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!

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

No, RENTON. Nice bit of film.

Staged payments with ownership of vessel at each stage paid for needs to be in contract......and contract needs to be legally sound. Colecraft have survived more than one crash, Tyler wilson similar.

So not that much cheaper than new from China, which would be about £1400 for similar.

14 years and still going, but then it is a 48V 24 cell traction bank. 2 x 3000va Victron inverters, on 24/7. All domestic 230V equipment apart from pumps and some led lights and fans. But...... 5Kw 48V dc diesel gen to keep it all going when not on shore power. Runs for a couple of hours every day or two depending on usage. System not very tolerant of neglect, so would not recommend if not live aboard. If you want to have all the functionallity of a house afloat, this is the sort of (expensive) kit required. For just camping aboard, go low voltage + small inverter and expect to wear out leisure batteries every few years.

Oh no!

July 2009, just slightly upstream of Dav and Pen’s Marne photos - at Dizy, where the Lateral Canal goes off towards Reims among other places, and the Marne continues upstream at the top of the second photo to Épernay. The CEVNI rules which govern navigation on continental waterways allow for an uphill travelling vessel to cross starboard-to-starboard with one travelling downstream under certain circumstances, and it displays a blue board and/or flashing white light if it does so. The lock mechanism here for the lock up onto the canal is on your port side when going upstream, which means you have to cross over to operate it, putting you notionally on the ‘wrong’ side of the river. However the CEVNI rules have a further exception which says a vessel travelling upstream and turning into a side arm of any kind has priority over any craft coming downstream. Despite these two rules within the CEVNI code I have three times had a cruiser coming down the river from Épernay trying to pass port-to-port here even though I have also made my intentions clear by announcing what I was doing on VHF, and each of these sadly was flying a red ensign. Tam

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

Just posted on the BCNS Facebook page: https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-rope-maker-1976-online?fbclid=IwAR0QgydcUImVff3Tx9L7zLBhrd2XRANCTvO5YWERhoBwtqk9q8FDv415iwI Alf was a well known figure on the BCN in the '70's and '80's.

Left Kidlington Green Lock this morning. We’ll look out for you. Boat name? PM if you prefer.

240v every time. BUT - make sure that you have the electrical generating capacity to support a 'floating flat'. Unlike a house where you just 'click a switch' and the electricity is available, YOU are now the electric generating company, the electric storage company and the electric distribution company. You can only use what you have 'made'. Understanding and living with 'self supplied' electricity is the hardest aspect for new boaters to come to grips with.

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

Hi I have an identical boat from Midway just a few little differences in fit out 2012. I am going to my boat this weekend for the first time since you know what (hooray). If you PM with an email address I can then send you all the details I have. I also so have some build photos if you’re interested.

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 ?

We have a 74' harborough marine boat. We did not a survey done and have paid for overplating to be done. The survey determined that the wet bilge be scrapped so new rear bulkheads had to be inserted. We have fitted a new lister LPW 3 engine and skin cooled it. Ikea provided most of the interior. She is called Foxton and is one of the original boats and we can now proudly take the heritage of harborough marine around the canals, as she once did for ABC boats.

I thought you just said they were "on your moorings" -- doesn't that make them liveaboards? If not -- they're leisure boaters who live on the land and use the boat for holidays -- then they can afford a bigger license fee, since they can afford a boat *and* a house they can hardly cry poverty, and the added cost is small compared to owning a holiday boat anyway. You seem to be clutching at any straw to make out that poor people will be disadvantaged one way or another. What I'm really proposing is that the license fee should be graduated just like income tax (in theory, ignoring tax havens), so the poor pay less towards the cost of the canals (maybe even less than now?) and the rich pay more than they do now. What exactly is your objection to this -- is it that you'll pay more? I certainly will every time I hire a boat or if I retire soon and buy one, I'd be happy to do that knowing that I was helping to renew the canal system. How about you?

I think you have melted his brain. A terrible thing is cognitive dissonance. I read the words you posted and followed it quite well. I'd rather the fees didn't get too steep, but they would have to go up quite a lot before I stopped paying them. If nothing else, the prices of secondhand boats would probably come down quite a bit, attracting more people onto the water who would accept the higher ongoing costs.

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!

"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?

The manual shows that there should be one (it is also an anode, and erodes away), so maybe whoever replaced the anodes forgot / didn't know about that one. Whilst you are 'out' get on put on, it helps to protect the leg.

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.

Err, good question! From your comment and then pausing to think what the BSS actually covers, it doesn't need to be out of the water does it! d'oh So... I'll check the tank when it's out for blacking in a year or two.

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?

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?

Pathetic. You are riding a vehicle, use it on the many thousands of miles of roads designed for the purpose.

They do. It's the Waterways Wanderer permit covering all CRT waters where the fishing rights are not managed by another group or club.