Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tacet

  1. If the OP has bought a slot - the builder should be completing the boat within it. Otherwise, what are you paying for?
  2. The shafts were sunk on a straight line - which would not have been too difficult. The tricky bit was then setting an accurate heading from the foot of the shaft. I believe a glorified piece of string was set up over the entire line - with two plumb-bobs dropped down each shaft and damped in a bucket-of-something, possibly mercury but that sounds expensive. By sighting across the plumb strings, it gave an indication of the line of the top string and digging can commence. It is a weak technique as a tiny error in the closely spaced plumb strings will be magnified. But until relatively recent years when technology has taken over, the same issue of not being able to see when you want to go when tunneling must have remained.
  3. As you move the level forward over the land to be surveyed, you record a foresight (to the next point) and a backsight (to the previous foresight point) so as to keep tabs on the relative height from the point of origin. When you arrive at the final point, you level back to the very first point (typically taking fewer, but longer steps) to see if all checks out. If you are using a theodolite to record positions as well as height, you close the traverse by returning and recording the original station. Not closing the traverse means no checks. The traverse should be a reasonably regularly polygon for greatest safety - but sometimes it tends to be a less accurate out-and back shape. Then, with some arithmetic using 2n-4 right angles, you can be reasonably confident that you have not made a big mistake. You can also check that the eastings and northings distances add up to zero. With only pencil and paper, the arithmetic gets more complicated than you would wish as account needs to be taken of the linear measurements not being horizonatal.
  4. The theodolite, and its cousin, the level were developed around the time of canal mania and were in comparatively advanced form when Blisworth tunnel was constructed. Even so, it must have been quite challenging because even a relatively recent mechanical instrument would have a tolerance of a couple of feet over a mile - which was the distance from each end. However, then (as until recently too) the surveying techniques provide for working-back to the original point (closing the traverse) and checking to see the height of the original peg remains where it should be. Any error is shared out amongst the stations proportionately which goes a long way to remedying any issues in leveling the instrument. I also believe smaller drainage borings were sometimes made prior to main heading - which will have helped no end.
  5. What action have you taken in respect of your boats?
  6. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  7. Drying clothes was much less of a problem than anticipated when we moved aboard. I had thought the boat would be dripping in condensation - but it didn't. We had a combined washer/dryer but only used the latter a couple of times a year. In our case, we had the towel rail in the bathroom running from the engine - and the option of utilizing the engine heat to warm the radiators throughout. When cruising (and that is probably the key) heat the space where the washing is hanging and provide some ventilation. No problems in drying clothes. If you are tied-up, erect a washing line. Some boaters suffer from washing-line-envy; a sight of a nice line in a garden can bring on an attack.
  8. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  9. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  10. The Q & A page says: Will this coupling allow bottle a to bottle connection to fill a 15kg bottle from a 50kg. Hi Jim, no all our pigtails are fitted with non-return valves as filling bottles this way is not allowed. Thank you for using Q&A.
  11. That depends on when you last exchanged the cylinder!
  12. Why were you blatantly staring out of the window ........
  13. It is situated in a conservation area against a backdrop of listed buildings. Whether or not it should be permitted is a more subjective question - but broadly speaking, an application for a modern estate house in such a setting would at least provide an understandable reason for objection.
  14. When I was at Camp Hill a few weeks back, there was a group of fisherist inside the fence, suggesting security was not that good.
  15. All too frequently. BMWs excepted, the indicators on cars are generally accepted as relating to that vehicle rather than instruction to other traffic. I suppose the rule no longer applies to modern hand and finger signals which are now rarely to be found in the Highway Code. Boating, I have taken to pointing to myself first, and then to the direction I will be moving. It has helped.
  16. My guess (just a guess) is that the issue is with an elementary wiring problem (they are all elementary after you have found them) rather than the electrons being over-tired due to a lengthy journey from the power station. Someone I know employed a less-than-competent farm hand. When the tractor mower stopped cutting the grass (oddly coinciding with the cessation of the usual whirring-of-blades noise) the farm hand commenced the process of elimination by trying another field.
  17. S11 of the Insurance Act 2015 provides: Terms not relevant to the actual loss (1)This section applies to a term (express or implied) of a contract of insurance, other than a term defining the risk as a whole, if compliance with it would tend to reduce the risk of one or more of the following— (a)loss of a particular kind, (b)loss at a particular location, (c)loss at a particular time. (2)If a loss occurs, and the term has not been complied with, the insurer may not rely on the non-compliance to exclude, limit or discharge its liability under the contract for the loss if the insured satisfies subsection (3). (3)The insured satisfies this subsection if it shows that the non-compliance with the term could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred. (4)This section may apply in addition to section 10 Which (I think) means that an insurer cannot wriggle out of paying due to the insured not complying with a term could not have increased the risk of the loss which occurred. Taking it one stage further, the absence of a BSSC is unlikely to be relevant to a loss in itself. It may well be that the same reason a boat cannot obtain a certificate (such as a dangerous gas system) as leads to the loss (such as a fire or explosion) that actually occurred - and thus liability is excluded, so don't take chances. But my reading is that the non-compliance on one point does not void a policy entirely. If that is correct (and no responsibility is accepted) the oft-quoted your-insurance-will-not-pay-out unless you comply with every jot and tittle, is not an accurate representation.
  18. No - but according to you earlier, some policies are invalidated if the insured does not no comply with the condition I have no health issues that affect my ability to operate the boat with no mention of being at home or not The BSS requires the vessel to carry the extinguishers. - not merely to be available. So, on your pedantic line, taking one off the boat to fight a fire on the boat would be a breach of the BSS and put your boat at risk of being uninsured. How does it work in your world if the neighbouring boat is ablaze and clearly liable to set fire to your own? Use of your extinguisher to put out its fire would invalidate your BSS and therefore insurance. Must you wait until your own boat burns and only attack that? But even then, when the extinguisher is exhausted you would be down on BSS requirements. It goes on and on I think not. I don't believe the BSSC is forfeited (or restored) automatically on the drop of a hat. Nor do I believe the insurance is voided on a whim. The first bit relates to conditions precedent; if you are untruthful at commencement you may well not be insured (at all). And the second part is an obligation - but may not (probably will not) invalidate your insurance. Advertising a boat for a little above the value shown in a schedule without advising the company means no insurance? Is that never or just whilst it is advertised? It is a breach of condition but the circumstances would be unusual if it led to the policy been voided And the bit about negligence invalidating insurance is plainly wrong. If I negligently run my boat into yours, surely that is largely what insurance is there to pay for. I might just accept (don't know) that the insurance company could subsequently lay its own claim at my feet - but I still think it will be obliged to pay out for damage to your vessel in the first instance. Not much point in requiring compulsory third party insurance if it is cancelled when someone does something stupid.
  19. No-one should rely on this - but yes, since you ask, I do think the insurance will cover the potential claim from the runned-over. See s151 of the RTA 1988. Notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel, or may have avoided or cancelled, the policy , he must, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the persons entitled to the benefit of the judgment— (a)as regards liability in respect of death or bodily injury, any sum payable under the judgment in respect of the liability, together with any sum which, by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments, is payable in respect of interest on that sum, (b)as regards liability in respect of damage to property, any sum required to be paid under subsection (6) below, and (c)any amount payable in respect of costs. But I am not suggesting that a direct analogy applies to boat insurance - which is not subject to the same statutory provisions. What I am doubting is that all minor issues that may mean the boat would not pass a BSS test invalidates insurance. What is your view on the broken leg or bankside fire extinguishers examples?
  20. Complicated issue to which I do not know the answers. But the BSS quote says "the validity of a BSS pass result may be affected and can be cancelled" which suggests to me that a dodgy alteration means it would not have passed (reasonably obvious) and that cancellation requires some action by, presumably, the BSS operator. Moving on to the insurance terms quoted are they not conditions precedent (i.e. if not met at the outset, the insurance never properly commenced) rather than matters for which the insurance will be invalidated at any time? For example, if I fall down the stairs at home, and break my legs, which that affects my ability to operate the boat, is my insurance invalidated even though I might be 100 miles away? Or a pending conviction appears against me - even if it has no justification. If I take a fire extinguisher ashore to use through a window, leaving the boat carrying less than the required number, is the BSS and therefore insurance really invalidated? Most claims (with the possible exception of those where they might be a liability on a third party) are as a consequence of the insured doing something that was less-than-bright, at least with hindsight. If doing something dumb immediately invalidated the insurance, it would be a pretty poor show. As I say, not my expertise but I believe Road Traffic Act insurance cannot be invalidated by bad driving (see s148 RTA 1988). If you fail to declare convictions relating to bad driving at the outset, you probably are uninsured. Fully accept that the RTA has no bearing on boats, but I find it hard to accept that the smallest of transgressions means no insurance, as is so often stated here. whilst
  21. Yes - the market rent will reflect the installation of electricity. Try renting the plots without a mains supply to check this out. According to Alan De's way of thinking, if the caravan plot holders had a direct supply, he would never recover the installation costs. Presumably the costs of the service roads, concrete caravan bases, drainage and other costs are never recovered either, because no separate charge is made. Or perhaps it forms part of the rent?
  22. PRM is refreshingly uncomplicated in its published requirements for oil types and change intervals. No doubt it is fine for the vast majority But it seems unlikely that it is fine for every conceivable engine type - if you wish to be deliberately awkward in your hypothetical choice.
  23. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  24. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.