Leaderboard

Is there a petition we can sign to agree with the proposal..

I am quite happy to pay an increased fee, it is my choice to have a 14 foot beam boat so I pay the penalty in both where I can cruise and what it costs me - just as it is my choice to have a 2 tonne dirty, diesel gulping, 4wd vehicle. Everyone should just quit moaning and get on with life. If you don't like it sell up and get a NB.

I'm glad most of the canal's near me are narrow, otherwise i'd have had to build a widebeam, and that would have been much harder..

The thing is, few of us disagree with the concept of bigger boats paying more than smaller boats. The next thing is, the area of a boat is a more accurate proxy for size than length alone. Therefor charging by area is fairer.

Or one to object that it is too small an increase

The thing is. If folk with 2 pack epoxy coatings still keep docking the boat every two or three years to check it, or touch it up, whats the point of all the expense. Might as well just black it each time with ordinary bitumen.

As I've said on Narrowboat Owners Group, we have a pair, 55 & 53 foot, we take up less area than a 60 foot widebeam, they share the same engine, we have to pay full price for the motor and 50% for our butty, so 20% sounds cheap! In places where the navigation narrows, we can single them up, so we don't impede others. Still we have to pay one and a half licenses.

I very much doubt that the changes in licence fees are anything to do with boaters. The whole thing was decided in a CRT /IWA management meeting or 3 and then an expensive consultation paid lip service to the general public

Damn, I will next time...

Absolutely. We have narrowboats because they fit on the canals that we navigate. Unfortunately some people think there is no problem taking their fat boats to places that they are not suitable for. In marinas all around the country away from the rivers and canals, craft have been charged by area for 10 years plus because space is at a premium (in those marinas) and so you pay for your area. Space in the canals is limited hence charging by area seems sensible. If fat boats were suitable for the canal network, I would buy a fat boat. If all the waterways I navigate can take 1000 ton tankers then I would buy a fat boat. I would then expect to pay more as the area of the boat is bigger.

But the proper canal system is built for wider beamed craft up to and over twenty feet in some places. Its only the silly narrow system forced on us by accountants 300 years ago that means people like me who wish to cruise the greater part of the inland system have to buy stupid ugly skinny narrowboats. So called fat boats in other words the vast majority of the worlds boats are quite simply better handling and VASTLY more comfortable if even stopped on only one night per year let alone lived on. To be honest I expected the increase to be greater but if like many people that have for many years lived on boats always based on cost by length and have sensibly budgeted say for retirement and then there is a substantial increase then I can see why they would be peed off. Why is it that so many freaky sized narrowboat owners moan about superior more sensibly sized boats? Is it the usual jealousy? something else? There are a few too many non narrow beamed craft in dumps like London but in reality much of the system is mainly inhabited by narrow beamed craft and most wider boats are on the proper canals and rivers such as the Trent etc etc and cause no problems. Perhaps its little man syndrome? I have a narrowboat but realise no one in their right mind would have one if they didn't need to traverse north to south inland but that's what we are stuck with.

Jota mastic 87 as suggested above is one of the most surface tolerant 2 pack epoxies and one of the easiest to apply. The main thing to remember is to mix the paint thoroughly before adding part b, mixing thoroughly to the correct proportions by volume and to pay attention to minimum and maximum overcoating times. I used two coats of jotamastic 87 with aluminium followed by two coats of standard jotamastic 87 black. This will turn grey over time so if you want it black you need a coat or two of Jotun Hardtop to finish instead. Use winter grade hardener even in summer unless you can afford to keep your boat out of the water for a week after you finish! Curing will stop once the boat is reimmersed and the temperature drops. https://www.jotun.com/we/en/b2b/paintsandcoatings/products/jotamastic-87.aspx You will need to download the relevant data sheets. All available with a Google search.

The Nissan won't break down?

Ok so we renewed our curtains a couple of years ago and was going to fleabay the old ones but after them sitting in a cupboard since then simply cannot be aressed so rather than bin them they may be of use to someone on a budget or whatever so FREE to good home you will have to pick them up or maybe we can relay them by other boaters? Anyway there are if I remember a set to go across the usual front doors windows then at least four sets that fit windows of 3 foot by 2 foot ish obviously they are bigger to fit correctly there are several others of different sizes mostly cream coloured and they are lined. I will dig them out to see exactly what there is if anyone is genuinely interested. They are still in good condition but obviously used.

I think I agree with you Brian and its not just a question of Money , more and more People are now choosing these Widebeams in order that they can simply replicate their life ashore with an effective " floating country cottage " , the GU South is simply awash with them . Cruising last year I encountered one which was home to three separate cars , another a chap was making a living by purchasing " sailaway shells " from Collingwood fitting them out on the water and as soon as one is complete he simply moves onto the next . I don't believe the GU is where they belong and I think the CRT simply see them as another Revenue Stream . What interests me most is that in the main Widebeams are purchased by those with a " Few Quid " I wonder if they will prove to have a Louder Voice than the rest of us , judging by this increase it would appear not .

I honestly can't remember what the form said, or what I ticked when I filled it in, if I did. I vaguely remember a form filling exercise a while ago - supposedly only to take a few minutes (it said in the intro) - but dozens of boxes took me nearly 2 hours to tick (I like to do my research) (and get sidetracked into interesting things). In my cynical view - it was a PR exercise to create the illusion of being a consensus process to help decision making. Albeit, a pre-settled decision will have already been made - where favourable comments will be selected and used to 'support' it. "...there were numerous replies in support of charging extra for increased width...." "...some suggested 'double'...." "....but we set a fee a lot lower than that...."

Of course, I based the figures on 1 to 400 and 1 to 500 respectively. If just a 500ml bottle, then don't see + 0.054 pence per litre an issue. Yep, just editing my the figures as missed out the '0' duh! just a tad, good for ballast though! As edited above... Based on a 500ml bottle Morendo - 0.053 p/litre 5 litre can equates to 0.021 p/Litre Stanadyne - 0.054 p/litre

Maybe, they are sometimes stamped on the top face between the pipe unions, most though are stamped on the side as on the left and wont be visible without taking one out. The one on the right started of as an "E" type. If they haven't been done then no its not really worth disturbing them. The absence of the "K" doesn't mean that they aren't to the later spec, if an Independent re conditioner has worked on them they may have used the later setting without marking them. As the rating plate doesn't have the engine number stamped on it would suggest that it has been worked on by an independent at some time in its life. Also the fact that the pump is stamped then it would seem logical that the sprayers would have been done at the same time.

Just as i thought. This is still a very silly thread.

I'm quite good at doing that the other way round

The additive does add a not trivial increase to overall fuel price so its not an easy decision. It helps keep the diesel stable but if, as you say, diesel turnover is mostly quite quick then its not an issue. Additives also help keep the injection system both clean and lubricated so a lot depends upon how fussy your injection system and how traumatic it would be if you had to get an injection pump rebuild etc. We have a Stanadyne injection pump which is a fussy bugger so I think the additive is a good investment. Some people pour their old engine oil into the fuel tank, I think Russel Newberry used to say this was fine, so if you have a pump that can drink anything that you give it then its probably not worth paying for an additive. ................Dave

To do this properly you need to remove the gearbox and fit the new starter motor to the engine, then refit the gearbox. To do it cheaply ( ie bodge), drill right through , and fit nut and bolt or get nearest size thread ( M8 or M10) from B&Q that will go all way through. Fit nuts at each end. Use felt washer and steel washer on casing side. Personally, I would remove gearbox and fit properly to engine as it is quite easy to do ( even for the novice) and get a recon starter ( rather than 2nd hand or scrapper) And if you remove the box, you don't need to cut bolt head off, as you will gain access to the nut

And the rest lol Front Back Like said, i mite get a better background, this is ok for now.

My boat is so beautiful it enhances the canals it frequents. But for some others this does not apply so they should pay an ugly levy, say an extra %age on the degree of uglyfication. Unfortunately this would mean I would incur a surcharge when I get around to installing my cratch.

I thought C&RT said several times that the result would be income neutral. Who recieved a cut in licence fees?

Good afternoon, ebay is showing instruction book and manual which covers gg7000 model £6.99. could be just what you are looking for. Also google shows parts available from "GAS" looks like good prices.

I think, if you built the boat yourself, from scratch, not this self fit-out, cheating lark, but actually started with sheets of steel, then everything should be free, forever. Seems perfectly fair.. Casp'

Summary of the argument: "I bought a boat too big to fit everywhere therefore I should pay less."

Thank goodness for bridges. Otherwise we'd have to be calculating the volume and that would make my brain hurt.

No. Panic not.

It's alright, its re-opened. Thankfully it was down to BEAR Scotland to fix it so no 'working with partners to find a resolution to the problem, public safety is our main concern blah blah'

Well I'm back after a week in Pembrokeshire and have started on the remaining machines. MrsBob's machine was delivered before I went to Wales and, hopefully, she's pleased with it. The fiddle base Singer is clean, oiled and sewing so if you would like to discuss numbers with Wrigglefingers we can then work out how to get it to her. The Nuttallia has become a bit of a labour of love. I stripped it completely and rebuilt it but after cleaning and reassembling it I have put it to one side to concentrate on the more sellable 99ks mainly because I'm not sure of its value and I don't have a compatible needle to test it yet.

The engine was definitely noticed yesterday as it made noises and we moved. I did think it might be about 1HP down though, hence why I wrote 42, but it was just shallow water effect and the engine is running as sweetly as ever. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

The steel spec isn't that great ether.

The gas pipe connects (via the control valve) to the jet. The burner sits on top of the jet. The gas comes out of the jet then through the holes in the burner.

I'm not conversant with the Vanette but they're all similar. The burners should just lift out, may be held down with a spring clip or something. They should then just pull back an inch or so and lift out, You can clean them properly then and poke the holes and empty out rust and muck. Having removed them the tiny gas jets will be revealed. I poke a tiny weeny watch makers drill bit in and out of them to clear them, also a wire brush bristle usually will do the job. The oven and grill burners are usually like this. The top ring burners and jets should be similar but might be simpler, like a hob the circular burners might just lift off revealing the jets sticking up in the middle. The jets will usually unscrew to remove them for cleaning but not always. Be careful and gentle if moving the thermo-couples.

You'll be very unpopular in London when CRT tell people that there is a way to move their boat with a broken down engine.

Frankly this is plain silly. I'm surprised at you mrsmelly. If we all accept 24" as the standard maximum depth I predict it will be only a few years before CRT try to make that 18".

I like to think I am a reasonable man, but...... I have passed thay way many times without a problem. It is not often that I agree with Nick Norman but what I hit this morning was solid, NOT slit, and it sure as hell wasn't beamed there by the Starship Enterprise.

I didn't get to where I am today by digging a hole and sitting in it.

My grandma never used to go on about comas. She was in one most of the time due to too much brandy though!

Yes, Whilst it is interesting to know why they have done this, (particularly if it only applies to one vacancy out of the two?), I think raising it as an issue could potentially be unhelpful to those already moored there on a leisure mooring, and who expect to be on board more than the limits stated here. With my experiences of CRT, starting to pick at this kind of thing can sometimes result in less than ideal consequences.

What I find interesting is that the Baton Twirling Association have taken up cudgels against CRT (as is their wont), to tell us that CRT are dreadful, picking on a vulnerable individual, yet I cannot find a single example of them EVER saying that CRT was justified, because the (ex-)boater was just taking the proverbial. Basically, their standpoint is that anybody who doesn't pay or doesn't play by the rules must have a good reason for it, and should just be allowed to do as they please, with the cost of their licences distributed amongst those who do pay. I might have SOME respect for them if I felt that they accepted that there must be rules, and expected something different only for genuine cases of NEED (rather than WANT). I would have even more respect if they chose to do something instead of bleating. If they believe that some people cannot pay for a licence, and need to have it paid for them, can they not stick their hands in their pockets to pay for the licence. It is very easy to demand that all boaters pay for this, less easy to actually contribute to a fund and decide who is actually deserving. Here is an idea. Let us have a fund, administered by boaters to which we can all make voluntary contributions (yes I would contribute). That fund can be used to pay for licences where boaters (not CRT) accept that there is genuine need. At the same time, CRT adopt a zero-tolerance approach to unlicenced boats. How would that play out? Well, CRT would get more income from licences, and could hold the charges lower, which would mean that I actually get my voluntary contribution back in lower licence charges. The boating organisations would need to decide who was ACTUALLY deserving, to keep within their means, and because if they were seen to buy licences for the undeserving, people would stop contributing. I actually see NBTA as the bad guys here. They could have helped to ensure that the guy kept his boat, but that didn't suit their purposes. From their point of view the guy being evicted is far more useful to the cause than actually doing something.

The problem is people will just keep paying higher and higher prices so that those on lower incomes will never ever own a boat or owt else. We need a serious property price crash and the price of boats will fall in line with them and do everyone a favour in the long term.

I bought this one (£20): https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B06XK6THB4/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Works pretty well. The app can do still images/video.

One should delete ones thread and stay under the radar like other sensibull foulkes. scary names like poll tax, the witches tythes and Parrys pecuniary thintank taxes come to mind. if someone new comes to any moorings within a 100 miles of your moorings, pretend you only visit once a milenium. cough. hope this helps.

Payment received in full thank you very much Mrs Bob but in fact I have done very little, it is Carl who has gone the extra mile on this one and his cup of tea was very well deserved. I can see that between Carl managing to interest you in another bit of kit and Auntie Wainwright managing to sell you a second bit of kit you are going to be requiring a butty very soon Of course, if anybody else would like a lovely sewing machine serviced by the fair hands of Carl then he has others available to raise funds for Chesterfield Canal Trust. I suspect of anyone has a Singer that is giving them grief he may be able to help out with service or parts to get it working again. It is very kind when someone who earns their keep with such things is prepared to do them FOC to raise funds for a good cause Thanks a million Carl