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.

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.

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.

I know this is a canal forum and not a tree geek site but as some of you lot boat in the south and surroundings and tend to an outside lifestyle it might be worth watching out for this. Plus of course if you see any a report to the FC would be much appreciated https://www.forestry.gov.uk/oakprocessionarymoth#outbreak stage It can be nasty to human health so take care if you see it

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.

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?

Whilst travelling down the Trent and Mersey today I passed through Bridge 70 and have to say that I was not in slightest bit impressed with a piece of Graffiti that had clearly been sprayed by a 'boater'. It was in red, sprayed on the towpath walkway under the bridge and the text was,"No Licence Hike, No Gentrification of Canals". Whilst I have no problem with free speech and protest does the half wit who put this on the bridge not realise that there is nothing to distinguish him/her from the scrotes around Brum who spray tag other CRT assets (lock gates,bridges,etc). This licence fee that he/she complains about will now have to be spent cleaning this crap off the wall, how is that helping keep fees down. I would normally describe myself as against gentrification of the system, but if it results in idiots such as this no longer being able to afford to have anything to do with canals, bring it on! Rant over

I have held a copy of the Installation and Maintenance Instructions for the Ellis Heatmaster for more than ten years, and have sent photocopies to a number of forum members in the past. However, I have recently scanned them into a file which I can now send as an email attachment to anyone who needs them. Production of the Ellis Heatmaster ceased more than ten years ago, and copies of the Instructions have not been available since then. However there are still hundreds of boats equipped with operational Heatmaster Boilers, so if you need a copy of the Instructions, please send me PM. I can send them either as a Word document (quicker), or a set of 14 JPEG files. It should be mentioned that copyright for the Instructions remains with Ellis Restorations, and although I have been given permission by them to reproduce the Instructions for anyone who needs them, I cannot give permission for anyone else to reproduce them, and selling copies would be a breach of the permission given to me.

Can't answer your question but this is a photo of the lock site looking from the basin towards the River Severn taken just before the basin reopening:

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.

I never read your posts, sorry.

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

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

I have this arrangement on my Piper boat (Jen is right about those). The gas locker is essentially a box welded into the side of the boat (the bottom plate being just above the gunwale) and therefore sealed from it. The calorifier sits in the internal space below accessed from a full height cupboard in the galley, and the innermost face backs onto my shower. The doors are not sealed and don't need to be as they open to the atmosphere. The gap beneath the doors acts as the low level drain overboard required by BSS and similar boaty regs in case of a leak of (heavier than air) gas, like WotEver suggests above. In my view it a really good idea. The pipe run to the cooker is only about a metre; there's no danger of your vent being submerged, shipping and unshipping bottles is at a very manageable height. Ensuring that you are Port side to when you need gas is not an issue as some might think - if you can't find anywhere to do this in the time it takes to empty the whole of a second 13kg bottle that only feeds a cooker there's something wrong. The potential downside is that you may need to go along the gunwale to turn the gas on or off if your mooring is starboard side to - mine is as it happens, but it's no drama. Hope that helps.

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

True. The increases etc where decided then the bullshit consultation paper put out there, in fairness I think most of us knew that from day one. Think I will buy a tent.

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.

You pay for assistance, better use it. If there is no white smoke when cranking, it is not getting diesel into the cylinders. Fuel filter/s? air in fuel system?

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

It's because CRT think they are God.

Ah, so I didn't imagine it! Thank you for telling me haggis

Froggy, glad to see it in use. What about using the top of a cut down fishing float?

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.

Re-coating every 2 years works for me. Not had any corrosion or breaking down of the coating the last few times (since 2011). I could leave it a lot longer but as the club dry dock is inexpensive and the paint is cheaper than Comastic or Intertuf I'm quite happy to re-coat every 2 years. Anyway I like the regular inspections and no point in dry docking and not re-coating.

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.

One thing I can say. Don't use a paint with a heavy solvent loading in a confined space unless you have suitable protection. When I repainted my gas locker, the primer had me able to fly out afterwards and walk through walls. The Danboline top coat was fine. Jen

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.

I realise what you mean but there is the concept of "backwards compatibility" which I suggest is reasonable to apply. A 1970s carpet might not be to your taste but it would still work as carpet in a house. A 1928 Standard might not keep up with modern cars in terms of speed, reliability etc, but they would drive down a modern road OK. In the same way I would just like canals to be compatible with style of boats that they were designed to take. I do not want to dredge canals to take deeper or wider draughts than the original, just do not allow them to incrementally fill with silt or anything else so that we have to use increasingly shallow boats.

The teapot works for me!

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.

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.

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.

So you fork out tens of thousands for your boat and then some prat tells you when you can or can't use it. B******* to that.

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.

It has been said that CaRT don't understand boating and boaters - and this is, perhaps, a clear indication of that. OTOH if I was a lessor, I might put onerous terms on an advert to discourage 'abuse' of a mooring...