Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/07/19 in all areas

  1. I used to be nice till I bought the boat. Now I drive it either like a maniac with a two foot wash or dawdle and won't let anyone pass. Then I hog the best moorings while I go off on holiday and at the same time have to stick around the middle of town so my kids can go to school and I can claim my benefits, while yelling at everyone else to slow down. Luckily, there's loads of room on the towpath for my old cooker and washing machine and my rottweiler has only bitten three kids and a fisherplonker so far. CRT don't know I haven't got a licence because I painted someone else's number on the boat and who cares anyway? The "rules" have no basis in law. I know my rights. And as for share boats, bloody hell, I could tell you a thing or two.
    7 points
  2. And if you lot keep whinging and whining about them they will get even worse, not that I have noticed any change in their attitude. I have noticed a change in boater's attitudes towards CRT staff though. Oh and now that the Canal and River Trust is a charity, whether you like it or not, chuggers do an important job in as much as they keep the money flowing in. If they don't do their thing the cowboy building companies will buy up the canals, fill them in and build build cardboard housing estates with garages that cannot accomodate a car on them then we will have nowhere to sail our boats. So I suggest that instead of whining about CRT staff on here give them a smile and a cheery wave even if they have got a scowl on their faces. Believe me they have every right to be scowly the way they have been shafted. Oh yeah, I am not employed by the Canal and River Trust.
    6 points
  3. Isn't that a good thing ?
    6 points
  4. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  5. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  6. At best that’s very selective, at worst it’s simply guilty of the same thing of which it accuses peterboat. The GUCCo had aspirations for a network of wider canals. In addition to the widening of the Birmingham line they had powers to do similar on the Leicester line and designs on the north Oxford and Coventry. Do you think if they had succeeded in their long term vision and eradicated the remaining narrow locks on their principal trading routes that they had no intention of ever using broader beamed boats? As for the particular example here, we are discussing the Warwick & Napton canal. One that was substantially rebuilt in the 1930s; locks, bridges and wash walls for the majority of the canal. In general it’s a channel that as constructed is plenty big enough to pass two 12’ 6” boats. With another one moored it would be problematic in places but that’s also the case with 7’ beam boats in many locations on narrow canals. It so happens that the wash walls from the 1930s rebuild have dredging dimensions cast into them. Those dimensions are significantly greater than the current published maximum draft or dredging requirements. The issue about suitability is more about maintenance standards than it is about the construction of the canal. Similarly from Berkhamsted to Braunston - which is where I suspect you were really referencing above - the channel is constructed to the same specification as from Brentford to Braunston. Yet south of Berkhamsted wide beam boats operated seemingly successfully but they didn’t north of Berkhamsted. That suggests to me that “success” was at least partly measured in economic terms as much as operational terms. Accordingly since at least sometime in the BWB era the channel north of Berkhamsted has been maintained to lesser dredging dimensions, thus giving some credence to the notion that it’s only a wide beam canal south of Berkhamsted. Even if that were an official position it wouldn’t be due to an entirely sacrosanct physical constraint. Ultimately though why should history dictate modern usage? The GUCCCo operated for 15 years; the BWB carrying fleet for another consecutive 15 years. Yet there has now been a 50 year long period of leisure usage that seemingly has to be beholden to the practices of those earlier companies. In this instance we have one type of boater spitting bile at another type of boater. Ironically that other type of boater appears to be someone trying to make a journey that is very much “bona fide for navigation” and with rigorous adherence to the conditions imposed by the navigation authority. Usually things the forum collectively insists others must do. We should be holding CRT to account to maintain canals suitable for usage as per their legal requirements for all boaters who boat in a reciprocal manner and also encourage CRT to undertake suitable maintenance to make passage of all such vessels easier for all users. So by all means complain about wide beams on the north Oxford or in central Birmingham but not on the Birmingham line of the GU. It’s only possible they can get there because of a historical act by the (beloved by some) GUCCo. So if you don’t like it, in a word, that’s “tough”. JP
    4 points
  7. Time it past a fixed point at a known speed!
    4 points
  8. When I reported the knackered stop lock on the Macc (damaged by a boater, mind you, not a CRT employee) it was fixed within hours by a cheerful couple of guys, who also checked and improved various other bits of it. Last one I saw down there had just walked a mile down from the workboat (with tools) as someone had said the byewash was blocked. Generally I've always found them, and BW before, to be pretty dedicated. The problems are higher up, not with yer actual workers, and always have been. And, anyone doing hard physical work out of doors needs the odd break and a cup tea and a chat. I guess the OP has never done any (assuming that he was trying to denigrate CRT employees, which as has been pointed out, he actually failed to do).
    3 points
  9. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  10. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  11. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  12. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  13. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  14. Examples: Malvern, Clee,Bernard, Jimmy....?
    2 points
  15. We can't go out as often or for as long as we'd like because himself still works fulltime. But when we do head off for two or three weeks, I find it all enchanting! People are fascinating, we can usually stop round about where we'd planned to and often meet up with terrific neighbours, voluntary lock keepers are lovely, the boats we meet at locks (95% of the time) work as a team to help boats through, pedestrians hail us with admiring comments, fishermen grunt a hello, he's not had to go down the weed hatch (except for a regular check every couple of days), some boats do pass a bit speedily but since we tend to use a spring line and we've got a glass or two in our hands it hardly bothers us and, touch wood and whistle, we've never once been subjected to any nastiness day or night. It's not rose coloured spectacles. It really is like that up around us. And, of course, we tend to know a huge number of the boats we see which makes for a fun "spot your pals" game!
    2 points
  16. It has been pointed out that a trial was carried out with one purpose built wide boat after its locks were modified, and that trial was deemed to be unsuccessful
    2 points
  17. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  18. This morning Steve did enough that we can go on, and we reached the bottom lock at Marple. Tomorrow we go up the 16 locks, pause at the top then press on along the Macclesfield. The Peak Forest canal has been OK. It has a certain amount of vegetation in it, with potential for getting round the prop or clogging the water intake, but that's only been a minor thing. This morning Steve did enough that we can go on, and we reached the bottom lock at Marple. Tomorrow we go up the 16 locks, pause at the top then press on along the Macclesfield. The Peak Forest canal has been OK. It has a certain amount of vegetation in it, with potential for getting round the prop or clogging the water intake, but that's only been a minor thing.
    1 point
  19. Ah! I see the age of customer care has not passed by.
    1 point
  20. You are not supposed to say this here, the "Northern Canals Thought Police"will be having words with you shortly. .................Dave
    1 point
  21. It seems intuitive to put a co2 detector somewhere near your head when you are asleep, as the first daily goal is to wake up alive. Thats my rational for placement.
    1 point
  22. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  23. ... and we have just used that! Arrived in the Anderton area, moorings all full. Stopped at the services and up pops “ABC WiFi” on our phones. Oh yes, the marina is ABC leisure, and yes we may moor there for the night FOC and we can plug into shore power if we like. Plus of course the free WiFi. All of which is quite good, considering it was raining!
    1 point
  24. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  25. Ahhh right... I'm following you now ? - I thought Arthur had posted the pic. Just couldn't understand how he could have taken the pic from his boat. As you were... ?
    1 point
  26. From the curve in the PDF I also worked out the "total lifetime capacity" figures (for the Victron-size 175Ah 12V battery) to compare with the lithium numbers further up: 90% DOD x 1800 cycles = 162000% 80% DOD x 2000 cycles = 160000% 70% DOD x 2250 cycles = 157500% 60% DOD x 2600 cycles = 156000% 50% DOD x 3100 cycles = 155000% 40% DOD x 3800 cycles = 152000% 30% DOD x 3800 cycles = 150000% [Trojan T105 50% DOD x 1200 cycles = 60000% = 600x the Ah rating] So lifetime capacity is about 2.5x higher than T105, but DOD makes almost no difference -- from 30% to 90% DOD lifetime capacity is between 1500x and 1620x the Ah rating. This is very nice for narrowboats, it means the lifetime hardly varies no matter how you treat them, and is likely to be more than 10 years even with heavy use. For lithium-ion cells the numbers Alan found vary between 450x (90% DOD) and 3500x (70% DOD) the Ah rating, so very dependent on how the battery is treated -- especially how long it spends fully charged which lithium-ions don't like. I don't know how LiFePO4 cells compare to this, it's much harder to find such information -- could be better/similar/worse.
    1 point
  27. Handy for keeping the Solar Panels going in the Winter.
    1 point
  28. Except that it's not Blisworth...
    1 point
  29. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  30. Why is a bug like a tomato...?
    1 point
  31. Pointless Pedant Alert - it’s going down so deflation.
    1 point
  32. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  33. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  34. Sorry, over reacted
    1 point
  35. Indeed it would, but, apparently they have a legal obligation to maintain the 'track' to the dimensions used by BW, so to get agreement to change the dimensions may involve Parliament. CRT’s priorities for maintaining navigability of the waterways 12.4 CRT is successor to statutory duties under the Transport Act 1968 to maintain certain of the waterways in its care (those classified as either commercial or cruising waterways under the provisions of that Act) to specified statutory dimensions. BW (as its predecessor in respect of those statutory duties) had been subject to a long standing ministerial direction that in its management of such waterways it should maintain to such dimensions as reflected their use and prospects of use. It was further understood between BW and Government that, in the event of enforcement of the statutory dimensions in circumstances that did not reflect use and prospects of use, Government would exercise its powers under the Transport Act 1968 to revise those dimensions so that they reflected actual use and prospects of use. 12.5 Defra confirms to CRT its intention that the maintenance of statutory dimensions of the classified waterways should continue to reflect actual use and prospects of use. 12.6 In order to avoid inappropriately frequent proposals from CRT to Defra under the amended provisions of the Transport Act 1968 for a change to the statutory maintenance dimensions, Defra confirms and acknowledges that in assessing the extent of compliance by CRT with its statutory duties for the purposes of enforcement of the Trust Settlement obligations and the requirements of the Grant Agreement, Defra will take into account the mutually understood intention that CRT will operate and maintain the classified waterways in its care to standards that reflect their use and the prospects of their use. The process for consultation on waterway re-classification and maintenance dimension orders 12.7 CRT and Defra confirm their understanding in relation to the process for consultation on waterway re-classification and maintenance dimension orders under the Transport Act 1968 on the basis set out in Annex 7 (The process for consultation on waterway re-classification and maintenance dimension orders under the Transport Act 1968). Very small extract from Annex 7 There remains wide scope for recreational users and their organisations to make representations and to formally object under the provisions of the Transport Act 1968 if an application is made by CRT to the Secretary of State for the re-classification of a waterway or to change a waterway‟s maintenance dimensions. CRT through its governance framework can be expected to widely debate the issue before any application is made within CRT‟s Council and relevant Waterway Partnership and more widely. Specific consultation requirements on the Secretary of State are set out in Schedule 13 to the Transport Act 1968 to enable those with an interest to object to a proposed navigation order. Therefore if Government proposes a change to statutory classification or maintenance requirements Government would undertake a full consultation on its proposal to ensure boaters and other interested parties have the opportunity to comment. It is anticipated that the proposal would be aired and debated within CRT‟s governance structures as part of CRT‟s consultation procedure to ensure all those with an interest are able to comment.
    1 point
  36. I'm about the same. We don't have a lot of power demands but I'm always amazed how quick the batteries come up to full charge especially on sunny days. A guy came into the marina last week specifically to have panels fitted, and expressed surprise at how few boats in the marina have them. I replied that these days it's one way of identifying those boats that actually go cruising...
    1 point
  37. Even the Bible agrees with you : "A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal happiness".
    1 point
  38. CLEE, CLENT. COTSWOLD (not completed), MALVERN, MENDIP - all for Fellows, Morton and Clayton Ltd. edit = non Grand Union Canal Carrying Company Ltd. narrow boat classes have been discussed on this Forum several times and are generally enthusiast terms, such as Hill Class.
    1 point
  39. Yes, I am not disputing that TRANQUIL Rose has been passing along this section for some years and now can not pass the W.F.B.Co. bridge. It is however being suggested by one or two on here that there is a historic president (spelling ?) set by the Grand Union Canal Company that multiple wide boats traded along this section that is just not true edit = and as I stated earlier in this thread the wide boat that was used was gauged at 12'1½'' not the 12'6'' being quoted nowadays.
    1 point
  40. It has also been pointed out that until recently a wide hotel boat has been able to get through that bridge. Now it can not.
    1 point
  41. Arthur, I'll come and listen to your banjo if it means I can save everyone else from your accordion...! (I rather like a well-played accordion actually - my Grandad had the gift)
    1 point
  42. Therefore, only an idiot would take a fat boat on a canal built for thin boats. He should have launched it directly into the Thames. Tried to save himself £1,500 transport on a £250k boat build and came horribly unstuck. What is it they say about a ship and a ha’porth of tar?
    1 point
  43. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  44. What a place to check out though. A friend of ours called it a day out walking in the Highlands a couple of years ago, he died in a place he loved doing what he loved. I'd settle for that rather than an ambulance queue at the A&E in Coventry (for example).
    1 point
  45. But, but.... normal Marmite is based on lager (+ bitter & ale) extracts. Marmite XO just uses bitter & ale. ?
    1 point
  46. I saw a real one today
    1 point
  47. As far I can tell from this thread the most likely facts are;- 1. The boat is intended to be used on the Thames - for which it is eminently suitable 2. Having been built on an inland waterway it is deliberately sized so as to be able to make passage to the Thames by water 3. The WFBC bridge has moved and is now less than the minimum dimensions thereby precluding the above 4. CRT are doing something about as they are legally bound to do 5. Hurleston locks - or even the Blue Lias bridge - are nothing to do with anything related to this boat or bridge If those are the circumstances I can understand why the owner might be more than a little narked by some of the comments on this thread. JP
    1 point
  48. I would rather drink Lager than eat mamite and listen to the spice girls before The Archers. ?
    1 point
  49. Those were my thoughts, too, Graham, and it's the litigation culture imported from the USA that is to blame. The reasoning behind the bosses' actions wasn't "elfin safety gorn mad" at all, it was the fear of being sued the next time something similar happened. It does annoy me when H&S is used as the smokescreen for other (often financial) motives. Rendering your vehicle insurance void is a responsible act, is it?
    1 point
  50. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.