Leaderboard

One of our local canal societies had folk given Community Service orders working with them regularly maintaining their boats and the yard. Some of the community order folk went on working with them when their order expired and joined the canal society and are still there several years on, doing a useful job

If you ever decide to sell could you send me an encrypted message?

Yes, they should be deployed across the system. This one was doing a sterling job at the Port.

The Dutch already have the Opduwer... Could the Star class Ricky "Electra" be ringing that bell?

Its Saturday night Mr M, so I've a had few beers- and I'm guessing you've had a few too, which is why you're in a mood to treat CCers so harshly. You already know - as someone who knows more about the canals than I ever will- that limiting all moorings to 2 days will effectively prevent anyone from CCing. Well, all bar a tiny handful of hard core boaters. I reckon it would drive away about 90% of all CCers, which is what - about 8,000 boats? That's a huge license fee loss to CRT, which would have to be recouped by asking for more money from the remaining boaters. But more significantly, it would effectively make CCing impossible. You were a CCer yourself for many years, and you travelled the system extensively. Do you not think its a bit unfair that you should now advocate to take that same CCing lifestyle away from other people who want to enjoy it in the future? Dont get me wrong. I don't like seeing boats moored three deep all the way through London, or selfish b*****ds overstaying for months on a 48 hour mooring. But I dont think a 48 mooring limit is the right solution.

Just a note. You wouldn't be paying a farmer £1000 a year, you'd be paying a lot more than that, and who says a farm isn't a "proper" mooring? But as a genuine cruiser, you wouldn't have to. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that CCing will cease, or that everyone will be forced to have a home mooring. That, after all, was why the ability to CC was included in the act in the first place - because some, like yourself, honestly wanted to cruise the system and had no need for a mooring. There are several on here do the same. But it wasn't included so people could hover round a tiny area, or circle permanently within a bus ride of a town, and unfortunately so many people are now claiming the "right" to do exactly that, that CRT is going, almost certainly, to want to treat them as if they are using CRTs towpath as a de facto permanent mooring, and are going to charge them accordingly, ultimately, I imagine, the same as they charge us farm moorers - which is almost as much again as the licence costs. Don't blame us home moorers for the fact that you, and the few like you, get caught in the same trap. Blame those who have finagled the system, bleating that "it's within the letter of the law" and then, rather than keeping schtum and thanking their gods they were being ignored, started shouting the odds. It's not fair, and it's a shame, but it's what happens when, frankly, too many people take the piss.

Wouldn't paying to have it done via a crane minimise the risk of carnage ?

Nobody told me I couldn't... Alec

But as I never tire of pointing out, liveaboard CCers are not the problem. It's the liveaboard CMers that are causing all this trouble around here. Yes there are a few dumpers but most of those actually dump compliantly.

Sadly we are a nation in economic decline and its going to continue. Leisure boat ownership is expensive so will decline. Liveaboard boating is increasing (for better or worse) and CRT need to find a way to manage this and make more money out if it, not kill it off. For those who don't understand, liveaboard boating and CC'ing is very different to full time leisure boating, we don't want to do 20 lock miles each and every day and then have dinner at the pub. Its all about a quiet gentle slower way of life (sometimes) and a huge sense of freedom. If CRT take this away then CCing, and quite a lot of leisure boating, will just go away.

It'd be daft, which is why it won't happen. Cruising or just on holiday, sometimes you want to stop and look around for a bit, or simply have a break. The 14 day rule is fine, if it's combined with a genuine cruise and proper policing. Most liveaboard CCers I know don't particularly want to stay in the same place that long more than occasionally. It's mostly the dumpers who do.

I am just making my way down the canal. I wanted to go down towards London (but not into the city itself.) I was hoping to venture down the Aylesbury & Wendover arms and then head back up past Northampton and down to Oxford. As I live and work in/ near MK I can get to the boat easily in my spare time by bus, train, bicycle or (if I am really pressed for time, like this afternoon) by car. The Arriva Orbit ticket covers the area from Northampton down towards Watford (somewhere) and I buy this ticket to get to work, so it is not costing me any more. I can't get much further than the 3 locks at Soulbury as the canal is closed at the next bridge south of the locks. I purchased the boat near Nantwich, so I have already been up North, following the West Coast Mainline. If I still have the boat, then maybe I will take it back up towards Wales. I do not intend to go up and down the same stretch of canal over and over again.

It's the "when conditions allow" that is interesting. What does that mean? You move the boat every single week except when there are stoppages both sides of you (unlikely) or you're iced in (rare). Or do you mean just when it's not raining? And you move it at least ten miles each time so you're well into another "place" after two weeks (to keep within the letter, if not the spirit) of the law? The CC thing was invented to allow genuine cruises to take place without the owners needing a home mooring. The fact that it's now prevalent for people to use the concession just to avoid mooring fees, or the incredible inconvenience of having to open a bridge to leave a marina, is why first, there's the surcharge, secondly, more enforcement coming and finally a major shakeup of the rules. You aren't stuck at all. You don't cruise, so under the rules you need a mooring, which you can obviously afford. You don't follow them from choice, which is fair enough, but don't pretend it's anyone's responsibility but your own. The fact that MK is a notorious spot for nonmovers is no excuse for joining their ranks. I think this is what annoys me most about the dumpers, overstayers and nonmovers. That it's always someone else's fault that they break the rules. I have no particular respect for the law as such, and most of us break laws all the time (let's just say speed limits before the self righteous chip in), but at least one should have the decency to take the responsibility for one's own decisions and actions.

Worth bearing in mind how wood actually 'works' as it explains what is happening when you bend it. It's not a bad way to think of wood structure as a whole bunch of drinking straws, 'glued' together. The straws are slightly flexible so it can bend a bit, but if you bend it too far you start to either kink the straws or snap them. What steaming does is to melt the glue (literally in this case, as the glue is lignin, the 'straws' are cellulose tubes). Once the glue has softened, the straws will slide over one another as a bend is formed and then the lignin cools and it sets back in place. All wood has the same basic composition, but varies in how long the individual fibres are. Woods like ash have particularly long fibres so they are shock resistant. Oak has fairly long, very dense fibres and also contains tannins so it is hard, fairly strong, has reasonable shock resistance and is also resistant to rot. Woods like iroko and teak have very few holes in the sides of the 'straws' and contain silica and oils, so are very durable. Beyond that, it's a choice of colour, price and cachet. Alec

Personally I would use a Q-max Cutter. Requires a 8mm hole drilling but after that it's simple. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/115952414219?

And that's rather the point. Having spent a little while sleeping in bus shelters and on park benches when younger, I rather empathise. You can either supply the housing people need or put up with the solutions they find for themselves. As the current government has no more intention than the last few of doing so, and the housebuilders certainly haven't, I can't see the problem going away.

Boat sinks. What to use for hole? Sorry to hear your boat sinks. Is this just occasionally, or is it a regular feature? I wouldn't use anything for a hole because you have most likely got one already. They are definitely bad news in a narrowboat anyway. I suggest you get rid of it pdq - a dirty great cork may well do the trick. 🙄

For a minute there I thought you'd sank your boat!

So when a boater pays his £xxxx to renew his licence, why don't CRT simply write back saying "Thank you for paying your £yyy overstaying charge. We are unable to renew your boat licence as we have only received £(xxxx-yyy) towards the cost. Please pay the outstanding £yyy by [date1]. Please also note that if payment is not received in full by [date2] a late payment charge will be incurred."

Converted Clayton tar boat Ribble had a CE fitted when it was used by a school in Brum , late 60s. Marine version, ran very nice. There was a Manchester Collieries box boat got an industrial CE codged into it with a chain drive,radiator cooled, that was rubbish*. We have another CE here destined for a narrow gauge loco, was original fitment when Pontius was a pilot. * the engine was ok , the installation was not.

Clearly, a minority group of boaters who are continuous moorers, are starting to mount an effective publicity campaign to bring their demands to the attention of a wider audience, with the aim to impede any effective change to the legislation, which would impact on their chosen way of life. This is likely to get stronger, as the day gets nearer, aided by a sympathetic media, with the hope of making their lifestyle appear reasonable, and gain an influence beyond their numbers. CART, needs to engage with their argument in order to show how unreasonable their behaviour is, how they spoil it for other compliant boaters, and the canal environment, and that they do not follow their licence terms. They attempt to create a residence in one place, without paying for a mooring, and that the law needs to be made clear, and easier to apply, without incurring crippling costs. They also need an effective PR campaign, to promote the benefits and good living to be had on the canals, and the different options available that boaters have to enjoy them.

Bumped into what may be a similar group a couple of times last Summer around the Newlay, Forge and Kirkstall locks on the L&L canal. The group was young offenders doing their community service. Speaking to the guys who were in charge, it was nothing to do with CaRT and the offenders all enjoyed getting out and doing their community service work. They helped me with the locks and the tow path where they were cutting heading towards Leeds was well cut and tidy. So IMO they were doing a good service in the upkeep of the Towpath. Nothing to complain about especially knowing how CaRT waste money.

It is interesting to consider the impact of the Ward case in two different ways. Firstly there were people out having a Good Time on a day Boat which supposedly 'sunk' his wooden narrow. The basic fact is it was a sinker already and needed no help. So we get a situation where a belligerent not contributing is causing a negative outcome for a hire company. Exclusion not inclusion.. Additionally there was the insistence on exclusive use of canalside land. This is a significant negative working against inclusive use of the inland waterways. The aim must be inclusive not exclusive. People with an exclusive attitude need to do something else. Private benefit, which is a term used by @DandV above, is a very important point . Is it in any way appropriate for a public leisure resource such as an inland waterways network operated by a quasi-charity to provide a private benefit for individuals? If so why ?

It seems to me that having free moorings everywhere in the system, is actually unfair to to the majority of boaters. To boaters those that do have a home mooring, and to those that do not, the current continuous cruisers, but spend little time in honey pots, London, the Western end of the K&A, and around Oxford etc. And unfair, perhaps even to taxpayers and ratepayers everywhere else, given that free mooring is an anomaly compared to the generally substantial space occupation charges levied on just about every other accomodation types. If all moorings were charged at a rate that reflected the private benifit by location, then the majority of boaters, could expect their annual licence to be considerably lower then otherwise would be the case. This would be because a lot more of the costs of keeping the system navigable, would be borne, by those currently receiving the greatest private benifit from the current regime. Those that are not paying any occupancy charges whilst occupying incredibly valuable space. I would suggest that most of the contributors to this forum would be better off, losing the free mooring benifit, if moorings were instead charged out at commercial rates, and the proceeds returned to the maintaining navigation and boater facilities component of CART's expenditure. After all how much of your towpath mooring nights per year are spent in London, and in other high mooring stress locations?

In truth I think its almost impossible to draw an entirely fair and equitable set of pricing structures and movement rules that will treat all the different types of boaters fairly. For example, you have some boaters who cruise for only half the year. So to be really fair, I should pay twice as much as they do for the service of rubbish disposal (I suspect the water and elsan costs will be negligible, but the principle is what I'm talking about really). However, if a portion of the license reflects the use of infrastructure and a boat's impact upon it (like locks and lift bridges etc), then those boaters probably use the same number of locks as I do over a year (and in many cases they do more locks in their 6 months of cruising than I do in a year, so it could be argued that they put more strain on the lock gates and paddles etc, and that they use more water). So that aspect of the license fee should be roughly equal, at least in my view. After all, am I causing a significant cost or impact to CRT's infrastructure if I am moored on armco at Whixall Moss for 2 weeks in January, or for the next week moored near Ellesmere? Someone who comes out for the summer and does the Cheshire ring is putting more pressure on the infrastructure than I normally am. But what I think is fair might be viewed by others as outrageous. And whatever the rules are, they must prohibit CCers from occupying visitor moorings in hot spots for the while summer. And I'm not suggesting that should be permitted. But all that said, I do feel there is a principle at play in terms of the pricing of a CC license compared to a marina mooring. For me, the CC license cannot be anywhere near the cost of a marina mooring, given how many more amenities and comforts you have right next to your boat on a marina pontoon, compared to when you are out cruising in the mud and the rain. And if CRT even threaten to charge a CCing surcharge such that the CC license costs more than 50% of the price of a typical marina mooring fee (in the north), I will be out of here faster than you can say 'section 8'. And so will thousands of others. And I dont think people here are giving enough thought to how much a sudden flood of boats up for sale might affect them, or the canal business they use.

So this should be fixed then... 😉

My understanding (from Nigel Moore) is that as the laws currently stand C&RT are unable to fine boaters outwith of the Bye laws, and even then they cannot add the two 'items' (licence + fine) and then apportion them in the order you suggest. If the four requirements, required under the 1995 act are met then C&RT must issue a licence irrespective of any other outstanding payments. For - example, even when a boat is siezed and sold off the law states that the income from the sale cannot be used to pay of any amounts owing EXCEPT for those costs accrued during the removal, storage and sale of the boat. Payment of overdue licence fees etc is specifically excluded. What you are suggesting would require the repeal of pretty much all of the existing waterways acts particulary the 1962, 1971, 1983 and 1995 acts but maybe other as well, and a new 'catch all' Act being enacted.

Need to be careful with coal dust.

I wonder if that is a direction sign, or a political slogan? ETA I was thinking of Hoffnung's comment about ignoring all left and right signs. 'They are merely political slogans.' He was talking about roads, but the joke remains valid.

https://penguineng.com/sinks/

Yes I work alongside marketing people so I do have a basic understanding of the concept. But that still doesn't explain why some suppliers are selling these batteries as made by Hancook while others are taking great care not to. It seems to me that the ambiguity is deliberate if even some suppliers aren't sure.

The one cylinder CE is the CD.

It seems to me, That there are serious and fundemental inadequacies in the current ownership, legal and regulatory frameworks under which boating is undertaken on Britains inland waterways. These inadequacies are so serious, that because of inadequate funding, inadequate cost recovery and inadequately competant enforcement mechanisms, that the very ability to navigate the network is seriously at risk. That the current , Laws, Bylaws, and Regulations that Canal and River Trust is expected to operate by, are so deficient, that enforcement is either not possible, or inordinately difficult and costly to enforce. These Laws Bylaws and Regulations are simply not fit for purpose, leading to significant inadequately addressed problems. Reform is required. Undoubtedly boaters recieve very considerable private benifit by the ability to "navigate" the waters, but also very largely, to moor up without further charges. This private benifit to moor up for free, varies very very substantially by location. The current charging regime totally ignores this. It seems to me that getting boaters to pay charges better reflecting the private benifits recieved by boaters, would go a very long way to addressing current funding shortfalls and private benifit value, equitablity issues. This and updating the overriding Laws and Regulations to better reflect current waterway use. And to make enforcement more effective, and far less costly.

That's how the "independents" do it. Formal organisations have to ask. I once slipped a boat using borrowed BW stop planks in an overnight operation. The planks were returned before dawn, none the worse for their experience. A couple of days later the patrol officer turned up and, knowing exactly what I'd done, said "Why didn't you just ask?" I asked if he would have said "Yes" and his reply was "Of course not." That's why I didn't ask.

Or worse, actually living on the bus while she tries to use it for what it was intended.

As far as I can tell from you diagram, you are proposing just one fuse to run a number of services. The main problem with that is if a short circuit etc takes out the fuse, you lose a whole lot of other circuits that are in fact unaffected by the short circuit, and also you don't know where to start looking for the problem since several things have gone off. Not great when you are in the middle of nowhere in the dark. Or in a tunnel! There can also be an issue with selecting the right fuse size since it has to be able to cope with all the services on, whilst not being above the cable rating of any one service. I would also say that the further back towards the batteries you take the spurs off to the various services, the less wiring each service has in common and thus eg the slight dimming of flickering of lights when the water pump kicks in, is minimised. Or maximised if you have a lot of common wiring as you are proposing! Normal practise is to have a fuse box/distribution panel close to the batteries, with each service independantly fused, and that is normal practise for a reason!

Bear in mind this forum has an inbuilt bias against ALL boats for sale. Whatever you find, no matter how good and how many of your buttons it presses, hard, posters here will rubbish it. This is because they do not need to buy a boat so do not feel the pressure and/or the desire. If you find a boat that 'speaks' to you and expresses a non-verbal yearning for you to buy it, love it and live on it, just buy it and deal with the problems whatver they are. And there WILL be problems. Every boat comes with problems. This is part of the delight of boating and of living aboard, accommodating the problems and talking with other boaters about them. Welcome to the community! (Nice wine, this...)