Tacet

There's another way to tell the difference; an engineer hits it with a ball pein hammer whereas a tradesman uses a claw hammer.

Well, I must refer you to the reference in the Wikipedia entry quoting Smeaton: "On inspection of the plan, it seems very desirable that a cut should be carried from the four mill pond at Bromley to the Thames at Limehouse hole, and which, from a general knowledge of the ground, I believe very practicable; yet, as this thought did not occur to me till I was compiling the plan, I must refer the gentlemen to Mr. YEOMAN's Report thereupon, to whom the same thought has occurred, and who has viewed and levelled the same, and which I shall inspect when I go up to town, if thought eligible.": Smeaton 1837, p. 376 But none of this helps much in deciding whether Limehouse Cut is a distinct waterway or an integral part of the Lee. To me, it is a canal linking two rivers. To you, it is a branch of the Lee.

You were fortunate! The upgrade from the zinc-carbon system was a discarded car battery. Charged at home, when it went flat you either went without or carried it to a garage and begged an overnight charge.

Agreed. But the radiation relates to the fourth power of the temperature - and as the balance beams were being warmed by the sun, the fourth power is a very big number. When considering wet panel connectors and the like, the phenomenon is very modest between colours. Would you have half an idea before you enter the room? If so, you probably have guilty feelings about awkward pipe runs that may prove awkward to bleed etc. More possibly, you might be able to see the air currents rising from the rad due to the difference in densities?

Yes. Whilst most of Limehouse Cut was constructed by the Lea Trustees, it is as a bit of an afterthought to improving the river generally. To my mind, it is a short cut from the Lee to the Thames rather than an extension of the Lee which has its own direct route to the Thames at the mouth of Bow Creek. Limehouse Cut is usually considered to be a separate waterway. The last few yards (now) linking the Cut to the Basin were constructed by BWB - who the controlled both parts. It will be a moot point as to whether that was an extension of Limehouse Cut (or even the Lee Navigation) or an extension of the Regents Canal (or even the GU). My association with Limehouse started around five years too late to have used the old lock from the Cut to the Thames. I have asked before if anyone on the forum ever passed through that lock - but there were no takers.

Maybe where the Hertford Union (I'll accept Duckett's as an alternative) meets the Lee Navigation. Also known as Plastic Bag corner - as a yard stored waste plastic mostly in the channel; the subject of some much justified grumbles to the company and the authorities. I thought you probably meant where the Lee meets Limehouse Cut, which is at Bromley-by-Bow as Bow Creek is the lower Lee

Even in the 80s, the Lee didn't reach Limehouse. I had to nudge a car out of the channel somewhere near Bishop Street basin.

Sorry for being ambiguous; it's the Malta Inn and Allington Marina that are on the non tidal side of Allington Lock. Which lock is in the video? Not Allington, East Farleigh, Teston, Hampstead Lane or Tonbridge I think.

That's the non tidal side

Indeed. In the same way, why should I have to pay the fare when the bus is going to my destination anyway?

The end is not where it used to be.

I'm not sure what knock for knock has to do with it, but that is an inter company arrangement to meet the costs of it's own insured without pursuing a claim. Nothing to do with communication of details. Whether or not the information is confidential is a separate matter. I can't see CRT of the various insurance companies taking the time to to-and-fro 30,000 times annually.

I reckon it would take something pretty exceptional for an insurance company to be bothered to supply details to a third party Similarly I can't see CRT routinely taking the time to chase the insurers for confirmation. Even if it did, the confirmation would only relate to that time; there is nothing to prevent a licence holder cancelling the insurance subsequently

The maths simply doesn't work. Next year the CC surcharge is 10% of the HM charge rising to 25% in a bit. Taking a starting point of, say, £1000 pa this equates to £100 rising to £250. Offering berths at under £250 for berths that might usually be, say, £2000 is not good business. The existing customers might want to join the scheme. Even if you offer moorings on some sort of dodgy nod-and-a-wink that they are not used means you have to let 10 in order to have around the same income as a bona-fide letting of one. If someone has a significant number of vacant berths consistently, they need either to cut the fees a bit or improve their facilities until they attract more customers.

It's private land and calling it a public car park only signifies that it is made available to Joe Public on payment. Whilst it is both private land and not (usually) part of the highway, it would be a contravention of the Road Traffic Act not to have third party insurance. In practice this means no under age driving lessons.

I recall being taken to the municipal slipper baths on a couple of occasions while boating. No recollection of where - and they all seem to have closed now.

It is 10% for next year - which was your parameter when additional costs of a CC licence were introduced into this thread.

A Cc licence will cost 10% more than a home mooring licence. That ratio is fixed - assuming the same boat. Different boats will have different starting points - principally relating to size. It has always been this according to length,; more recently width is a factor too. These are separate issues.

Aren't you, in the second part, comparing prices for different width boats? If so, you could equally claim narrowboat licence charges will be less next year (when compared to a wide beam). Or in 2026 shorter boats will pay 50% less (than long boats). The bottom line is the same size boat (even a widebeam) will pay 10% more for the cc option than with a home mooring. In this context, anything else is obfuscation by selectively comparing apples and oranges.

That will end all arguments on the issue. Not.

So, doesn't this mean a boat with a cc licence will pay (only) 10% more than the same boat with a home mooring? Whether that is a lot more depends on the cost of the home mooring licence and one's view of what amounts to lot more.

Looks to be best practice rather than water regulations https://www.hdcymru.co.uk/content/dam/stw/businesses/plumbers/marine-water-facilities-inland-and-coastal-industry-best-practice-guidance.pdf

If it helps, I can find a couple of occasions where you were wrong - but did not explicitly admit it.

I can't locate the section that contains the BSS requirement for bilge blowers on inboard petrol engines boats. Where is it please? https://www.boatsafetyscheme.org/requirements-examinations-certification/private-boat-requirements/

Alan's told us for years that either the 2025 legislation is in place or will be soon. Only a few months remain now so it must be imminent if it is not already law.