Leaderboard

Well when the OP said: ... reading in between the lines I'm not 100% sure the OP actually has an ammeter. With a clamp meter it's just a case of sticking it on the alt lead, then double checking the voltage at alt and batt. So the main point was regarding the clamp ammeter, just thought I should add that voltage is important too, charge current also depends on bulk or absorption stage. cheers, Pete. ~smpt~

I think you are right Pete, we could get them to run fairly reliably and well on the stuff when all else was correct, properly loaed and burn rate adjusted to the most efficient, but the average install simply didn't work well with it, marginal heat load, poor fuel supply lines taken from too large a tube, people putting TRVs on the rads, stuff like that. There is still no excuse for a sub standard install but the ULSD makes things, how shall i put it.... a bit more forgiving, but that shouldn't preclude a proper install, its still the best way to ensure the most reliable and efficient system.

Elephant in the room time. Everyone is looking at the situation from their own perspective. let's try looking at it from CaRt's viewpoint. I strongly believe that CaRT's attitude is summarised as... "You think you can CC in a small enough area to carry out a fixed lifestyle whilst pretending to be a nomad, well you can't". I do not judge that, I merely observe. Remember the Davies case where the need to remain in one area was in it's self evidential of a lack of "Bona fide" where moving just to remain within the 14 day limit rather than for the pleasure of cruising again fell short of the Bona Fide bar. One of my favourite books is Catch 22 and it's interesting to see the parallels where you can hang around so long as you don't need to. CaRT want/need to establish a principle that you simply cannot shuttle up and down a short stretch as so many do and will wring the neck of the law as much as they need to establish that. the actual K&A figures do not surprise me as there seems to be a sizeable number of boaters there who have convinced themselves that they are themselves the waterway authority ( and HATE non liveaboard boaters with a passion and venom you would not believe) I've sat in the corner of the canal tavern and heard them. It is, as an aside, enormously liberating having Chris Pink on ignore so I can say what is my experience without being accused of making it up out of some shapeless malevolence!

Yes, the locomotive "Tom Rolt" (Talyllyn Railway No 7) is a curious mix of the old and the new. Originally a 3' gauge peat burning locomotive from Ireland, supplied by Andrew Barclay, components from it were used to build the 2' 3" gauge locomotive now on the Talyllyn. Part of the background to this was the need of that railway to acquire additional motive power to meet its growth, and ideally to be able to handle heavier trains rather more easily than some smaller locos they already operated. Because the Talyllyn's 2' 3" gauge is very rare, there is little prospect noiw of acquiring locomotives from elsewhere that do not require a degree of rebuilding for that line. Two of the locomotives acquired by the Talyllyn in the early days of preservation were the correct 2'3", and came from the then closed Corris railway - fortunately these two had been stored when that line closed, rather than scrapped. Now the Corris Railway has itself been in part reopened, it has had to rely on having replicas built, because its surviving original engines are now part of the Talyllyn fleet, (although have paid visits back to the Corris).

It would serve CRT well if they could come to terms with the fact that the laws they do have at their disposal were drafted deliberately to STOP them interfering with peoples enjoyment of the waterways, while allowing them a few draconian powers (expressly?) to keep them clear for navigation for those peoples enjoyment. Rather than wasting their time getting frustrated at trying to control the users (using laws not intended for this purpose, hence the frustration) they need to take a step back and reassess their role.

I would certainly hope that they do not give up any objectives relating to ensuring fair use of facilities by all boaters at locations where that is proving to be a problem [no matter that such areas are few in number nationally]. My hope would be that they redirected their resources towards more direct and timely action, using the lawfully appropriate measures available to them. My problem with the tactics that CaRT are at least most visibly seen to be employing, is precisely that these are not aimed directly at the problem, nor, importantly, on the boaters creating any problem, but are instead directed at accumulating more powers inappropriate [and ultimately less effective] respecting that problem. The s.8 cases that achieve the highest profile/notoriety are the few defended ones, in none of which did the boater targeted contribute to the problem of congested ‘hotspots’ as you describe them; neither could the results benefit the authority in terms of resolving such localised problems. The solution lies, as others have observed, in abandoning the tactic of show-trials against isolated individuals in order to acquire a library of persuasive judicial approval of the methods and motivations for their arguments, and instead, simply grasping the nettle of applying the appropriate measures at their disposal – methods which do not have the same appeal to them, for reasons buried within the accumulative psychology of long established authoritarian bodies. They should abandon the tactics, in other words, not the legitimate objectives. That would go a long way towards altering the character of their actions from perceived harassment to perceived efficient enforcement for the good of other users.

We are putting a full size bath in our new build 58 footer it is a space saver one that is 1700mm long 700mm wide tapering to 500mm at foot end so uses a bit less water. Neil

I consider my bath an essential.... there has to be some things you cant give up when moving from a house! My bath is 5 foot in a walk through bathroom and with shower over. I have a water tank that holds 420 litres and a 15 gallon calorifier with an immersion heater. I do run that from mains as Im in a marina. Again because Im in a marina I can fill the water tank easily so I can do a couple of baths a week and short showers in between before needing to fill again. The immersion heats the water from the top down and when cruising the engine heats it from the bottom up. The immersion takes a couple of hours to get sufficient hot water for a decent depth bath but when one has been cruising for four or five hours then there is plenty of stonking hot water ....just the thing to anticipate whilst stood out on the back deck. I have to admit to wishing for maybe a slightly longer bath but then Id lose wardrobe space in the bedroom beyond, so if you can fit it then go for the standard bath length. Its worth it.

Could it be Baggeridge Brickworks near Penn? Lee.

The Navy have a tradition of a "Gin Pennant", which is hoisted to invite officers from other ships to join them aboard for drinks: In the same manner, might I propose that the following new flag would be found useful by members of this forum:

Is this supposed ‘elephant’ the situation you describe as “areas where demand for moorings exceeds supply in the system?” where it is “difficult for casual boaters (weekenders and people with a short(ish) hire) or cruising "live aboards" to find a mooring in such areas?” If so, I cannot see where anyone has failed to acknowledge the existence of such areas. If is something else, than obviously I still cannot see it – but not for want of looking. Then too, the burden of this topic is the situation where no interference with other people’s boating has occurred, no one has been unable to moor at the specific location when they wanted to, but the authority has decided that the boat violates the letter of the law as they interpret it, and has applied the most draconian measure in their arsenal to make an example of the ‘transgressor’, for the encouragement of others. Win or lose, in other words, it was not going to help shift your elephant. The question posed by the topic heading was whether this was enforcement or harassment. It certainly was not enforcement of the spirit of the law – if that is understood to be ensuring that it is no longer “difficult for casual boaters . . . to find a mooring in such areas” – and the action concentrated on obtaining judicial approval for an extrapolated version of the letter of the law [and not even that, really, but rather the letter of their unilaterally drafted rule book]. In the instant case, they set down conditions on which they would re-licence the boat, and cease the action. That would have allowed them to claim justification for the initial withdrawal and subsequent refusal of the ‘licence’, and provide a legitimate base [on their argument] for re-issuing the licence and ceasing the action. In the event, none of those conditions was agreed to, and they ended up re-issuing the ‘licence’ on an entirely different basis. Going so far down the judicial path and then pulling out at the last minute, without sticking by the reasons alleged to be justification for the action, amounts to harassment in some minds. If they genuinely were seeking to enforce the law [their understanding of which they outlined clearly in correspondence and pleadings], then they should have continued; it was just waving a big stick otherwise. Same goes for the conditions they laid down for re-issue, they should have stuck to those, if they felt they were justifiable to a judge. If, on the other hand, they had come to the conclusion that there were severe analytical hurdles to jump in presenting their case, then I would congratulate them for being adult and pragmatic enough to recognise that and to do the right thing in withdrawing – but to blame the defendant for their about-turn and seek to have him bear his own costs of their ill-considered pursuit is not merely ungracious, it illustrates that their principal goal now is persuading a gullible public that it was legitimate enforcement all along. Above all, it presents a clear case for claims of harassment. Aside from all the other aspects of this case, this latter development highlights an ingrained self-justifying approach which has lost them a golden opportunity to begin gaining some respect. The withdrawal of the case could have been advertised as an example of a dawning reasonableness and ability to admit when they are wrong - the essential precursor, as I have said, to the necessary shift in the institutional mind-set.

Having forgotten about the hour we gained overnight I've usefully??? spent time reading through this thread. Although being mere novice and not really qualified to comment I'm going to anyway. I will not call anyone idiotic....let their posts speak for themselves. IMO it looks 1) Very uncomfortable way of controlling narrowboat...bum numbing...play havoc if sciatic nerve issues 2) Not terribly safe... I would assess facts as delivered by those with greater experience and knowledge on the subject...otherwise why start thread? I would then follow suggestions or if I carried on as before then any accident accept responsibility, amidst no doubt a few "told you so's" I have seen someone steering in that fashion whilst female sunbathed on roof...I was not impressed. just to add....what are you doing waving a fluffy bunny...poor thing

And when you have had some experience on those waters you will know why narrow boats and wide beam nbs with narrow gunwales are not as safe and comfortable to use on those waters as they are in the UK compared to Dutch barge style boats. No-one is saying that you can't manage, you could manage in a canoe, but it won't be as safe or as pleasant an experience as it should be because they aren't craft ideally suited to those types of waterways. But why let real experience outshout hearsay eh? Roger

Where's Julynian when you need him?

Sounds to me like the absence of an accumulator in good working order. If you have one, check the air pressure. Set it (using a footpump) to the same as the 'switch off' pressure on your water pump pressure switch. Set it with the pump OFF and a tap OPEN. MtB P.S. If you don't have one, then fit one.

Because they need help sorting out the mistakes and they know I am available to help any ccer who finds himself in trouble. Some i can not help but where I can I try and do my bit for fellow boaters, it is what being part of a community is all about. Do you have a problem with boaters helping each other?

It seems to me that CRT go about this all wrong. There is legislation in place and there is an enforcement procedure but that doesn't mean it needs to be used in the way that they do. Surely the point of the legislation is to provide tools to CRT (or whichever body is charged with care of the system at the time) to ensure the smooth running of the system. Where someone is in breach of the letter or the spirit of the rules but is causing no problems to other users, what is the point of directing resources at pursuing them? In Tony Dunkley's case they've burnt through a pile of cash trying to prove a point and because he wouldn't wear it they've achieved nothing beyond spending that cash and looking vindictive and foolish. It seems to me that where no harm is being done and no one being unduly inconvenienced money could be better spent on solving actual problems on the system and legal and enforcement action reserved for those cases where a problem is being caused.

Most boat clubs do. Its called a constitution.