nick_theboatman

Interesting... but the shears are marked "Star Class" and the GA drawing matches closely... Nope the pic _is_ the right way round - at least the adjuster is on the correct side of my welding helmet and somewhere you can see the metric adjustable. But the left handed ladder was a problem (I'm a rightie) and I couldn't make the sky hooks stay in place properly... anyway the long weight was invaluable

Walkers of Ricky Star Class. I have scans of the original drawings (dated June 1935) from the BW Museum. The drawings are now out of copyright and freely available (I was asked to put CRT credits on them if I used them in anger). It would be obvious to make a request for a PSI Licence for re-use commercially. The drawing set includes the butty shears, the motor shears, a cross-section and the plan and some other bits and bobs. The pic of the OP featured in the book "Walkers of Rickie" and I guess the Autocad was done as a run-in to that. This was a digitized version of a re-draw of the original cross-section and plan. It looks like the re-draw was done by an apprentice in the 1960s. The film hanger has some scribbles on it and the style is such that it looks like it was a technical drawing exercise. It might have been someone from the local college - I cant tell. The film is in much better condition that the original drawing (which is blue dye-line paper and is in pretty poor condition for a 80-year old drawing (lol)). I have also digitized my scans of the film and the shears (in 3rd angle and in 3D). There were a signifcant number of drawing errors (dimensions wrong for line length, side view not matching with plan with front view, etc) and when I digitized and re-drew these became apparent, so I've fixed them. The boat I'm building at the moment is in steel but Gem Bates had (at the time I started) 2 original wooden ones at his yard on the Aylesbury Arm. Very helpful person, Gem: one day I'll pay him back for the favour. Maybe one day I'll RepRap one off the 3D model (eew)... You see, CCers are not actually crusty scumbags but actually engineering sophisticates....

COMMENT BY NATIONAL BARGEE TRAVELLERS ASSOCIATION On 24th October 2014 the BBC You and Yours programme ran an article about the number of boats on London's waterways. The BBC's Peter White said that there were “3000 boats cruising in London”. This number obviously came from Canal & River Trust (CRT). The conclusion was that London was bursting at the seams and it was all the fault of the Continuous Cruisers. The BBC interviewed a live-aboard boater of 2 weeks experience,who has a permanent mooring; a live-aboard Continuous Cruiser of 2 years' experience; Ian Shacklock of the Friends of the Regents Canal and Simon Salem, CRT's Marketing Director. Mr Salem stated that “everyone had to share the space [in London]”. Obviously he wants significantly fewer Continuous Cruisers. In recent years CRT has concreted over large amounts of tow-path in London; this has made it impossible to moor on significant lengths of tow-path causing congestion in areas where boats can be tied up. CRT also has a policy of seeking to discourage would-be Continuous Cruisers from living on a boat in the London area. In response the National Bargee Travellers Association (NBTA) conducted a detailed “snapshot” survey of tow-path use. The NBTA confirmed that the population of live-aboard boats on the tow-path in London is approximately 880. “London” includes Uxbridge to Brentford, Bulls Bridge to Limehouse and Limehouse to Enfield. The total length of tow-path between these places is 50 miles. While some specific areas are obviously busy there is more than enough space in London as a whole for everyone. Delving further into the numbers reveals some interesting information. “3000 boats” is, Simon Salem later admitted (off air), the total population of boats including those that normally stay in marinas and rarely leave. He also confirmed that “London” includes Watford to Brentford and Limehouse to Bishops Stortford, in other words an area much bigger than the conurbation within the M25. What Simon Salem didn't say when interviewed was that the population of Continuous Cruisers within his vastly extended area was actually 1,100 or only one third of the total population. This correlates with the population of Continuous Cruisers within the “proper” London of 880. So what is CRT up to? In 2007 CRT's predecessor British Waterways established an auction system for permanent moorings that has massively inflated mooring prices and thus added to the scarcity of permanent moorings. The auction system is still in force. We know that CRT wants Continuous Cruisers excluded from the capital and that it would prefer all boats to have permanent moorings. Tow-path use by Continuous Cruisers, on the other hand, doesn't earn CRT as much revenue as boats with permanent moorings. However, all CRT boat licence holders are entitled by law to use their boats without a mooring, as long as they do not moor on the tow-path for longer than 14 days in any one place (such boats are colloquially called Continuous Cruisers). The law does not prevent a Continuous Cruiser from staying within the geographic area of London, and it does not specify any travel pattern apart from the 14-day limit in any one place. Continuous Cruisers add to the vibrancy of the canals in London; they provide passive security for pedestrians on the towpath; out on the canal every day, they are the first to report equipment failures; they often tidy up litter, sometimes fix things that CRT hasn't fixed, and generally look out for everyone else. Priceless. One final question: why is the BBC giving airtime to an organisation that is misrepresenting the law to the public?

JUDICIAL REVIEW DROPPED: ABSTRACT CASE WILL NOT RESOLVE ISSUE OF LAWFULNESS OF GUIDANCE Nick Brown, claimant in the judicial review proceedings against Canal & River Trust (CRT) to decide whether the Guidance for Boaters Without a Home Mooring is lawful, today discontinued the action. He said “During the hearing it became apparent that this case could not after all decide on the lawfulness of the Guidance because I am not facing any enforcement action myself. Therefore the case should not continue”. In his judgment Mr Justice Lewis stated: ”During the course of argument I raised a problem that is that the Courts are reminded of the undesirability of deciding an issue absent a proper factual context... the Court has warned against abstract actions and needs a proper factual matrix to assess cases... In the light of that there is very little purpose to this hearing as it would not resolve anything. CRT would prefer, as a responsible public body, to have a judgment that would allow it to discharge its duties in the right way but any judgement that I could give would be very little use on the ground.” Mr Brown added “The arguments presented by my legal team will be of assistance to boaters who are subject to enforcement action”. He was represented by Chris Johnson of Community Law Partnership and Martin Westgate QC. Lewis J raised a number of legal points that will be of no comfort to CRT. He found s.17 (3) © (ii) of the British Waterways Act unclear: “The more you look at the statute the weirder it becomes” he commented. He added that it would have been helpful if CRT had addressed this dispute by seeking new legislation. Mr Justice Hildyard also told CRT this in the Moore case in 2012. Mr Justice Lewis agreed that as far as “bona fide navigation” was concerned, what was good for boaters with moorings was also good for those without. “An occasional trip down to the Dog and Duck” might very well be bona fide navigation whether this was from a marina or from a towpath spot. Mr Justice Lewis also observed that “Place” could be as small as an individual boat length, by stating that the mooring or other “place” to keep a boat required by s.17(3)©(i) has the same meaning as the “place” used in s.17(3)©(ii). Lewis J also stated that in his opinion, the Guidance took legislation that was already difficult to understand and did not make understanding it easier. Mr Brown observed that this means the Guidance is of little assistance to a boater seeking to ensure he is compliant with the British Waterways Act 1995. Contrary to CRT’s assertion that the Guidance remains “valid and applicable” it is now called into question. Mr Brown was granted leave to proceed with the judicial review by Lord Justice Jackson in July 2013. Permission was confined to the issue of whether the Guidance accurately reflects s.17(3)©(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995. This governs the obligations of boaters without home moorings. Non-compliance can result in the seizure and removal of the boat. CRT attempted to claim costs in excess of £100,000. This could have deterred other challengers, but Mr Justice Lewis rejected CRT’s application and ruled that CRT would have to justify the amount claimed.

JUDICIAL REVIEW DROPPED: ABSTRACT CASE WILL NOT RESOLVE ISSUE OF LAWFULNESS OF GUIDANCE Nick Brown, claimant in the judicial review proceedings against Canal & River Trust (CRT) to decide whether the Guidance for Boaters Without a Home Mooring is lawful, today discontinued the action. He said “During the hearing it became apparent that this case could not after all decide on the lawfulness of the Guidance because I am not facing any enforcement action myself. Therefore the case should not continue”. In his judgment Mr Justice Lewis stated: ”During the course of argument I raised a problem that is that the Courts are reminded of the undesirability of deciding an issue absent a proper factual context... the Court has warned against abstract actions and needs a proper factual matrix to assess cases... In the light of that there is very little purpose to this hearing as it would not resolve anything. CRT would prefer, as a responsible public body, to have a judgment that would allow it to discharge its duties in the right way but any judgement that I could give would be very little use on the ground.” Mr Brown added “The arguments presented by my legal team will be of assistance to boaters who are subject to enforcement action”. He was represented by Chris Johnson of Community Law Partnership and Martin Westgate QC. Lewis J raised a number of legal points that will be of no comfort to CRT. He found s.17 (3) © (ii) of the British Waterways Act unclear: “The more you look at the statute the weirder it becomes” he commented. He added that it would have been helpful if CRT had addressed this dispute by seeking new legislation. Mr Justice Hildyard also told CRT this in the Moore case in 2012. Mr Justice Lewis agreed that as far as “bona fide navigation” was concerned, what was good for boaters with moorings was also good for those without. “An occasional trip down to the Dog and Duck” might very well be bona fide navigation whether this was from a marina or from a towpath spot. Mr Justice Lewis also observed that “Place” could be as small as an individual boat length, by stating that the mooring or other “place” to keep a boat required by s.17(3)©(i) has the same meaning as the “place” used in s.17(3)©(ii). Lewis J also stated that in his opinion, the Guidance took legislation that was already difficult to understand and did not make understanding it easier. Mr Brown observed that this means the Guidance is of little assistance to a boater seeking to ensure he is compliant with the British Waterways Act 1995. Contrary to CRT’s assertion that the Guidance remains “valid and applicable” it is now called into question. Mr Brown was granted leave to proceed with the judicial review by Lord Justice Jackson in July 2013. Permission was confined to the issue of whether the Guidance accurately reflects s.17(3)©(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995. This governs the obligations of boaters without home moorings. Non-compliance can result in the seizure and removal of the boat. CRT attempted to claim costs in excess of £100,000. This could have deterred other challengers, but Mr Justice Lewis rejected CRT’s application and ruled that CRT would have to justify the amount claimed.

Yes it is indeed me (I don't have need to use an alias to hide behind, I just happen to call myself this because I logged in via F/B). I am concerned by the not-so-stealth removal of lengths of non-restricted (aka "14 day") mooring space on the tow-path between Bath and Devizes - which is why in 2010 I joined MSSG to resist, only leaving when I issued the claim form in this JR (to remain was a contradiction) and assisted in the present consultation both by sharing my experience from MSSG and providing a paper on public sector consultations. It is primarily for this reason that the consultation is going ahead: when the mooring sub-group was made aware of its obligations it stepped up. I am also very aware of the difficulties that disabled boaters have on the K&A and other parts of the network, and that CRT is very disinclined to do anything about that - and my colleagues are working on that too, with several local authorities and the EHRC. As for my own moving up and down, I don't care to talk publicly about where I live (but it is obvious to other boaters who know me - for reasons that you too would know if you passed my boat) I'm on the move every 14 days - except where it is reasonable and for me to stay longer - "unreasonable" includes "bust prop caused by CRTs rubbish in the bottom of its inadequately dredged canal" and "blown up engine" (caused by the former) but apart from that I'm on the move every 14 days - as is appropriate and required. By the way I'm also signatory to CoCo meaning that whatever CRT says, I do it by the rules and I encourage everyone else to do the same (as it happens). As for "creating court costs" I put it to Richard Parry in no uncertain terms last week that I would rather that we settled out of court than relied on a judge to decide the matter, because I'd rather that the money went on fixing lock gates than paying for lawyers. I also believe in the general principle that the parties are far better equipped than a judge to understand the situation in order to settle it. A judge however will deploy the law as the law was meant and it is clear to me that CRT want a judicial decision because it doesn't like what Parliament intended in this respect - and never has. 3 hours after that meeting Nigel Johnson published a press release quoting from the private, confidential and without prejudice meeting, publicising privileged material (and thus acted in contempt of court) and quoted content of the meeting in a manner that made it clear what CRTs position is. This thread follows from that. By the way I also proposed to Mr Parry that if CRT stopped persecuting itinerant live-aboards it would then have access to many a skill through volunteering, including considerable skills that could substantially mitigate the maintenance bill, presently projected to be £91m for the year (ie 50% of the revenue). I suggested that an organisation that spends 50% of its revenue on maintenance is in trouble. I also suggested that revenue was 10% down on last year and that didn't look good either. I suggested that as the itinerants regard the canal system as "ours" (we live and breathe it every day) that, I proposed, there are many people who would offer their help as volunteers to maintain "their" canal. I would for one and I know of others who would do the same. This, it seemed, was not lost on him. 3 hours later, having spoken to Mr Johnson, it was clear that I was mistaken. As for dredging I have made complaint to Mark Stevens and suggested that if he doesn't dredge his patch (which hasntbeen dredged ever since teh canal reopened in 1990 (according to the Chair of the K&A Trust) I will see to it that he does. The difficulty is how he will pays for it. Litigation is a destructive activity. Engineering is a task of creation (as anyone who knows me understands). But with CRT it was apparent to me that "simply smiling, hoping and waving a bit of paper in the air on the aircraft steps" appears not to have worked. One day this war will end... As for whether the NBTA is a "traveller" organisation, well according to Jo Jones, Chairman of the Gypsy Council we are... are you?

@Jenlyn aka Steve Jenkin/Steve J/John Evans etc etc whatever. Mr Jenkin, I have listened to the considerable vitriol that you have posted on this subject in this forum and others specifically directed at me and directed at a more general audience. I have noted your undemocratic ejection of members from your Facebook forum that take a stance that is opposed to your own that, without question, is designed to stamp out broad, democratic discussion of a subject that is extremely important. To draw your attention to the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in Kay v UK, there is little more important than home. I note that CRT is seeking to “price us off the system” (ie from our homes) (quote Sally Ash, who was videoed when she said this in a public meeting). I have also had reported to me your actions in general in terms of harassment of and being threatening to itinerant boaters. Your language on the fora I have referred to is indeed consistent with this. I am also aware of the collusion between senior executives of CRT and yourself both in relation to the creation of the prototype Roving Mooring Permit scheme and your founding of the ACC. In relation to this, I have no need to say anything further as your reputation appears now to precede you. I would not wish to be “undemocratic” and seek to staunch your vitriol. However should your prejudice extend to a level sufficently extreme that may be identified as hate crime then this would simply become a matter for the Police and I would stand back. However in relation to the litigation in hand, of which I also wish to say nothing as the matter is sub judice, all I can reasonably observe (paying regard to not overstepping the line that woudl place me in contempt of Court) is that the Court will resolve Mr Johnson's actions in the way that it sees fit either before or at trial. Equally the Trustees will address Mr Johnson's professional conduct in the way that it sees fit. I am also aware of at least one local authority that is minded to bring the corporate conduct of CRT to the attention of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. This may in turn have bearing on the opinion of the Charities Commission. These things might have bearing on the wisdon of your support of CRTs ideals and the orgnaisation itself. I would in normal circumstances request that in relation to your own conduct you “cease and desist” but I know that I would be wasting my breath. @steve_timbeck – Steve could you e-mail me by some convenient route when you get a minute? Thanks!

Yes I have one of those - at least mine is a 1950 Commodore 3.4. Very similar, same fwd/reverse and reduction boxes. Looks pretty close to me... All wrong Im afraid... (well maybe not but bit of "trousers off over head" thing). I don't know if this post is too late for you but here we go: First off manual (that I scanned and sent off to them) is here: http://www.motoren.ath.cx/Download.php?filename=/bmc/BMC_Commodore_Operators_Handbook_2nd_edition.pdf Sorry its not a great scan but better than working blind. I also sent them the CAV injector pump manual and the Lucas M45G starter manual as well, shoudl be on the site somehwere if you need them. Looks like you have both of these on your unit. The problem: the fwd/reverse box is a marine unit, th eblock and bell are truck units. There is a conversion plate that interfaces the back of the bell to the box. This plate is also the boundary of the box oil. Attached to the inside (box side) of the plate is the box circulation oil pump. The output of this pump runs up a way cast into the plate and into a cavity around the primary drive shaft (which is bolted onto the flywheel). The shaft has a row of radial holes in it and is hollow from this point aft-wards. Further down this shaft there are further radial holes that let the oil back out to lubricate the sun gear bearing in the box. (Clever stuff, orbital box in a 1950 engine). So the oil is circulated from the botom of the box, through the pump, up teh way, iinto the cavity, into the centre of the primary drive, down its length aft-wards and out into teh bearing. The point being that the only thing that stops teh oil spewing out o fthe _front_ of the box through the hole that the primary drive passes through, into the bell, is an oil seal. So if that seal goes three things happen. First the pressure pushes oil forwards past the seal rather than down the centre of the shaft. Second, as teh bell has a drain hole, all the oil falls out the bottom of the bell and into your oversize drip tray (of course) and the oil empties (eventually) from the box. Not good. Thirdly (and this is what is happening to me) the oil splashes around inside the bell and into the drive end of the starter. It then works its way along the starter, past the intermediate plate and along the gap between two field coils where teh retaining bolt or stud lies. It then gets into the brushes. If you are really unlucky and have not taken off the clamp-on rubber seal that goes around the brush access aperures then the motor fils up with oil. Eew. Pretty rapidly the motor will not work. Also dumping 150amps into something filled with hot motor oil doesnt sound good to me either. So now to stripping down. The seal is right at the front of the fwd/reverse box. Becuase of the way the thing is held together it is simply easier to strip the 2 boxes back-to-front. This means taking off the reduction box first then the fwd/reverse box. The instructions are in the manual, but put simply: 1. Take off the back of the reduction box (some puling required) 2. Take out the gears of the reduction box (note some versions apparently used needle bearings rather than balls in cassettes, no cassette so the needles went everywhere if you were not careful) 3. Take off the front of the reduction box 4. Release the shell of the fwd/reverse box, remove it leaving the planetary box housing in place 5. planetary box hosuing now comes off the primary shaft in one piece 6. Interface plate now comes off the back of the bell so you can get at the seal (which will be in the interface plate) Looking closely at your photo it is difficult to see if the interface plate is between the fwd/reverse box or whether the box mounts directly to the bell - but the plate will be there as this supports the primary drive, the front of the planetary assembly and keep sthe oil in, so its there somehow. Finally BMCs had a reputation for always leaking oil. No issue there about reputation... Hope this helps

There is a bit of a network now: Boaters of Oxford Action Team Calderdale Boaters Oxford Boaters London Canal Boaters Ribble Link Boaters Friends Families and Travellers Low Impact Live Onboard Regents Canal Boaters Kennet and Avon Boating Community (KANDA) The River Lea/Stort Boaters Group Rickmansworth and Watford Boaters National Bargee Travellers Association and any others - post here, please...

This is what the IWA have to say on the matter: Sir, I have been asked to reply to your email of 16th July to the IWA concerning the views expressed by Sir Tony Baldry MP based on an IWA briefing on the situation relating to overstaying moorers on the canal network. This matter has been discussed with the chairman of our Navigation Committee who leads centrally on this topic. You will already know from previous correspondence on this matter that very many IWA members have, over a protracted period of time, expressed concern over overstaying moorers, believing that a lack of enforcement of any “continuous cruising guidelines” by the former British Waterways has resulted in a situation that seriously undermines the customer experience when cruising many busy canals. You have provided your view about the “intention of Parliament” with regard to the British Waterways Act 1995. You should also know that IWA provided major input to the deliberations whilst this Act was passing through its Parliamentary stages and those at the IWA who were involved remember that many interests and factions took action to ensure that Parliamentarians were fully apprised of their views and it was Sir Tony as the then Waterways Minister who was responsible for the origin of the Act. We still do not accept your view on the “intention of Parliament” as expressed in section 17(3)©(ii). We still do not believe that the intention of the legislation is to allow boaters without moorings to move a short distance back and forth between moorings provided that they do not stay at a mooring for more than 14 days. In that sense IWA has no issue with the way in which British Waterways interprets the legislation as set out in its mooring guidance for continuous cruisers. Moreover we refer you again to the court ruling in Bristol County Court where the judge found in favour of British Waterways, noting that the individual concerned, staying as he did within a 10 mile stretch of the canal between Bath and Bradford on Avon, did not meet the requirements of the 1995 Act. The judge said that: “What is clear to me is that the defendant who is clearly living on the boat cannot successfully claim that he is using it ‘bone fide for navigation’ by moving it every so often up and down a short stretch of canal.” Nothing appears to have changed this position since. IWA has a policy position with regard to live aboard boaters, as determined recently by our Navigation Committee. It is that: IWA is very supportive of those who wish to live on their boats. We have over many years argued, alongside RBOA, for the creation of more permanent residential moorings. IWA is also supportive of those who wish to use their boat to “continuously cruise” the system. Many of these travel widely throughout the season, causing no particular problems. We are concerned at instances where large numbers of live aboard boaters choose to remain, for whatever reason, within a narrow geographical area. We believe that a robust interpretation of the 1995 Act is needed together with strong enforcement. However we recognise that the problem has been allowed to grow over many years and robust enforcement may result in hardship and difficulty for some who have been enjoying the lifestyle. We recognise that sympathetic transition arrangements may be needed for these. Whatever your view or our view of “the intent of Parliament” it is The Canal and Rivers Trust that is now provided with powers and obligations under the legislation and hence it is for C&RT to make its own interpretation. Ultimately of course interpretation of the statutes is a matter for the courts and it is entirely open to you to seek your own legal advice and pursue that through the courts should you so wish. Yours Sincerely Jo Gilbertson Campaigns and communications The Inland Waterways Association So I guess that we are to be faced with "hardship and difficulty". Over my dead body.

I was there yesterday with a big blackboard-size banner saying "Say NO to CRT / IWA Abuse of Boaters Without Home Moorings". I handed out leaflets that laid out why this abuse is ongoing. I managed to collar Tony Hales, Robin Evans and Nigel Johnson each for a few minutes. The primary points were: - they are not changing their policy - they still want to limit the numbers of live-abaords; they deny that they still want us gone, by pricing us out and curtailing new entrants (Sally Ash's statements made to camera in the River Lea public meeting March 2011); their policy is focusing on roving mooring permits - they aren't interested in a compromise "just for the sake of it" and if we seek common ground then its for us to come up with the creativity and it must meet the needs of all, not just those who use their boats as their homes - the Council spent a considerable amount of time discussing moorings and CC'ers in the meeting yesterday morning and they will be publishing the minutes shortly. The meeting was wall-to-wall corporate speil geeing up confidence and seeking to get everyone to engage, provide contribution for free and then give loads of cash.