for all we are assured that they didn't get the funding just so that 35,000 people can play at boats, neither did they get the funding to maintain a 200 mile linear nature reserve. They got the funding, because it is advantageous to the experience of the vast majority of users (even anglers) that there are boats using the canal.

Did you read the whole email, or just the extract in the original post? I felt it read differently in the context of the whole email.

Thank you for taking the time to read the thread and post a response. It always helps to get another prospective. Personally I would like to see some kind of new boaters organisation come out of these initiatives that can continue an "open to all" boating forum/meeting structure amongst other things. That is something I would like to get involved in.

Calm down, old boy. Being able to recognise a joke is a useful talent anywhere, and especially on an internet forum. I suggest you acquire it. Also, the economics of freezers ON SHORE are so well known as not to need repeating. On board, as Bizzard and others are trying to point out, the cost of generating electricity usually outweighs the savings on bulk buying. As you will find out. Of course, if you have a massive solar PV system, it might make sense IN SUMMER. Incidentally,tests have shown that a chest freezer loses much less "cool" than an upright. If I were to install a freezer, it would be a chest type with significant additional insulation and a method of using canal/river water to cool the element. The obvious solution to all this is to do what our ancestors did, and start smoking, pickling and salting. Hot salt beef, soused mackerel, smoked salmon. Yummy. You could even start a biltong business. Apparently most of the biltong sold in UK comes from Poland nowadays, not from remote farmsteads in the Transvaal as I had fondly imagined.

There is a huge problem though isn't there. What John and Steve have tried to do is take a balanced perspective of all the reasonable needs of boaters and discuss this with CRT. They clearly both have talents in this role and I know that Steve also has seen that there is no "one size pits all" solution geographically. I'm sure John has as well it's just I've noticed it with Steve. What is right for the GU south of Blisworth may not be right for other places. These two guys at least (there are others) have proved to have the competence and integrity to get to the real meat of issues and present it to CRT. BUT they are not elected or even appointed, they are self appointed. They also both have the integrity to know that if boaters didn't generally appreciate their efforts they'd stop doing it. They'd be ideal for election or appointment. Then look at those who have been elected and appointed. Some probably are good, but the IWA got every boaters place and seem to represent the IWA not boaters. Then there are those only in it for power such as the gentleman that Steve pointed out on the SE waterways partnership Sometimes, just sometimes, you wonder if those that set up the system had an eye on making sure that no-one who wanted to achieve anything got involved...

my 2p. IMHO We are not and never will be "One Voice", that is the biggest plus of this forum. What ever label and mandate is put together we all need to understand that as does CRT. We are a broad cross section of canal lovers and therefore an excellent source of opinions for CRT. We are best described as a consultation group. Kev

I don't think you have been 'taken for a ride', quite the opposite in fact. CRT were open minded enough to try talking to the real boaters sensing something was missing from the input of the IWA and other organisations. But my interpretation is this: Richard F is right, the absense of a mandate is what dun you in. CRT asked us to give ourselves a group label, we refused. They weren't really asking for a label, they were asking us to produce a mandate. CRT saw this as failing to produce a mandate, concluding (incorrectly) there was none to produce. Give ourselves a name and a mandate I think they will listen again. MtB

Well said

Not standing up for what John has said (I don't understand the full context of all the communication) but he's been around waterways since canoeing on the Basingstoke in the 1950s/1960s. He is a boat owner.

Merry Hill is primarily a huge shopping centre though there are a couple of mediocre pubs by the basin, (A Weatherspoons and an Eatery). Ma Pardoes is of course one of the best pubs in the land and this is probably why you were disappointed when you went to Merryhell by mistake. I expect if a family expecting a day out at the shops somehow accidentally found themselves in Ma Pardoes they would be equally disappointed!!!! Its actually not too hard a walk from MerryHill to another Black country HolyGrail, and even shorter if you had stopped at the Delph mooring. .............Dave

^ this. Boaters are not a homogenous group. Never have been, never will be; we're far too cussed and bloody-minded for that. Having a single voice to speak for "boaters" isn't going to work because the divergence in opinions is just too great. Which is why (loosely) constituting yourself as a user group with (broadly) defined aims is a Really Good Thing. It doesn't have to be particularly formal: several waterway groups aren't. But by saying "here is our group, here is what we stand for, here is how people express their support for us", you have weight behind you. CRT can't ignore a group with 1,000 members speaking out in favour of a common goal; after all, there are groups speaking at NUF (and its predecessors) with many fewer than that. CWF isn't that group in itself, and it can't be. Having a user account here doesn't mean anything except that you're interested in canals. When the guy from the IWA sits down to talk to CRT, he has the weight of 17,000 paying members and democratic elections behind him; that's why CRT listen. CWF can't claim that representation. But it wouldn't be hard to create an (all electronic, unpaid) membership organisation that could. You just need a signup form ("my name is xxx and I agree with the aims of the organisation") and basic annual elections to choose your representatives. Go for it.

Pete Leigh Why am I not surprised ? Everyone knows that canals were built as high speed cycle routes, the water feature added for fishermen, and of course the tow path is for doggy do-dos. Obviously my boat licence pays for 'heritage signs'

Well in the context of the full email, John Dodwell's response looks like part of a reasoned and reasonable reply - from a fellow boater. I liked his point about the Oxford. I don't know how often Martty40s has been down the South Oxford, but he paints a picture of creeping dereliction. The infrastructure isn't great, but I have been up and down there every year for the last 10 years and it ain't no better, and it ain't no worse that any other year.

I have cruised 14 hour days this week from the Great Haywood Junction to the Thames. I have seen not a single enforcement official or boat checker in that time. I have seen brilliant service by ground staff twice in the last two days, attending within an hour to reports of stoppages.(Kingfisher was assisted through Lock 30 eventually). I have seen a single Volunteer Lockkeeper (Hillmorton bottom lock) I have seen what is happening with the "loaded" hessian sausages (these are already in place on the North Oxford, and several stretches of the South Oxford. I have seen bridges falling apart, bywashes collapsing, lock gates struggling to stay together, towpath vegetation far higher than Jenlyns pics on the Grand Union, complete chaos at Banbury...... and I am worried for the future. worried for my life, my hobby, my home and my enjoyment. I came through oxford and at Isis lock, entertained around 40 gongoozlers (non paying) whilst locking through, and gave them a full throttle turn to enjoy......it won't be much to watch with no boats Mr Dodwell/CRT. Wankers, liars and two faced civil servants pretending to be a charity.

Well i'm not surprised that CRT have decided to discontinue such meetings, and I am surprised that they agreed to them in the first place. Never having been aware of these meetings, I would think that boaters who did know about and attend these meetings on the most part would have had some sort of axe to grind - and probably many different and disparate axes. It is not unreasonable that CRT prefer to deal with organised bodies representing a known number of customers presenting a united viewpoint.

No problems. It was my pleasure. Hopefully Eddie has it all sorted now. Must agree with you about this forum being great though Jan x

Other half here -- does that mean I can cross "paint and polish engine" off the rather lengthy "to-do-once-actually-living-aboard" list?