Tacet

My parents had a small cruiser where the gas bottle was immediately below the two rings and connected by a length of rubber tube, Some rule or another made this unacceptable, so the gas bottle was mounted on the transom, to the satisfaction of the authority. It left a space beneath the two rings, which was most suitable for a spare bottle..... The spare petrol for the outboard was kept in old motor oil cans. You needed to keep an eye on the bottom of the can as they would occasionally rust through. I remember my dad using a bucket to bail out an invisible vapour, after some mishap.

Alan D E says, above that the Definitions (1965 Bye Laws) “vehicle” means anything on wheels, runners or articulated tracks But I doubt that something that is clearly not a vehicle in any sense, is one because of this definition. A microwave turntable might be on wheels - but it is unlikely to become a vehicle by resting it on the towpath. Whether or not a trolley is a vehicle for the purposes of the bye-laws probably depends on its nature. A cassette with built-in wheels is a somewhat improbable candidate whereas a road vehicle trailer might well cross the line.

Looking at this another way at around 56 w/m K, 1 sq ft of 6mm steel will dissipate approximately 3.5kw (or 4.6hp) with a temperature differential of, say, 40 degrees (a guess at the average across the whole swim tank) That is, assuming I have the U value and maths correct. This is reasonably close to the rule of thumb of 1 sq ft for 4 hp. But, of course, the hp from the engine is being consumed by propulsion and exhaust losses – not just in raising the temperature of the cooling water. So the skin tanks are not as efficient (or is that inefficient?) as theory suggests. No doubt blacking and rust comes into the equations. So if the radiators are heated so are to lose their rated 1200 BTU (3.5kw), they could add the equivalent of 1 sq ft of skin tank to the existing 6 sq ft – which is not very much. But allowing for the inefficiency (or is that now efficiency?) of skin tanks, it might be double that. Or another way, it might allow the engine to develop and additional 4hp-8hp without overheating. Assuming the plumbing was reasonably convenient, I would look to heat the radiators from the engine, as the principle of free cabin heating is satisfying and useful. When the engine is in danger of overheating, bringing in the radiator circuit will give an initial cooling effect and a more modest continuing effect. But it may well be insufficient in all circumstances.

Hmmm. If the rads were capable of dissipating 5kw at 50/50 power/heat, you could cool a 13 hp engine. Or make use of 13hp more than if you were not using the rads, which is a significant contribution for a marginally cooled engine. I.e about the rule-of-thumb equivalent of 3 sq ft of skin tank Tony is quite right when he doubts the rads will dissipate the nominal 5kw of the stove. 12000 BTU (the rating of the rads) is only about 3.5kw. And that depends on a achieving a difference of 50 or 60 degrees C

Some of the engine's horsepower ought to be consumed in propelling the boat

The first law of thermodynamics broadly supports perpetual energy.

As I say, I am not a super-expert on rating - and certainly not boats. But: 1 - Yes - the mooring(s) is the hereditament that appears in the List - against which the Council Tax liability is incurred 2 - Not quite sure what you mean. But say, you are in rateable occupation of a single residential mooring (assessed for Council Tax) but several boats and put each of them on the mooring in monthly turns, then then none of the boast will be annexed to the mooring - and it will be banded without the added value of any of the boats. 3 - Yes . If a boat is sufficiently annexed (a bit subjective - but see the VO guidance) to the mooring - the mooring will reflect the value of the boat for banding purposes 4 Yes. Near enough. The boat can add to the business rates assessment if it sufficiently annexed too. I recall the Tattershall Castle was a test case as it was fixed to piles on the Thames The party that is liable for the tax is a subject in itself, which I know even less about. It starts with the the person in rateable occupation and there is a hierarchy that follows if there is none. In practice, I suspect that the VOA is not too obsessed by whether a mooring is assessed for Council Tax or Business Rates - it is good start that it is assessed at all. Where there is a Council Tax assessment in respect of a single mooring (whether or not it is composite) the dweller is likely to get the bill and I doubt the marina owner offersto reimburse it. There is an advantage to the marina owner in that its business rates assessment is quietly reduced. Where a whole pontoon or whatever makes up a single assessment, it may well be the marina owner that gets billed. I imagine he would look to the various dwellers to pay a proportion - or withdraw the co-operation to the favourable arrangement, which probably would lead to each person paying more. The owner could foot the bill and adjust the fees; again there will be a reduction in business rates to its advantage.

That section is headed "Is a boat part of a dwelling" rather than "Examples of when a boat becomes a separate domestic hereditament' Rating is rather dull - so I try to avoid it as much as possible but, as a valuer, do get dragged in occasionally. At its most pure, and it has been meddled with by various governments to suit the policies of the day, it is an annual tax on the occupation of land, according to its value. When Poll Tax was introduced, domestic rating was abandoned (but not business rates) and when Poll Tax was dropped, it was replace with Council Tax, Essentially Council Tax and Business rates are conceptually similar - but CT is assessed on capital value "bands" and business rates of rental value in £ per annum. Insofar as these are both points on which a rate/%/flat charge levied, there isn't much difference. Both are (usually) collected by the local authority - but how the collected sums are retained or passed to other governmental bodies varies. The Valuation Office (a government agency) is required to maintain Rating Lists in which pretty much every property (land) is listed, one way or another. There are few types that are not assessed - but not many. Each herediatment item has an entry; it is an archaic word mainly reserved for rating although our north-of-the-border friends use it more widely. As a property (i.e. land) tax, there cannot be an assessment for, say, a boat or caravan if not annexed to land - even though they might be commonly used as a dwelling, either part of full time. When it comes to assessing the value of land - in order to calculate the amount of tax - then this includes what is annexed to the land. Most obviously, a house will usually increase the value of the land. But when it comes to boats and caravans, it becomes more difficult to know whether they are annexed or not. Two moorings, each of which will be assessed for (say) Council Tax, could have identical boats at any point in time - but one of which is only staying for one night and the other never moves. The one with the boat annexed to it with have a higher banding. Naturally, it becomes a bit subjective as to how-annexed-is-annexed - hence the guidance. It also seems a but odd that you can have a Council tax assessed mooring, but no boat is present. But it is not that different from a house remaining a house, even though there may be no-one living in it. The composite hereditament is something else. When, following the abandonment of the Poll Tax, there emerged a domestic and a non-domestic property list, it became necessary to put property into one or another. But, for example, a pub where the living accommodation shares a kitchen with the commercial side, it was necessary to ensure the kitchen was split. It's a bit of a bodge, but it is said to be a "composite" property and valued accordingly. Moving back to boats, a leisure marina will be be assessed for business rates. But if a few moorings become domestic (regardless of whether individual boats are annexed, or not) - they will either separately or collectively be assessed for Council Tax - and removed from Business Rates. If the mooring(s) are very largely independent of the other facilities - then no problem. But more typically they will share the leisure facilities such a car park, maybe pontoons, services etc - so the moorings become "composite" . So in a marina it might well be possible to have a mixture of composite (sharing the leisure facilities), non-composite (not sharing the leisure facilities) and business rated (leisure) moorings. Whilst on the subject, VO can sometimes be persuaded that, say, a pontoon is the hereditament as the various, residential boats shuffle around it. The banding will be higher - but the Council Tax for the highest band is only three times that of the lowest band there can be a significant saving overall. And planning permission is not essential to being assessed to these taxes. It might well be a factor in being spotted - and possibly in deciding whether you have created a new hereditament and at what value - but no PP does not automatically mean not property tax. I said it was dull.

A boat (or chattel) cannot exist as a separate hereditament . But if it is sufficiently annexed to a hereditament (e.g, a mooring), it can form part of that hereditament for the purposes of assessing its Council Tax band or rateable value. It is made a little more confusing by, in practice, a mooring being partly identifiable by the sometimes presence of boat(s) tied to it, But if the boats are sufficiently transient, then they will not form part of the mooring when it com,e to placing a value.

Great film. A shot of Gardiner's department store at its eponymous Corner too. Why was the tow cast off when the horse was on the bridge just past Hampstead Road? Was the barge going to pass under the towpath bridge and into the warehousing?

Your maths is probably fine, but you may be looking at this the wrong way. The centimetre you mention could be a linear one - i.e. it is perhaps easier to consider how much longer the two straight lengths leading to the alternator, need to be rather than think in terms than an increase in diameter around a pulley. On this basis, it can't be more than 2cm but it depends on the angles between the water pump, crankshaft and alternator pulleys and their respective diameters. But if the new belt you already have, is the same size as the one it replaces, it ought to fit by using more brute force and ignorance.

So a shortage of signs, then? A friendly old chap told me that the re-opening of the canal was the best thing ever to happen in Stalybridge. The unkind might say that was perfectly plausible having regard to the town as a whole, but his comment made an impression on me.

(Unless there is a contractual arrangement), the party that whose negligence caused the damage is likely to be held liable. But if it was not reasonably apparent to a surveyor/crane operator/slipway chap exercising the usual care and skill that the boat would collapse when lifted/slipped, then it is hard lines on the owner or perhaps any buyer who is contractually committed. The surveyor etc was not negligent.

Looks like just you and me, Bizzard. I too would use "barrel" for a screw-jointed pipe (i.e iron/steel) but not for copper or plastic. I had no idea of the history behind the use; there must have been a lot of joints though.

My father-in-law refers to BSP as "iron" as in a 3/4 iron fitting or whatever. Obviously this dates from when iron (or steel) pipe was in common use, but the usage persists even now we are more frequently referring to brass to brass. I have picked up the habit too. Is this a regional expression - or is it widespread?

Can you push the soffit up - and thus return the roof to a better shape? Maybe a timber prop off the floor with something to spread the point loads. If you can shed the water off the roof it will help greatly. Whilst the dip remains, it will be susceptible to leaks. MTBs tarp will work better if it is packed up over the dip - and sufficiently sized to ensure that the water runs away at its edges rather than back underneath.

Mostly, they do. Gates and paddles at both ends - and a tendency to rise and fall. That the boat steerer has a real say in the operation of a lock is clearly reasonable. But it is less reasonable where the steerer is dawdling along - causing long delays due to inefficient working. I appreciate one person's dawdling is another person's safe working, but if you're holding people up and not willing to accept help (or loose the second boat by), it is less reasonable. We followed a pair of boats up the Shroppie last week and whilst they had the road, at every lock we were catching them before they had even entered the chamber. With a crew of maybe 10-12, there was often not a windlass in sight, and if there was a windlass, it was nowhere near a paddle at the right time. To be fair, there was no objection voiced to being assisted.

And who is in charge of the pound, whilst your boat is passing through?

The paddles seem to drop faster (or at all) in warmer weather; maybe the grease is less viscous. But even when a paddle appears to be falling rapidly - as evidenced by a spinning pinion/windlass square, it is not that quick when you look at the relatively low rate of descent of the indicator rod. Even allowing for these being big sluices, with the paddles rising/falling a bit further than most locks, the rate of descent of a gravity dropping paddle could well be less than a controlled winding down a more typical rack-and-pinion (only) ground paddle.

Private Mooring would amuse me

14. Flow from gate paddles into welldeck overwhelming scuppers

I've cruised a fair way above Brandon Lock. But as it was 45 years ago, it is a rather hazy recollection apart from my parents taking a joint, unplanned into the river. I appreciate the lock has been built/rebuilt since, but I don't recall it at all.

It wasn't the foliage - it was insufficient depth to swing the stern in an arc even with the bows in the bank. It was solved by shafting the bow round. It didn't take too long But maybe we weren't in the best spot. The channel was narrow and weedy too - but, you just keep on. http://lh6.ggpht.com/-N3uP6mUy9SM/UcoHt-z8FhI/AAAAAAAAM5M/xcc-Gj51M8g/s1600-h/P1090987%255B3%255D.jpg