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.

Never mind heated rear windows, when I bought my first car some of the older ones were advertised as having a heater... 🤣😂

Hence needing the gadget fitting to stop it happening. My Hudson had it fitted as standard and that was twenty years ago so why its not standard on everything now is quite strange. Can you remember the car adverts a few years ago that said HRW lol, find a car without one now or for many years. ( We used to fit our own from MDC )

I can pop over at the weekend sometime to run through it with you if you want.

In terms of how this actually affects anyone, this is just irrelevant nit-picking. CRT have more than they can cope with just dealing with the numbers of boats who are blatantly breaking the rules. Lumping even more boaters in with those rules breakers benefits nobody except those who would prefer to get all the boats off the network. Please try to consider the bigger picture. I don't doubt that lots of boaters incorrectly use the the term "continuous moorers", it doesn't make it right though. And I'll say again, there's no such thing as the spirit of the act, and the intention behind it is irrelevant. The only things that matter are what the legislation actually says, and what those in authority actually do to enforce that legislation. This is why lumping boaters with a proven lawful cruising pattern in with law breakers, by dubbing them all the same thing, is really harmful.

The British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012 excludes section 107 in its entirety. I assume this is because CRT's charitable objects compel it to maintain all its waterways for navigation.

From the London Canal Museum Archive a 1968 British Waterways Board Map showing their waterways and their classification http://timlewis.org.uk/webspace/Waterways Of The British Waterways Board December 1968.pdf

Phenolic ply isn't difficult to cut yourself with a £6 hand saw from Screwfix. Just use the old deckboards as templates to mark out the shapes. No need to pay for a "professional" to cut it. People on boats seem to be losing the ability to do simple jobs themselves.