Leaderboard

It’s all gone a bit silly but that’s folks filling the space left by the OP. That’s the way of social media. Hence I’ve PM’ed an offer to assist this weekend either unpaid at his liability or paid with the full cover of my liability insurance.

I thought that you offered him a free pull as long as he accepted liability. That sounds like a favour between friends to me, especially as you would be moving your boat specially for him (as I understand it). If he can't see that it is just common sense to ask him to accept liability then it says a lot about his thought processes. If he found that unacceptable you even gave him another option. Anyway, well done for offering help, there are some people who you just can't help.

My offer was declined; as was an extended offer to remain available until 26/11 to suit his availability.

There seem to be a lot of comets left over beyond the outer planets. Should I clean these up, or will they be fine there, despite being a bit untidy? The third planet out is now covered in a horrible green rash on the land surfaces and the atmosphere is full of Oxygen, which I never intended. Is this normal? Should I whack a big asteroid in to it and start again? Sorry, couldn't resist! 😀

The 'O' ring seal on the activating rod has failed, allowing water to pass from the water control valve and exiting via the weep hole. To replace this its best to remove the whole burner assembly and dismantle the diaphragm housing. Looking at the condition of the weep hole I would be surprised if the return spring has not rusted away too.

I did that once. Didn't even get 3.5m, let alone 350. Destroyed the electrical bollard! Very embarrassing.

I think you need proper lines and ropes, strings may not suffice. Following IanD assertion of abuse ?? etc if Andrew had come back and explained this , or said when he might return, several members could have probably turned up and assisted, the most easy route was raising the pound. It is a very helpful forum when information is shared and communicated.

I agree. No one’s been abusive. I gave some supportive comments and ideas, but took the piss as well. Some reason IanD has got a bee in his bonnet. aagh I’m so slow! of course, it all makes sense. this bloke Dunny is an editor for a well known waterways magazine! and IanD is having a new boat built! all makes sense must be sucking up to get a glossy press release about his boat. 👍👍

A laminated copy of this lies on the instrument panel along side the ignition keys. Works for both departure and arrivals.

But he is on what was a private mooring not a visitor mooring

No. Lithium are vastly more expensive and need to be kept warm and all other such nonsense. Are not as readily available and can prove more dangerous if installed wrongly. Lead acid work very very well and are cheap and do a brilliant job. The only problem with lead acid is " Some " boaters ruin them through misuse, those who understand them properly have no problem

Regarding Lock 20 and 21, Wolverhampton Locks, looking at the existing records there seems to have been a diversion to enable construction and replace the original deep lock. I will look at the maps such as Yates Staffordshire to see if this can be proved with a map Regarding the 17 locks that was Brindleys survey and when construction started at the long-term work, that is Smethwick Tunnel a problem occurred and work was stopped. I have recently explained this in an article for the Waterways history group- RCHS where @buccaneer66 can probably access and have also previously mentioned such issues in Boundary Post. Effectively the route as surveyed by Brindley had to be extensively resurveyed and what was adopted for the Original Main Line had Samuel Simcox closely associated with much of this new work. Why the bottom lock 20 was made deep remained an issue until resolution with the two locks. Considerable water loss happened at the original lock. But then other "Brindley" canals had deep locks and shallow locks and maybe there is an argument that sufficient water was available in those other cases. So when the canal was finished to Aldersley in September 1772, 250 years ago (with 20 locks in the Wolverhampton Lock Flight), the route had been modified in parts and the length of the route was over 5 miles longer than Brindley had originally planned For the BCN water supply was a continuing problem and John Smeaton was asked to resolve it. His solution was to take water from mine pumping engines, Smeaton was also responsible for surveying the Birmingham Canal extensions including to Digbeth in response to the rival scheme that was the Birmingham & Fazeley Canal. It was parliament that called for the compromise that happened and led to merger, Whatever Alan Codling might say about Smeaton in the above extract is not supported by surviving records including Smeaton's own reports. At this time the BCN had two capable engineers Samuel Bull and James Bough (the superintendent) and they had a considerable overview on the Birmingham & Fazeley extension to Broadwaters from Ryders Green. The route from Spon Lane through the bottom 3 locks to Ryders Green and onto Goldshill (effectively) formed part of the original BCN opened in November 1769. From Broadwaters to Walsall that extension was in the hands of Thomas Hood, who replaced Bough as superintendent. Spon End was a widening of the Telford Feeder to Edgbaston Reservoir for a short distance and serving a basin and a coal wharf. That basin had some form of railway interchange facility and later during World War 1 both arm and basin had a role serving a munitions factory and then the BIP works. Spon End must be considered to the last of the BCN branches to be made and its completion was after the Cannock Chase Extension Canal. As Goliath has observed the BCN is a very complicated waterway.

Welcome to the forum. Your batteries are almost certainly flat. Are you on a shore mains electrical connection. If not, how are you charging your batteries? Running the engine? If so, how many hours a day? If there are any solar panels, they will be increasingly ineffective over the winter. Have you read the battery charging primer? If the batteries are flat, the water pump won't work. It needs a much higher current than LED lights. Depends. What mains stuff, if any, do you need to run all the time? If it can be switched off when not required, then that will save power. The inverter will consume some current running regardless when switched on. The inverter will switch itself off when the battery voltage drops too low.

Sunrise South Georgia November 2018

I did. And I thought the condition about liability was a barely necessary confirmation of the moral obligations of commandeering a favour that I wouldn’t have felt obliged to explicitly include had the offer have been to someone I knew. If a friend drops by to haul you off the bottom and rips a stern dolly off in the process don’t expect to remain friends if your response is “not my problem mate”. Hence I think reality is that requirements have changed.

time for honesty - who has never ever done that?

Is that polite speak for "he's too mean to pay"?

I've fitted 2 of these heaters to our current boat, and I can assure @Alan de Enfield that the total cost of both heaters and extra fittings was considerably less than the cost of a single eberspacher or webasto heater on its own! BSS are currently reviewing requirements for these heaters, and will currently allow installation using supplied fittings, tank, pipes etc (see attached pdf from them). Our rear heater was installed in engine bay, and takes diesel from existing eberspacher feed from main tank. It was installed without silencer, and pipework is copper brake pipe throughout, with short iso compliant rubber hoses for connecting up, as per standard marine kits with the expensive heaters. Brake pipe was flared using automotive flaring tool. Combustion air intake is from within engine compartment (standard cruiser stern). I use this heater for heating back deck (ideal for drying laundry with pram hood up!) and rear bedroom/dining room. Don't find it particularly noisy without silencer either inside or outside the boat. Our front heater is installed using supplied tank, and supplied hose from tank to pump, both fitted in outside front locker. I then used copper brake pipe to bring the feed inside to the heater which is installed in a front cupboard next to the door. For this heater I used a marine silencer. Combustion air is drawn from near water tank, and heater air from behind paneling (due to space!). Both heaters have recently passed the BSS, and it was an examiner that pointed me to the current BSS guidance on diesel heaters. Front heater is installed with the exhaust outlet noticeably higher than the heater with no problems. Both have the exhaust lagged, and beware the exhaust gets VERY hot during use. Can't see the need for an insulated skin fitting for a steel boat though, and both ours use a standard brass skin fitting. It's often cheaper to buy the all-in-one heater unless you need the separate tank, and the heaters and control panel inside the casing are identical. I'd suggest shortening supplied power cables and replacing with thicker cables direct to battery (via fuse). I just about got away with using supplied cabling, but only due to the higher voltage of lithiums. Both heaters cost less than £80ea, and I just went for cheapest I could find on ebay with UK stock. Rear heater now been in use for 2 years, and front for 1 year, both have been 100% reliable during that time. Marine silencer (£37.50) and mounting bracket (£15) for front heater came from southernmarineproducts.uk which is considerably cheaper than i could find elsewhere, and seem very sturdy and well made. Happy to answer any further questions on our setup. I'd strongly advise CO and smoke alarms for peace of mind. BSS guidance pdf attached. ETA - Fuel pump for rear heater is mounted at deck height (12" above top of tank) and has to draw fuel through around 2m of copper pipe. Although standard advice is to mount pump below tank, this setup hasn't caused any problem in 2 years, and heater actually primes much easier and faster than eberspacher that is mounted close to, and below diesel tank. bss-interim-position-on-diesel-appliance-fuel-supply-arrangements-dec-2021-final-v10-modified-on-211208.pdf

I think all but one did come from me. And I stand by them. Perhaps you’d like to include some of my helpful suggestions too? As for not engaging, I’d prefer that too, thanks. We agree on something.

Rusty Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay rusty rusty rusty

Some good points here, especially at the end where you nail the issue of the CMers being united and thus getting far more attention and sympathy from the press and the general public who read it. That's exactly the problem and it's why labelling law-abiding continuous cruisers as continuous moorers is so harmful. (It's also factually inaccurate). You've raised a nuanced point about the act too. There may well have been a spirit/intention behind the law, in that those who were in the discussions before drafting it had a certain idea, but the law (or act) itself is simply the words written in the legislation, no more, no less, anything beyond that is just pointless speculation and benefits no boaters. I used to think the 1995 act was poorly worded. I've mostly changed my mind on that. I think it's actually quite well worded, it's just been poorly enforced over the years. BW allowed a huge problem to creep up on them when they could have nipped it in the bud and prevented a lot of the trouble CRT have now.

You seem to have misunderstood my post. I was calling for unity between fellow law abiding boaters, not between law abiding boaters and law breakers. The post I was responding to was merrily lumping law abiding continuous cruisers in with those who habitually break the law, labelling them all Continuous Moorers. That's what's destructive. It blurs what should be a clear line and turns boaters against each other when they should be allies. I don't support boaters who deliberately break the rules and then play victim as that makes CRT enforce harder on all the rest of us. I've made that explicitly clear in various previous threads.

...psssttt, it needs 2 Chinooks..... 😎

I disagree. The intention behind the continuous crusing provisions of the 1995 Act was to accommodate those few boaters who had no need of a home mooring because they were cruising most of the time, and the 14 day longstop on staying in one place was there specifically to prevent those without a home mooring abusing that status and hanging around in one spot for long periods. But as is often the case in dealing with objections to a proposed change in the rules, the relevant wording was added to the Parliamentary Bill rather hastily at the last minute, and the consequences of the way it was worded were not appreciated at the time. Hence there is no definition of 'place' or how far apart two locations have to be to be considered different 'places', nor is there any restriction on how soon you can return to a 'place' where you have moored previously, nor is a distinction made between having stops of varying length, of which only one a small proportion are 14 days, or having every stop of the full 14 day duration. Over the years BW and CRT have tried to introduce more specific interpretations of the rules, so everybody knew where they stood, but the courts have said that the vague wording of the Act cannot be interpreted in more specific terms. Hence we still have the vagiaries of "satisfying the Board", and CRT themselves have been forced to set a very low threshold, that allows them to deal with those whose pattern of movement is furthest from the intentions (or spirit) of the Act, but which allows others to stay just on the legal side of that low threshold. And they are quite often described as "continuous moorers".

Us historic types in the north have boats suitable for Thorne Lock, and historically the narrow boats operating in Yorkshire were of a length suitable for the waterways they were operating on. You could try cutting a few feet out of yours to make it historically correct for northern waterways. 😉

Yes it would absolutely ruin that quiet little backwater known as Central London 😁

Maybe he should go to Penrith station ...........

What puzzles me in this thread is the way the OP steadfastly dismisses all proposed solutions due to the unusual location, whilst at the same time refusing to allow photos of said odd-sounding situation to be posted. With a photo, the problem might be better understood and a practical solution developed.

Rods and levers on the Chevrolet the handbrake was internal and the foot brake external, you used both for an emergency stop! A anchor would have been better

Purely for information purposes, and no help to Nightwatch, we stuck our hire boat into the Marina at Apperley Bridge on the L&L for a pump out and they were really good. Quick, clean efficient and topped up our water afterwards to boot. Very friendly and helpful. Had quite a chat during the operation and a look at a Bear Boating boat as well. Definitely recommended.

Welcome. I suggest that you study this : and then ask questions about anything you do not understand. We fear you have fallen into the trap in respect of lead acid batteries and battery monitors that arguably the majority of new boaters fall into and may have ruined the batteries, so don't feel bad about it but learn. As Jen says that type of monitor is notorious for misleading boaters and encouraging them to ruin batteries, so if you have the manual study it an dlearn how to set it up and regularly resynchronise it. However, I would still consider that % charged figure a potential lie. Try to run the engine at 1200 to 1500 rpm for maybe 8 hours to try to recver the batteries, and then try to keep them as fully charged as possible. Edited to add: Any battery capacity markings on the batteries (Amp Hours A/h) is almost certainly now a fiction, over time lead acid batteries loose capacity and the longer they are left partially discharged the greater that loss.

The 1-2-Both switch is normally wired so that it is connected to the engine start-house bank or both. So, in normal use, you would start the engine on posn 1 (or possibly both), and then switch to both to charge the engine start battery and the house bank. If you leave it on 1 (assuming that is how it is connected), you will only charge the engine start battery. What position do you have the switch in when the engine is running?

Fortunately, all the bollards were due to be renewed soon, so they just replaced it with a spare. I was told in no uncertain terms not to do the same to one of the new ones, or I would be charged!

Can't the flying T stud issue be avoided by passing the rope completely round the hull?

What we need is to limit the terms used to the correct ones. Licence holder: - with a home mooring; - without a home mooring; and: - is not overstaying - is overstaying

I agree and disagree with both sides here... 😉 I believe that it's clear that there *was* an intention/spirit behind the CC rule which was to allow genuine canal-loving "Continuous Cruisers" to roam around the system without having to pay for a home mooring they neither wanted nor needed, because it's that category of boaters that was the issue when it was drafted. Unfortunately the law was badly written, hence all the knots that CART have tied themselves into in recent years. Since then the way people use the canals have changed, many more people want to use them as a place to live cheaply or conveniently, they're not interested in roaming round the system and in fact want to essentially stay in one place -- but without having to find (because they're like rocking-horse poo) and pay for (because they're expensive) a permanent mooring. Some of the CMers do the minimum moves necessary to stay within the CC rules, and regardless of whether "real" boaters agree with what they're doing (because they're not Continuously Cruising around the canal system) they *are* obeying the law as it stands. Some "selfish CMers" either bend or ignore the rules and use tricks/excuses to stop their boats being confiscated or forcibly moved on, and the NBTA and others back them up. It's these CMers who are the problem, not just because they don't do what law-abiding boaters do but because many of them also overstay and block short-term moorings or moor in inappropriate places. It's these CMers who the wrath of "real" boaters (whatever that means) should be directed at, not the ones who follow the rules. CART are in a bind here; the original rules were badly written and unclear (which is always a bad thing for a law), and they haven't helped themselves by recently giving in to pressure from the NBTA and others to kind-of-allow (but not officially!) CMers to adopt patterns of cruising (e.g. shorter in term-time, longer in holidays) to allow more leeway for families with children -- in spite of the fact that their own CC rules (but not the law...) *specifically* exclude this (or work) as a reason for staying in one place and state that boats doing this must have a home mooring. So I agree with Dora that the battle here is between *all* law-abiding boaters -- regardless of whether they cruise around the system, or stay in one area but obey the CC rules -- and the "selfish CMers" who ignore the rules to the detriment of the canal system in general, and more specifically all the law-abiding boaters who can't find places to moor because of them. But I disagree that there *isn't* an intention/spirit behind the law, because there clearly was, it was just badly drafted and has been even more badly enforced -- but nevertheless, it is all we've got, with little chance of it being changed because canals are not on the government's radar, so we have to make do with it, warts and all. The problem is that the "selfish CMers" are relatively united, vocal -- especially in the press -- and have the support of the NBTA and others to make their case, where law-abiding boaters are divided (as shown in this thread), don't make much fuss, and only seem to have the support of CART -- who many "real" boaters seem to hate because of the way they run the system, they'd rather castigate CART for doing a bad job than try and think of any way to help them improve things. If only there was some kind of organisation that really *did* represent the interests of boaters and the canal system and could promote these to both press and government, not just those of "selfish CMers"...

I’ve fitted an Lf Bros heater (a Czech-made one, a bit more expensive than the Chinese ones) in my cruiser stern. It’ll be fine fitted inside as long as you make sure all the exhaust joints are gas tight. You need to bin the following items in the kit - exhaust silencer, fuel tank, fuel filter, jubilee clips (they’re usually crap) And buy this, it’ll cost around £150 - brass or rubber ISO7840 compliant fuel hose and fittings, metal fuel filter, sealed marine type exhaust silencer, insulated skin fitting, exhaust condensate trap. Some crap kits come with a 1.5mm2 power cable which is about 3m long, the voltage drop on startup is too much, if your batteries are less than fully charged it will fail to start. You’ll need to cut it and splice in a 10mm2 or larger cable as your run to the batteries will be quite long. It will pull about 10 amps for 1-2 minutes on startup and shutdown. The plastic fuel tank in the kit can’t be used in the engine space, and whilst I’m not sure if the BSS forbids it in the living space, it’s not a great idea. You’ll need to tap off the main tank - run a long brass/copper fuel line from a spare outlet on the water separator (most boats have one) to the heaters dosing pump. It doesn’t have good suction, so it will need to be lower than the fuel tank, and I have no idea if it can deal with the long fuel line, you may need another lift pump after the water separator. The dosing pump is designed to be gravity fed. Note that the fuel line from the pump to the heater can’t be ISO7840 rubber as it expands too much with each pulse of the pump - you need to use the included hard nylon tube, I sheathed it in rubber hose for some sort of flame resistance, passes BSS too. Not the most elegant of solutions, I know! The exhaust needs to be lagged to avoid the fumes condensing as much as possible, and the skin fitting fitted as high as you can get whilst being below the heater, check how far it is from the waterline! You need a U bend and a condensate trap if it’s not a straight run down from heater to skin fitting. Combustion air can be drawn from the cabin space, but consider where the heater intake takes its air from. If it’s from the cabin, you’ll have maximum efficiency but also condensation inside the boat as the air is never renewed. If it’s from outside, you lose efficiency but you don’t get condensation issues. I installed a 2 way valve (about £8 on eBay) on the intake so it pulls in a mix of outside and inside air, about 70/30 outdoor/indoor air works well.

My husband and I used to visit Europe every winter for a month for more than 10 years. I tried shipping things ahead ONE time. NOT a good idea. We didn't get our [severely damaged] package until halfway through our trip, and it went to several places we did not go! From that experience, I learned that the Italians (and I am ½ Italian) are freakin' crazy, and they probably discuss visiting the w/c for a good half hour before they go, hands waving a loud voices all the way.

Wasn't the river there before the expensive flats....and its still a trading river....just the cargo has changed.....