Leaderboard

This - and I'm a long-time cycle commuter. The petition calls the towpath a 'safe, fast route'; if anyone is riding fast down a towpath, they need chucking off it. Towpaths are too narrow for riding fast.

15mm, 22mm and some imperial sizes?

But as a timber Ash is very strong, and perhaps more importantly very flexible and shock resistant, which is why it is used for things like hammer, axe, spade, and chisel handles, it is also used for sports equipment like hockey sticks, baseball bats, rowing oars, archery bows, etc.

Seriously, you can find outliers for anything. Making a safe gas installation is a lot easier than a full electrical system. That fitter neglected to do one thing; test the gas system with pipes cold. This is much easier to do on a boat (if you use bubble testers) than in household installations. Manometers are really not great. I don't want to encourage anyone who has limited mechanical skill from working on a gas system (getting mechanical joints tight enough but not too tight requires some feeling for the use of spanners). However I'm tired of the demonization of gas. The same people who act terrified of gas are quite happy to get work done on their car by an apprentice who is paid £3.50 ph; then get in that car and drive at 70mph on the motorway. Car brakes, steering, etc are a lot more complicated than a boat gas system!

Nothing is the answer because CRT would just use the extra money to invest in building instead of their core business which is navigations. You clearly have never dealt with them my mate does as his Bar is rented from them they are useless, thieving, lying wasteful T*****s I when I converted my boat from diesel to electric had nearly 6 months of hassle before I got the license this is the norm for them! The phone for Tinsley flight has broken and has been for months its not been replaced why? because it means they dont have to fix or allow use of the flight! This stuff is constant they arnt all like my comments but a lot are, now I really have done I asked some boaters about your ideas and they are still rolling around on the floor laughing, my suggestion is buy a boat and then discover how expensive it is before having silly ideas

Mine is a Mastervolt, its so good I have never got round to putting it into power save mode

Mains equipment every time. Ensure u have a good quality inverter that uses very little power when switched on and sleeping. Some are terrible such as Stirling which use far too much power. Master volt are very good just for one. Mains equipment is humungously cheaper to buy and vastly more choice at the drop of a hat. Mains uses a very little more than 12 volt but that is far outweighed by other factors.

https://shop.canalrivertrust.org.uk/ Canal & River Trust Key £7 or https://www.midlandchandlers.co.uk/products/bwb-sanitary-keys-ag-023 £5.90 DO NOT buy from eBay, i bought one in the past and so far it has worked in one out of about ten locks tried, the key is just too thick for most of the CRT locks. I ended up buying two or three direct from CRT so i know they'll work and the cash has gone direct to where it matters* *board meeting biscuits and director's new car

Let me just check that I've understood the argument against CaRT increasing the annual license fee to pay for much-needed canal maintenance... -- CaRT doesn't spend enough on canal maintenance and hasn't for many years -- this is causing the system to deteriorate and we don't want this to continue (or get worse) -- we like paying a tiny amount to cruise/live on the canals just like we have for many years, it's a really cheap way to live innit -- we don't want to pay more 'cos it's not fair and some people couldn't afford it (and/or don't want to / can't ask welfare to pay) -- so somebody else (e.g. walkers, cyclists, Joe Public) should cough up, not us, even though we get by far the biggest benefit from the canals Is that right? Really? Boat license fees are currently in the region of £1000 which is £20 a week. To increase the overall CRT budget by 25% (£50M) -- probably what is needed make a big enough difference to fix the problem -- it would need to increase to about £2500 which is £50 a week. For what this gets you and compared to the other costs of buying/running a boat -- and certainly compared to the costs of living on land -- this is an increase from ludicrously cheap to very cheap... CaRT wouldn't be able to make such a big change overnight anyway because they don't have the maintenance staff or equipment to suddenly use up another £50M a year, this would have to be built up over maybe 5 years -- and it would be better value to do this in-house instead of subcontracting it, that way money isn't creamed off to service company shareholders and CaRT build up a skilled workforce who maybe even care about the canals a bit. So the fee might go up by about £300 a year for 5 years, by which time we could have a properly maintained canal system that works in the long term. This increase is gradual enough that it wouldn't immediately throw people out onto the street, and if it makes them change their lifestyle it gives enough time to do it. Could anybody who really loves the canals -- presumably, most people on this forum -- honestly object to this? ?

I only like the model S! I am playing at the moment Andy, I have 2 Aixam electric cars both are sepex motors running at 48v nominal, I am building a bank of 17.6 KWHs which is 15p x 15s its just a small city car so should have a good range. I am looking at getting it to do 55mph rather than the 40 mph its designed to do, I have a AC drive train as well so we will see what I end up with ?

I thought it was Yew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longbow

Sorry to drag this off topic but not completely, decay resistance is as much structural as a product of the living processes in the tree, practically a tree is a thin smear of living cells surrounding a functionally dead core.

Oh no!

The company that’s doing them up Urban Splash have just announced they have got the go ahead to redevelop another section of the original flats. I don’t think they have been a great success with people buying as it was aimed at the yuppie type with prices well above the average. I walk past there with the dog quite often and don’t see much life around there. Maybe it wasn’t the investment everyone was hoping.

Eat some pies to cheer you up over the depressing surroundings. It's what the locals do. ?

That's another good thing. It isn't raining in Wigan today ?

I would go for 240AC for nearly everything (not water pumps, as there are good, compact DC pumps). Advantages: Cheap replacements sourceable nearly anywhere. Better quality for a lot of fittings (12v DC fittings are often poundshop quality, particularly lighting). No worries about voltage drop over long cable runs. No worries about voltage fluctuations blowing equipment (12V Battery DC voltage can vary by 3V)

12/24 volt every time for me, I have had the 240 fridge freezer and when I rejigged things it was the 12/24 route as it works better for me

No matter what we say or whether we agree on a issue or not you just keep coming back to the same point. I've already stated I would be happy to pay more for a better maintained system. My view is CaRT, HMRC the government or any other organisation will not remotely be interested in means testing for a leisure pursuit so any large increase will cause many low income, non-live-a-board boaters to have to sell up. Although it won't affect me I am concerned for those in the autumn of their lives who would be affected.

I assume you mean cost of verification not enforcement? (enforcement is exactly the same as now i.e. have you got a license?) From your POV there's no point ever having any progressive tax system because it will always be fiddled, so the only solution is to charge everyone the same so the poor can't afford it and the rich laugh it off. I can't believe that you think that's a better solution... ? Verification of income/tax/expenditure is already done by banks, mortgage lenders, HMRC and others -- HMRC is the obvious channel since they already deal with income. It depends on how the numbers are crunched and whose particular pot the money goes in and out of; one option would be to charge everyone the highest fee (money goes direct to CaRT) and then poorer people apply for a rebate through some other channel that's already set up to do this (HMRC?) who then cross-charge this in bulk so CaRT doesn't know who pays what. The other option would be to tell CaRT how much to charge in the first place, but there could be data protection issues with this since they'd have to know about people's financial circumstances -- HMRC already knows about this. None of this is difficult, it's exactly what is already done with other tax reliefs and repayments, and the system is already set up to deal with it. It just needs the will to make it happen -- and the general agreement from boaters that a progressive license system (the rich pay more to keep the system going) is acceptable, not mass protests by people who don't see why they should pay more than they're been used to doing, even though they can afford it and it's necessary. I have a suspicion that "could pay but don't want to" protests from the selfish might derail this... ?

I use RS a lot. They do have some trade counters where you can collect from, depends where you are.

A gradual (and graduated) increase in the fee (say, over 5 years) may drive a few people off, but better maintenance should bring more in, admittedly with a delay. But it's clear that the situation as it stands isn't working, so *something* has to change or it'll just carry on getting worse, with more and more stoppages and complaints about poor maintenance. I do understand your point very well, which is precisely why an increased license fee should be graduated -- those on low pensions or low incomes should pay the same as now or maybe even less, those who can afford it (and are effectively underpaying) should pay more. This objection has now been raised a dozen times in spite of the fact that I've explained a dozen times why it's wrong, so please don't do it again ?

On this day in 1971 Coventry Basin

The cross section of skills I found amongst boaters may mean that given a suitable incentive many such skills could be readily available, in some cases it might even extend to equipment. The question is what incentive would bring such skills forward. I would suggest a discount on the license fee in exchange for xx hours of work. However that ignores the Health and Safety demands and documentation. I suspect it is those that make CaRT prefer contractors and paid staff.

I don't think money is the only issue (despite the world apparently revolving around it). Yes, money pays for someone to do dredging, maintenence of locks, utilities and vegitation etc. However, can't some of this be done by enthusiastic volunteers? If volunteers can renevate canals from scratch (and still are) then why can't maintenence of existing canals be done by volunteers? Is CRT actively preventing this to protect their empire? Again, ANT are a good model to compare with. (Avon Navigation Trust). Surely a trust can work with paid staff and volunteers in harmony? I'd happily chip in where I can. Even cutting the grass and vegitation where we all moor helps. Removing potential blockages from locks helps. Ok, things like dredging and lock repairs involve some training, but it's do-able.

Last time I got a quote for a proper back to clean metal repaint, from a reputable painter, I was quoted just under £8k. How are you determining a £500 paint job? How about the OP post some links to cheap and expensive boats and we'll tell him why they are priced as they are?

Great advice so far.... sounds like you are still at the stage you need to hire to check out the different layouts and if you can spend time in a narrow environment. Is there any hurry to proceed with buying or is this just the looking stage - have you sold your house etc!!?? Well done for not buying a caravan by the way!

Your first para - this is exactly the problem and why you need individual cell monitoring and the ability to stop charging or at least reduce the charging voltage to prevent any one cell from being over charged. The alternative, as promoted by Peterboat, is to leave a large margin and never charge the batteries near to 100%. 2nd/3rd para. No there is nothing magical about 10A it is just a convenient figure to make it easy to work out how many AH you have extracted. But if you have no idea what current you are taking out you risk either overheating the resistor or having to spend decades discharging the cell! If you want to top balance the cells during charging then it would be advisable to be able to dump more current into the resistor than the charging device is providing, otherwise the cell voltage will continue to rise. Final para. Provided the discharging device is isolated, as a resistor would be, you simply put it across the cell with the battery assembled. No need to disassemble. The cell discharges through the resistor without any current flowing through the other cells. Of course this is passive balancing where the excess charge is wasted. If you want to do active balancing where the excess charge from one cell is used to charge other cells, that is a lot more complicated to achieve. And not necessary IMO.

"Somebody else should pay for what I want to do" You're not being asked to pay the entire cost, you're being asked to pay about a quarter. This seems reasonable to me, somebody else is paying for the other three quarters, and you get to live and travel on the result. Why is this such a bad deal, it's *far* better (and much cheaper) than the one anybody living on land gets?

I feel like since we are all boaters we could probably find some common ground in this discussion, and I feel like it is getting a little on the personal side which doesn't seem necessary. And I feel like we're saying the same things over and over again. Can we all at least agree that CaRT needs multi millions more in order to keep the waterways alive for another generation or two? And that we'd all like to see that happen? It might well need to come from multiple sources - maybe a bit from a modest boat license increase, maybe a bit from local authorities whose economies benefit from big spending gongoozlers, maybe a bit from the average taxpayer. But I think we can all agree that we'd like CaRT to have a lot more funding and for a lot more of their budget to go on maintaining navigation?

Regardless of whether they are guilty or not, we use to do the same with hangings but managed to grow out of that

We name and shame them on here and they lose their jobs on magazines........... TD'

At best you have a 250 watt solar system there, the current is going to be limited to 5 ish amps by the 100 watt panel it will not allow any more through, so the 150 watt panels which probably are each capable of 6 or more amps ie 12+ in parallel, are being limited to 5 amps total maximum, you would get more solar power by just shorting out or removing the 100 watt panel, provided the controller can cope with 300 watts and 12+ amps input.

Fair enough, but those users don't need the canals to be navigable. Having taken a walk along the abandoned Buckingham and Wendover arms of the GU recently, I'm not sure that these are significantly worse places for walking and cycling being that they haven't been navigable in years. I would hazard that the largest costs are in maintaining locks and keeping them deep enough to navigate? Sure it is harsh, but we're dealing with a harsh reality here. Is it harsher to let the canals disappear entirely or to have the people who use them pay for their upkeep? I think those who have paid for a boat would rather that the canals stay open than for their investment to become completely useless! To me it's far harsher to suggest that people who DON'T navigate the canals be forced to pay for the upkeep. It doesn't have to be sudden. My understanding of the problem from this thread is not that we need to find 200 million right now or the canals will disappear. Rather, there is a growing backlog of maintenance that needs doing - and presumably this could be done over the next several years. I suggested 300 GBP extra per year per boat over the next 20 years to raise 200M. For me that would represent a one-time 30% increase. It might be better to increase the license by 10% YoY until we get to that number. Starting with the 21M number then a 10% increase per year would mean that we'd raise 200M extra in 11 years. Also I don't know that 200M is the number we need - I'm just trying to make the leap from "oh no it's too much money the canals are doomed" to practically how can we make the canals sustainable? I don't blame those people, if anything I blame the govmt for subsidising the waterways for so long so as to have created a false expectation that the canals are cheap to run. But I also don't see the argument that just because something has been historically cheap that we should continue to socialise the cost. I too find that a really weird argument. I think a gradual increase to a point that navigation pays for itself is good for the network, it's good for the public, and it's ultimately good for future generations of boaters who will still have have canals to enjoy. It's not fair to use public funds to support leisure navigation, and if someone wants to argue that it's to support cheap housing, then let's redirect those funds to support actually cheap housing. It's a lot more fair than having those who don't drive pay for the roads. And I'd argue this is much more true of boating, since even though I don't drive, I benefit from trucks being able to deliver goods on the road, and emergency services being able to access, etc. Those who aren't boating don't derive any value from keeping the canals navigable, so it's very unfair to expect non-boaters to pay for the canals. That's essentially my point. Why should non-navigators pay for navigators to enjoy the canals? "because they always have" is hardly a fair answer. I don't think anyone is arguing that we need 200M per year are they? Is this really true? How are they going to be able to achieve this - charging points? How could you run a boat in the winter without diesel/petrol? Agreed - as a newbie I was absolutely staggered at how cheap this is. My license fee is worth it just for the refuse, water and elsan alone. I can't even fathom the cost of replacing locks, maintaining the banks, dredging and keeping the canals full of water. It's mindblowing to me that the license fees are so cheap. But someone still has to pay. If not the wealthy, then the poor. Why is it fair for the poor to pay for something they don't use?

The cyclists on the towpath where I am don't seem to treat it as a gentle way to get around. At "rush hour", (about 5 or 6 hours a day), it's like Silverstone on British Grand Prix day, and anyone other than cyclists take their life in their hands if they venture onto it at these times. It would be a bonus for almost everyone if cyclists were banished to the proper roads forever, never mind 4 or 5 months!! Just my Humble Opinion, but I dont think I'm alone in it.

Exactly - this is my overall point. If the license fees are too low to cover maintenance of navigation, then they should be raised. If boaters can't afford to pay the increase that it would take, then boaters can't afford to boat. It's not fair to socialise the cost of what is - mostly - a leisure activity for the a small portion of the middle class. IMO that's the reason it's being turned into social housing in some areas - because it's actually subsidised by the public. If boaters had to pay for what they use it would perhaps cease to be an affordable way to life cheap?

It all seems a bit illogical. Pubs etc have to have social distancing measures which reduce their footfall and income, whilst they need to have increased staff for table service. And yet it doesn’t seem to make any difference. When someone comes in with CV, others get it and the pub has to be closed. What is the point of the social distancing measures? Is it just the government pandering to the public to make them feel secure even though they aren’t? A motivation that they need to be seen to be doing something?