Leaderboard

That is the end of a 2 day trip which took almost 2 weeks and Kelpie is tucked up in her mooring after leaving it 4 months ago to get her bottom and base plate reblacked and a complete strip back to bare metal repaint.. Some thoughts on the journey which was dull, dry and cold every day till today when we had intermittent showers. I have never seen so many mole hills ! They had been busy round most locks but as few seemed fresh, they must have moved on. We saw a lot of evidence of trees having fallen across the canal. In fact, if anyone wants logs there are lots , all different lengths, lying at the edge of the towpath just north of bridge 117 on the Shroppie. We saw very few moving boats and mostly had moorings all to ourselves. We only once met another boat at a lock. It was an enjoyable trip and good to have experienced the Manchester Ship Canal again but I can't remember having so many short days boating on a trip. The big plus for me was that I am still able to do locks despite all the health problems I have had. Home tomorrow .

We found the culprit! I had fitted (without realising it) 3 of the large O rings in the second filter and in the first filter, I had fitted the top O ring in the wrong place : on the filter itself rather than on the slot in the metal housing.. All worked now - the hand pump got harder and harder and after a couple of cranking attempts the engine was running Thanks everyone for the great help 🤗

That seems a bit unfair to me. My understanding is that that part of BW1995 S17 was deliberately vague and open to interpretation in order to accommodate different cruising patterns of boaters without a home mooring. The NBTA also seems to ignore that the “reasonable under the circumstances “ bit is part of what the boater has to “satisfy the Board” about, i.e. “reasonable “ is as interpreted by CaRT, not as claimed by the boater. The judge’s musings on “bona fide navigation” have some merit, but if the Mersey Ferry only made the crossing every second Saturday, would it be engaged in bona fide navigation for the other 13 days? I think not! The 1995 Act allows a boater without a home mooring to cease navigation for 14 days. When the precise meaning of legislation is imprecise, usual practice is to try to establish the reason for the legislation. Was it to allow a boater to cruise the canal network beyond reasonable reach of a home mooring, or was it to allow the boat to remain in a restricted area without a home mooring? I think study of the various submissions when the Bill was being drawn up would suggest the former. Is it “bona fide navigation” when the only object is to fill up the water tank or find another nearby spot to stop for 14 days?

The problem is that if the rules became 48hrs there are a whole load of other people whose use of a boat is currently entirely within the rules would not be able to comply and hence would derive no benefit. This includes pretty much all liveaboard traders and the majority of leisure owners of employed age who wish to travel further than about 15-20miles from their mooring. It may be that these users are acceptable collateral damage, but I would argue that if you reach the point where you pretty much have to be either retired or sufficiently privately wealthy to not work in order to travel the canal network, or only want to sit in a marina, then the canal network rapidly becomes very unappealing to a meaningful number of current users. I declare a vested interest here. We bought a boat to go to places, to take to historic boat rallies etc. If that was no longer possible there would be no point having it. Alec

A tug deck makes it so much easier to work a boat and , as a bonus, there is an accessible and safe way of leaving the front end in an emergency. After steering Wyrd for 36 years I would never consider any other design. If you are drawing a plan then ,after a free swimming hull, safe access and ease of working is up there with kitchen and bathroom provision.

I’d dispute your conclusion. If I set out to cruise the canal network, or a large proportion of it, that is my purpose. I sleep on the boat because that is the most convenient thing to do. The reason I would be living on the boat is to allow me to travel. Different thing if I stayed near one place and moved the minimum permitted. If that is the case, I would agree with CaRT that I should get a mooring …

Just for everyone’s information Having been asked for a full survey at 30 years old ( the boat, not me ) by GJW I had a shop around. Haven Knox Johnson do not ask for a survey until 35 years and if at that time you have been continuously insured with them , then I am told, no need for a survey. Quote wasn’t cheap at £220, but with contents of £5k I am just happy that we can continue with Fully Comp on our lovely boat. Have a good weekend folks 🍻

Farm moorings are fine, usually reasonably secure but with minimal facilities. Some let you live on, some don't, some charge more if you do. Some may let you park a car permanently and some won't. Either way, it is important to remember that you have no security of tenure, and may get kicked off for any (or no) reason. The best way to find one is to hire a boat and cruise the area you want, and just ask boaters on any mooring you find. Or cycle the towpath, but then you may have to shout across. You'd need to bear in mind that you'd almost certainly have to move off the mooring for water, pumpout etc, so it's not just a park and never shift. Which means turning the boat round somewhere...

Those suggesting shortening the 14 days are aiming at the wrong target. What needs tightening up is the distance travelled, both between successive individual stays and over a longer period of time. The '95 Act only requires those without a home mooring not to remain in one 'place' for more than 14 days (or such longer period...), and 'place' is not defined, and neither are there any specific rules on returning to a previous 'place'. New legally enforceable rules are needed which specify a minimum distance to be travelled between successive stays, or over any (say) 14 day period, prohibit returning to previous 'places' or within a set distance of previous 'places' within say a 3 month period (with exceptions for genuine out and back trips), and a range (distance between extremities visited) within any say 3 month period which is perhaps 100 miles (or greater than the typical London boater commuter zone). That allows 'genuine CCers' (liveaboard or not) to cruise over a reasonably extensive area whilst still being able to stay up to two weeks in a particular place, but would strongly discourage those whose main motivation is limited movement within a smallish area necessitated by a fixed place of work or education or other local connection. The precise requirements would need to be worked out, as well as the legal wording and enforcement mechanisms to enable the changes. And since CRT inspectors can't be everywhere all of the time, there will be a need for some self certification of one's movements, with pragmatic interpretation by CRT.

Nope...Usk was mine. Colin owned Umbriel and "Ariel" both Star class Rickys. Nope. Umbriel had a Lister CE. Usk had an AS3.

14 days is also a good choice of length of time to stay legally in one place for boaters who are genuinely cruising around large parts of the system with stops to do stuff and look at places, which is what the CC exemption was intended for. 7 days is a bit short given constraints of when people might be able to move, for example it means you can't stay in one town/city for a long week including two weekends. The idea should be to allow "real CCers" to travel around without major inconvenience, while discouraging CMers. Shortening the time from 14 to 7 days would penalise CCers and would make little or no difference to CMers -- especially since to enforce it you would need twice as many checkers to spot infringement. The problem is not the 14 day period, it's the lack of detection and ineffective enforcement -- and the second is largely down to the legal situation and rules, which is what the commission is set up to look at.

Which still rules out all those old fogeys who won't do facebook.

I wish it was possible to discuss that point with Nigel! 😪

I think the really annoying thing is that people (especially Alan) keep quoting a ruling that is, in any sensible analysis, nonsense. That's the trouble with judges who either don't bother to, or can't, use their brains. There are quite a lot of these as they're an inbred lot. Luckily he was only a minor figure in a lower court and so his daft musings are not binding on any other case, don't set a precedent, and so the unquoted rulings of more sensible people tend to carry more weight. The man was a fool. If I remember rightly, he delivered the quoted nonsense about navigation, then ignored some other facts of the case and ruled against the somewhat barmy overstayer in question. Both his written ruling, and his decision, make no logical sense whatsoever. While I have no sympathy for the guy who deservedly lost his boat, it doesn't stop the judge being horrendously incompetent.

It's usually the large thin O ring at the top of the first 296 filter unit that can give trouble. It's a knack, making sure the filter canister is not bulking onto the metal suround instead of snugly onto the sealing 0 ring in the circular slot. Nip the bolt up to not quite tight and gently turn the canister by hand making sure it's seated on the o ring before fully tightening. If it's not seated properly it will obviousely draw in air when you pump the pump on the engine. Obviousely the large thicker 0 ring goes at the bottom of the filter.

This is the (Democrat) Governor of Illinois.

This thread had reminded me of one experience we had coming upstream in Cromwell lock which we had been through many times before. I was on the bow deck and put the rope round the riser and round the T stud and back to me. Across the lock from us were two narrow boats . The inside one had a rope through a riser at each end and the outside one had his centre rope over the top of the other boat and he held it while standing on the roof. The lock was fairly full of boats. The lockie opened the paddles and I had difficulty holding the boat in and the boat on the inside opposite couldn't hold their bows and they shot across the lock taking the one with the guy on the roof with it. I don't know how he managed to stay on his roof as the boat banged around. It is a deep lock and there seemed no way of getting the attention of the lock keeper who was out of site while the lock filled. It was a scary experiment and I would never try to hold the front of a narrow boat in a lock unless I was safely within the well deck

You are now probably wondering how Alan guessed that. Do Wilton own the boat or are they selling it for someone else? it makes a difference to you rights.

Is this boat at Whilton ?

I got a quote from them and they are around 50% higher in price than Craftinsure - but when the time comes, that'll still be cheaper than getting a survey. I've filed it away for future.

There are several Marine 16 products, you may have their standard fuel treatment Marine 16 Complete?), not the shock treatment for bug. The steam cleaner should rinse it all off the tank walls and then you will have to swab the tank out to dry it.

I went this morning. All the tours are fully booked, and one reason for ticketing is the limited car parking. But there are other stalls and displays, and history talks at 11 and 1, open to everyone. If you park at the bottom of Hatton hill and walk up, then you can walk around and see them even if you don't have a ticket.

This would, however, create the issue that leisure boaters (I believe 80% of the total?) could not weekend their boat to cover a wider range. Whilst there are many leisure boaters who are happy to sit in the marina, or who only go out and back at a weekend, there are presumably a reasonable number who want to travel further than that but have commitments which prevent them making the trip in one go. There is also the matter of timing at destinations. If you want to attend a rally or festival that lasts a weekend, that itself would be precluded by too short a restriction (and I presume rallies and festivals are generally seen as something to be encouraged). For traders attending such events, there is also the question of timing. If two festivals in the same general area are a fortnight apart, it would not be in anyone's interests if they could not attend both - the trader would do less well, the visitors would have a less pleasant experience and CRT would not benefit. I think 14 days is here to stay as it would be counter to the objectives of CRT to reduce it. Alec

Thanks Alec, It's certainly something I will look at if the original mounts turn out to be unusable. When first realising I would need to lift the engine, I have to admit I was a little concerned. Not being an Engineer, Mechanic or even a Grease Monkey Spanner Flinger, the thought of such an involved task did cause me a few panicky moments. However, with the help of so many on here, particularly Tony - although others have also been extremely helpful as well. Im actually quite looking forward to hoiking this lump out of the boat and getting a really good look at it. As its my first boat, there have been many tasks that I have tackled that have been my 'firsts'. replacing the windlass, removing a solid fuel stove and glassing over the holes, servicing a large diesel engine, fitting a new core plug, replacing the spill rail, renewing the running rigging and much more. I continue to learn as I go, I now have reasonable faith in the boat in general but if Im honest every time I have turned the key, I have said a silent prayer to Poseidon that nothing goes wrong with the engine. Because it is in such a confined space, its almost impossible to get at most of the important stuff and lifting it out will give me the chance to do some work on it that will ease my concerns onces its back in and running. I had a list of jobs I wanted to do and then Tony added a few more, and when I discover what the bits he is referring to are, I hope to add them in also. I know I tend to waffle when posting but the information that comes back is fantastic and I very much appreciate all the effort others make in suggesting stuff, even if some of it does go off at a tangent sometimes. Thanks again. Mike. Thanks again Tony, duly noted

I'm not sure if anyone has asked the Q, is this a barge, as in historic style, or a widebeam as in notabarge? Just asking .... PS, before you hand over your cash in the belief this is a massive saving on standard housing costs, take a deep breath, write down costs on one side of a matchbox and pros and cons on the other. Do you really want a boat, or do you really want a flat?

On the Nauticaus 27 you could go into the cabin then come out of the front hatch which was on the front deck next to the front cleat if you didn't want to walk around the side. Think the Norman's had a similar arrangement The thing I don't fancy with tug decks is when they put the bed under it. Isn't it claustrophobic, hard to make the bed properly. Don't you get grit and water coming off of your shoes when you come into the cabin ending up in bed with you. Isn't it awkward to get out of to go to the loo in the night.

No but C&RT took him to court regarding his boat licence(s) despite him proving thatwhere he was moored did not require one. He read up (and digested) virtually every waterways law right back to the 1700s. He fought his case and won. He became the source of interpretation of waterways law for many on the forum, although there were some where his interpretaton did not meet their needs so poo-pood him ( still happens today) He was prepared to debate his interpretations and could be convinced to change his mind if compelling evidence was given. I had many long and involved discussions with him, one particular one (relevant today) was C&RTs ability to make any charges they like for a licence. One of his final posts on the subject was : New Charging Bands For Boat Licence Nigel Moore 6/1/18 The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel. I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations. This is the relevant Act British Waterways Act 1983 .....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their inland waterways, the Board may register pleasure boats and houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment of such charges as they may from time to time determine: Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of State under section 4 of that Act.

14 days is the problem.. It needs to be a much shorter period of time on land owned by the CRT along with no return policies. Genuine nomadic people on Boats would have no problem. When we were cruising about in the 90s and 00s unencumbered by life problems we rarely stayed anywhere for 14 days. Cruising all winter stoppage dependant and more or less daily in summer. It is not an option for many people because of other factors like work or children but at the end of the day someone moving around in a small area claiming to be nomadic is nonsense.

The Canal Gods will read their own rules before they confirm and in future will not post rules from the pub lest they contradict themselves.

Or...you never need to use a hose, it never gets empty....

Google missed a trick with the Gulf of Mexico, they should have renamed it to Sea Señor

Why not just keep them in case of fire? Surely if the Boat is on fire and there is a risk to life you just want to get out and a fire extinguisher might be handy. Does some inspector turn up while you are standing beside the smouldering remains with singed hair and tell you off for using the wrong sort of fire extinguisher?