Leaderboard

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.

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.

Isn't that a good thing ?

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

Time it past a fixed point at a known speed!

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).

Examples: Malvern, Clee,Bernard, Jimmy....?

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!

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

I've never encountered a rude BW/CRT employee in 18 years & I don't think I've ever been aware of an obviously lazy one either. Has something happened to provoke the OPs feelings I wonder?

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5190866,0.599824,3a,60y,234.7h,73.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sujLnASMDxUaXz_vdVxZQJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Ah! I see the age of customer care has not passed by.

It may be a boring choice but it's hard to go past the Trent and Mersey, simply because it has such variety. But canals such as the Caldon and the (South) Stratford have great atmosphere, like travelling back in time. But if I had to spend the rest of my cruising days on one canal it would have to be the Leeds Liverpool, if only for the stretch between Barnoldswick and Skipton.

You are not supposed to say this here, the "Northern Canals Thought Police"will be having words with you shortly. .................Dave

... 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!

Don't lets go on about this until the cows come ome.

Handy for keeping the Solar Panels going in the Winter.

Except that it's not Blisworth...

Be very careful with this. Genuine buffalo board is excellent and does make very good engine covers etc. Phenolic plywood, which is purported to be the same thing, can be junk ESPECIALLY if it is made in China. Genuine Buffalo board has the buffalo label stamped on the underneath.

If you look at the PDF I attached you can see what the tail current is -- still there but considerably smaller/shorter than standard LA. They're also happy to be charged at higher rates, 0.2C seems to be standard with 0.4C as the maximum. All the articles (not just publicity) I can find on lead-carbon say that they're perfectly happy not to be charged to 100% (e.g. cycling between 30% and 70% SOC) with very little effect on lifetime -- they're being targeted at applications like hybrid cars where this is essential, they're designed for PSOC use. Apart from size/weight (same as LA) the downside is that they're new and expensive from the marine suppliers (Victron, Northstar, Leoch), in spite of the fact that analysis suggests they cost less than 10% extra to manufacture compared to standard LA. Maybe once people realise they can get them straight from the OEM suppliers like Ritar the prices will drop? All it needs is somebody who's interested to contact Ritar and ask them for prices including shipping to the UK, I've bought stuff direct from Chinese manufacturers before at a fraction of the EU reseller price with no problems, they're usually perfectly happy to ship direct to an end user in the UK. Or course you have to wait a few weeks for the ship to arrive, and any problems are down to you -- but given that they supply Victron, I wouldn't expect any quality issues.

That’s broadly my thoughts as well but I’m not suggesting CRT should change the physical construction. All they have to do as make provision for reasonable passage by all boats - up to the maximum published size - in a way that does not unreasonably restrict passage of other craft. If they are taking the increased revenues from the spread of wide beams to this area (which by and large is probably new users rather than a shift from narrow beams) then there should be an obligation to do so. At a simple level that’s improved dredging dimensions and vegetation management. Should there be overcrowding and/or conflict then restrictions on numbers, times/dates for cruising and mooring are all legitimate controls to ensure all users can co-exist. I’ll be off toward Braunston and beyond in a few weeks time so I’ll see if things have got significantly worse than last year when I did the same journey and it was a complete non-issue. The biggest concern I have is that it will take CRT to learn lessons from elsewhere and be proactive. Hopefully it’s not already too late. I’d far sooner meet a widebeam with an understanding of the impact their boat has on others than a narrow boater who just wants a canal full of similar minded folk. JP

If the scrawlings of somebody on Wikipedia carrys more weight than somebody who has carried out 30 years of dedicated research into commercial canal boats and how / where they operated then I give up

I’m told that the control room staff were peeing themselves while the presenter (who had written the piece) recorded it in the voice booth. Nobody had the heart to explain it to her so they just kept the recording in the archives (until it escaped).

Why is a bug like a tomato...?

Pointless Pedant Alert - it’s going down so deflation.

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...

No wrong! The canal had it's locks rebuilt able to take two narrow boats instead of one. On the whole the rest of the canal was never modified to accommodate boats of over 7 feet, which is why when they tried just one on a trial basis, they quickly deemed it not viable, and dropped the idea. Had more money been available to widen the channel, things might have been different, but it never happened. You trying to rewrite history doesn't change the known facts.

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".

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.

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.

I like your thinking Bob! (I'd go south too - I hope you have a fantastic time)

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)

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?

But, but.... normal Marmite is based on lager (+ bitter & ale) extracts. Marmite XO just uses bitter & ale. ?

I insulated my bow thruster tunnel with fire rated spray foam from cans. The rest was already insulated. You've just got to make sure you don't get any over the motor, cables, etc so wrap them up first. If the area is already damp it will help the spray foam to stick. For the underside of horizonal surfaces you're going to have to support a piece of plywood or something else just underneath and spray into the gap otherwise the foam will just fall off and make a mess. Either that or just stick a piece of cellotex or kingspan onto any flat surfaces with foam from a can. Apply the foam carefully and not too much as it expands more than you think. To prevent foam sickling and make it easy to remove from areas you don't want it, smear with Vaseline first. Don't try to remove uncured foam, let it fully cure and cut it away.

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

I would rather drink Lager than eat mamite and listen to the spice girls before The Archers. ?

Sorry, can you explain that..? I use a dedicated GPS and if it displays 4mph then I assume my actual speed over ground is 4mph. Exactly. I passed a moored boat a few weeks ago and the guy watched me from about 100 metres out until I drew level when he sneered "I would have slowed down more than that mate". Yes, I replied, in your boat you would have to but I'm only displacing about six tons so I can pass moored boats at slightly higher speeds, (gesturing to the mill pond nature of the canal at that point). Hmmmm, he responded, clearly not convinced. "Well I'm going slow enough for us to have a discussion about it..." was my parting shot, and I think sort of sums it up. I repeat, none of us are travelling at breakneck speeds on the canals, you simply can't, and nobody is getting anywhere fast, but when we are cruising I find boaters on a daily basis who seem to resent the fact that I can travel slightly faster than them. I have a lot of time to observe the behaviour of crew when I come up behind another boat, and it's remarkable how many never, ever, look behind them. This echoes Nick's point that it's not about being in a hurry it's simply appreciating the fact that on the canals you need to have consideration for others and their style of boating.