Leaderboard

Tony- Would you not benefit from trying to be a little more civil? Whereby, Nigel, who has supported you appears very resonable in this debate. For what it's worth I was wrong in my original opinion of your situation & was not very civil in a previous post. I apologise for both.. I am really enjoying Nigel's perspective & continue to learn from him. It would be nice to learn from you too without the angst. With the greatest respect. What I have taken from this whole episode is that it appears in simple terms that C&RT took their actions based purely on them not liking you because you wound them up. Basically it became personal & the facts were ignored until the last minute. A receipe for a costly disaster! The Sonic.

For the last couple of days the Fire Brigade have been calling on every boat in the Marina offering discussions and free checks on 'Fire safety on Board' as usual they are providing free Smoke Alarms (the ones not set off by toast) to anyone who wants them, - they say they cannot afford to supply Carbon Monoxide alarms but wish they could. NIce chat, nice folks and a useful service.

ok, typically for this forum, this thread seems to have ended in bitching. I saw the thread title, went to the last 4 posts, and it's bitching. TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE GUYS?

An observation: We have had this subject come up on the forum many times; I cannot remember a thread about an engine with glazed bores Richard

I'd give up mate. You are running up against professionals here. I know what you meant, you know what you meant, they know what you meant but you are a newcomer and therefore to be bullied.

Canadian Institute Of Steel Structures Assess coating failures carefully. The volume of rust forming on structural (carbon) steel is approximately sixteen times the volume of the steel sacrificed, i.e., 1 mm of steel produces a 16 mm layer of rust. Therefore assess the thickness of steel remaining not the amount of rust removed. See more at: http://quebec.cisc-icca.ca/solutions-centre/technical-resources/technical-resources/coatings/tips-on-painting-structural-steel#sthash.3k4Mm03W.dpuf

Of course all in surfers have their own requirements but don't believe MTB's bullshit either. Just because you have not been asked to prove a) minimum hull thickness or to provide a hull survey does not mean that it is not in the policy small print somewhere and will be trotted out when / if a claim is made. Several insurers require a hull survey every four years after 20 years old, but they do not ask you for it every fourth year. This will not stop them from providing cover up until the point at which a claim is made. As with all insurances it is vital to read all of your policy documents and to understand the relevant terms and conditions - before you need to make a claim. Buyer beware as always.

I'm not going to bother responding to most of that load of tripe, but I think you are now obliged to substantiate what you've said there.

That's a breathtaking statement. Why are you in a position to be able to determine either the costs involved in CRT making their argument, or what any possible costs liability may be awarded against them? In spite of which, it's not necessarily a matter of weighing one amount of money against another. You could just as easily say (though I notice you don't) that by challenging CRT asking the court to make a no costs order, Tony may incur more cost than he stands to have awarded in his favour. CRT may think there is a principle involved. If they feel that Tony, by his conduct, has brought the action upon himself they have every right to make their case and Tony has every right to challenge it. On this forum I've noted the way that Tony responds to perfectly reasonable suggestions and arguments and on several occasions, he's made statements which later turn out not to be true. If he has done that in his dealings with CRT and/or the court, I can imagine a judge might decide he's wholly or partially responsible for the costs he's incurred. I'm happy to let a judge decide, rather than saying one or other party should just pay up.

Evidently not. The answer is ask your welder and will in a large part depend on the thickness and condition of what you are welding to. The normal thickness of steel for overplating for a narrow boat is 6mm, Springers will be either 3 or 4mm. The other factor is how much extra life you want to add to the boat. For a repair that is as good as the original you should be replating, ie cutting out the original and inserting new material - in this case the gauge will match the original. If you are simply trying to extend the life 10 years or so then overplating is the way to go and it's not generally cost effective to do lots of small patches but rather to cover the whole width of the bottom fore and aft to good material. Surveyors are known for over-specifying overplating often making statements like "it needs a new bottom" when a small amount of repair material would be preferable. It is a boat building welder that will give the best diagnosis and it may be that a few number of patches and filling of pits is possible. This forum is the worst place to get specific advice, you need someone to look at the job.

OK, I'll bite. It seems I'm being pegged as some selfish profiteer who is just on the take. That's a bit unfair and inaccurate. If you think writing books is profitable I'll laugh so hard that tea will come out of my nose. I'm not JK Rowling. My last book is one of the most popular waterways books on Amazon. It is very unlikely to turn a profit for me given the time I've spent. And I like to think that I contribute. (Admittedly not on this site much, largely due to the few, but prolific, individuals who don't know how to play nicely.) Instead I occasionally write for free for CaRT and for waterways World and I donate my writing and photos to whichever charities want them. I also write pro-bono for animal conservation charities I give copies of my book away to people who are thinking of living aboard, but haven't got much cash in the bank. I help out anyone I can on the waterways and have done for the 10 years I have lived aboard. This site does not make it's money by charging for content. Everyone here gives their advice for free and everyone who reads it profits in some way, whether they be journalists, boating businesses or individual boaters. If you don't want people to benefit from your advice don't give it. Me, I'm happy to share what I know with anyone who asks. To me, that's the essence of a community and I'm happy to be a part of this one, if you'll have me. TR

he wasnt sulking, he was on the up because of his idea and you pulled his ladder away, you could start an argument in an empty room, theres no need to be such a grump, lighten up, weve all contributed to this forum either financially or intellectually, maybe the owners of cwf could condense their forum into a useful book then?

Money, lots of it.

Because as I have said before mate, an ancient woodland is a massively complex Web of species and habitats, some of those species only exist in this habitat type New woodlands are great and yes act as a short term carbon sink but in no way compare with an ancient woodland for habitat value I am no tree hugger and like I said before, think we should exploit these areas in a sustainable way but digging them up is not sustainable

The main thing is it appears everyone from RCR is safe. Somebody's insurance will cover the rest. Unfortunately two people are now thought to be missing.

It's just people with no real job, making work for each other to justify their existence and, probably, overly high wages.. Casp'

I used my engine to go to waitrose. I have honey glazed bores, does this count? Sometimes bores can cause eyes to glaze over.

So, to summarise; Running in neutral whilst moored may (or may not) cause premature wear to the engine, which might cost you money to resolve. Running in gear whilst moored WILL cause damage to the canal bank, which will cost all of us money to resolve. It is quite possible that your share of the cost of fixing the damage to the canal (which is a part of your licence fee) would be less than it would cost to fix your engine, so on that basis some people decide that pure self interest says "run in gear". The problem with that view is that whilst the economics stack up for the boater who runs in gear, they only do so because the cost of the damage is shared by all the other boaters who aren't causing the damage. A boater who runs in gear to save himself some money whilst costing me money is being seriously inconsiderate and is breaking the rules laid down by CRT. However, there is a way to resolve this without knackering either the engine or the canal bank... Untie the ropes and cruise.

A moving car has someone in control (in theory). In the case I described the moving propellor had, effectively, nobody controlling it. I just think that's a bit negligent.

The conditions are long gone, I agree....and I find it remarkable that my work is still sought after in a markedly changed environment, to be honest. But it is. In the same way the work of the best traditional builders is still valued and sought after by those who have a similar mindset. I spent a little time yesterday with another long term boater, as old farts we bemoaned many of the changes...." We had the best of it" he said and in many ways I totally agree....camaraderie, a sense of purpose and a desire to maintain some of the old ways. These still exist, but to a much smaller degree and I note a much more " client / customer" mindset among many modern boaters, a point I recently made to Tony Hales. Not long ago I spoke to a lock keeper who told me he no longer raised paddles for boaters. Pressed by me for a reason,he explained that he'd been bollocked by one such for splashing water on his fore deck. As long as my boat is safe, I don't give a monkeys about water there, sometimes it saves me mopping it off later. What, I wonder, would Rolt or Aikman made of the current situation? I don't doubt that the infrastructure is in much better shape than when I started in the 60s but I doubt that they would be impressed with many modern trends. I suspect many reading this will wonder what I'm on about...to those that do, thank you. Dave

Wherever they happen to be at the time. Any chance of a response to Post 770 ?

No, but it does make me very glad that you're normally occupied counting bedpans and don't have a say in running our waterways.

strange people mention paper as our local Wolverhampton Express & Star burns much better than the nationals,

As, I'm sure everyone will confirm, it's all down to the preparation and quality of the paint used. Then once you've done it, keep it shielded from sunlight, tarp'ed up over the winter, and clean. Don't let leaves etc. festoon it in Autumn ..... they'll stain it summat 'orrible. At our mooring each Spring you can witness loving owners peeling back oodles of covers to display their "car like" paint jobs which only cost a third of what I paid for my boat. A gentle hose down and a cut full of suds later a couple of weekends are enjoyed laying out half a dozen types of grit and sand paper with descriptions like "Wet" or even "Dry". Gentle rubbing ensues directed at patches of imperfection a couple of square inches in area. A positive barrage of paintbrushes sufficient to recreate The Sistine Chapel are laid out in order to feather in the rubbed back areas once the anti rust preparation has dried. Having perfected the finish back to showroom condition and ensured the little bragging panel ( Paintwork by ~Leonardo inc.) is highlighted and polished they take to the water. You'll easily recognise them, they always allow other boats through at bridges and have faces like thunder because SHE moved moved over too far and a branch has scored a wobbly mark down the length of the cabin. My approach to boat painting is that we don't actually paint anything externally ... we merely lend it some for a short period. Paint is a preservative, if it happens to look decorative as well then it's a bonus. If I decided to take it seriously and had a boat from new I'd upend the shell in a swimming pool full of Hammerite and then connect a dry dock to a bitumen factory. I'd buy new anodes every year and keep them in the airing cupboard at home next to the immersion heater (that'll stop the buggers from melting) Whenever I pass another boat I tell them the other side is immaculate. All seriousness aside, the only useful tip I can offer is don't paint your roof white. You'll go blind when the sun shines. zenataomm

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

Nick Brown DID lose his case, he then applied for a JR , which was allowed one point , which he withdrew at the last minute. Don't come on here spouting crap, some on here know what the NBTA is about, and it ISN'T BOATING.

This thread was about what meaning of 'leisure mooring' was. It wasn't a thread about the practicalities of living afloat with 2 kids. The fact is that there are plenty of people out there happily bringing up a family on their boat. Granted, it's not for everyone but I'd suspect that the best person to make that call in this case is the parent. In this, and in Halesowenmum's other thread, there's been a fair amount of insinuation that she doesn't know what she's doing, she is going to jump in without thinking things through and that she doesn't have her childrens' best interests at heart. All this from people who know nothing about her situation. The very fact that she come on here, and is asking these questions indicates to me that she's thinking long and hard about whether this is the right thing for her and her family.

I have been a single mum for a few years now and have received no benefits other than Child Benefit(which I would get even if I were still married)and which is administered via HMRC not the council as far as I'm aware. Single mum does not automatically indicate a benefit recipient.