Tacet

When your car/boat won't start and the battery goes flat, such that it is incapable of turning the engine over, wait a few minutes and it recovers sufficiently for another spin.

The RCR requirement is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/737/schedule/1 See 2.3. It is not prescriptive on how it should be met - any more than how the risks of falling overboard must be minimised. There are several exclusions (see Regulation 4) from the Essential Requirements so it is not really the case that every boat made since 1999 must have a means of reboarding. The exclusions include boats built for own use. Some take this as meaning DIY - but I am more inclined to take it as, for example, a boat commissioned from scratch which is probably the majority of narrowboats. Such boats are nevertheless subject to the five year rule. A means of reboarding is a wise precaution. Having tried to use the oft-provided small waterline step in near ideal circumstances (a deliberate swim in a heatwave), it is challenging.

A flick through the 1972 book shows the Tipton Gree Branch & the Toll End Communication as still being available whereas Wiki says they both closed in the early 1960s. Similarly the Severn Railway Bridge at Sharpness is both shown and referred to - when it was swiped in 1960 & 1961 and demolished by the end of the decade Copy and paste has clearly been around a while - so don't put a great deal of weight on entries in the Canals Book.

I think you can only be brought to book if you don't meet the Essential Requirements, which don't include the two-wire requirement nor the fuel inspection hatch - which is where we came in. Unless you can point us to a requirement to meet ISO standards or its (rather vague) equivalent?

It is quite common for an insult to be correct and accurate, but an insult it remains.

The Canals Book was 40p in 1972 and a whole £1 by 1977. Both copies say all locks on the Regents and Lower Lee are BW operated - but I'm not convinced it was keeping abreast of the excitement. It also says below Enfield are controlled by Bow Locks staff, above Enfield are open sunrise to sunset, Monday to Saturday. Above Ponders End are user operated. There were certainly lock keepers on the upper stretches; I can recall one at Hertford in 1972 expressing his opinion when I dropped a paddle; the windlass was permanently affixed too. Danny, the keeper at Feildes Weir remained present for a long time; he had rather a good collection of cinema projectors. I'm not sure whether he remained officially employed. He won a considerable sum on, I think, the football pools which pleased him. Having said that, he was described to all present at his funeral as a cantankerous old git.

Fair dos if that's the case - but where is that set out in the RCR, please? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/737/schedule/1 My reading is that Regulation 6 require one to meet the Essential Standards, which are in Schedule 1, and say nothing specific, for example, about not using the hull as an electrical return. Regulation 41 relates to a rebuttable presumption in favour of conformity if harmonised standards are met. At this point it becomes more confusing but I could quite accept that these standards are now ISO. I've found a 2022 Department of Business etc informative that relates to the RCR and schedules ISOs. It refers to Regulation 2A which is an RCR amendment that has yet to be incorporated into the published body on OPSI, which doesn't help.one follow the trail. But what I can't find is something that says that meeting the Essential Requirements is not enough to satisfy the RCR. I can quite accept that the ISOs are bigger and better - and that one might be wise to adopt the same. But where is the provision that says one must meet the ISOs or have the boat tested and certified that it achieves the same level of protection? Chapter and verse would be good - not a link to some generalisation on the web.

Indeed. But the RCR does not require you to meet ISO - so using the hull as an electrical return is not totally verboten, as you claimed. Whether it is a good practice is another question of course. The prospect of drowning because the hull is used as a return is one on which I might be prepared to take a chance.

Which regulation totally forbids using the metal work for the return? The Boat Safety Scheme makes it mandatory for hire boats and only advisory for private boats. The Recreational Craft Regulations make no direct reference at all. Are you sure you're not overstating the position?

My late father was instrumental in securing user working of the Regents Canal locks. As the locks on the River Lee were likewise closed after noon on Saturday, it was rather a problem for those, like dad, who kept a boat on the Bow Backs. But I think the Regents concession was much earlier than suggested - mid 1970s. Dad wrote of arriving at Hampstead Road just after noon, being the first to take advantage and yet being refused passage by the lockeeper who knew nothing about it. I could be wrong about the date - but I think I can recall being present which puts it 1976 or earlier as subsequently I was then at the age of doing my own thing.

1984 sounds right. I had a chance to look at the work in progress which was most interesting. A site tipper lorry took us to the mid section of the tunnel in its dump box, which was aptly named as it reversed into the tunnel at a terrifying speed.

Likewise 101213E & 101224E and probably 101220E.

Means of reboarding is within the scope of RCR but nothing about safety glass in windows https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/737/schedule/1/made Are you quite sure the builder was prosecuted for falling foul of the RCR in this respect?

Well, yes and no. For example the Health a & Safety at Work Act imposes duties, makes it an offence not to comply with those duties and provides for penalties. It is a criminal matter. Alan seems to be saying that anyone who signs off an RCR has a perpetual liability for any injury caused by the signed-off item. This suggests a strict liability and seems unlikely to me, but I don't know. Are there exceptional liabilities arising from the RCR? Or is it largely the same as anything else - if you're negligent and cause injury, you're in trouble?

Alan, without doubt you know a great deal about the RCD etc (is it not now the RCR in the UK?) but you also have a tendency of bigging it up. It would be much more helpful not to exaggerate. For example, recently you have told us (as well as kindly advising various boat builders) both that all new diesel tanks must have inspection hatches and that gas pipe sizing is specified in the RCR. But you can't give us chapter and verse - and it seems to several of us that it is not the case. Above you say the builder is legally responsible for anything signed of that cause death or injury. Where do we find that, please? Is there a strict liability imposed by the RCR or does the builder have to be negligent? If it's the latter, isn't it pretty much the same as in most walks of life?

It's more work - but I think cast iron rads look best with chunky iron pipes and wheel top valves

Well, anything and everything is capable of being installed correctly. One could drive a nail through the gas pipe when hanging a picture of you tried. Your way of looking at it would mean that swapping a cooker on a like-for-like basis would require a PCA as it is definitely possible to do so incorrectly. Your suggestion about no PCA if gas is installed professionally is a very sensible one - but has no firm foundation in the RCR. Either gas installation always requires a PCA, as your previous position or it doesn't always require a PCA. Would it not depend, Inthe usual way, on who had been negligent? There is no strict liability for boat accidents as far as I am aware. More generally, it seems to me, that it all depends on whether work comprises a major craft conversion. This phrase is defined in the regulations but is not that clear. Changing the method (e.g. paddle wheels to propellor) is a MCC. Whilst the definition is paramount, some regard could be given to the words themselves. For example, it does not say "any modification or alteration" which would doubtless catch a new gas installation. At the end of the day, adding gas to a boat would not, in usual parlance, amount to a major craft conversion

Where does one find the detailed specification in the contact of the RCR/PCA? I can't see it in the legislation.

The definition of a Major Craft Conversion is here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/737/regulation/2 and is rather different. If it was anything at all that can affect the safety of a boat, there would need to be a lot of PCAs! A post construction assessment is required following a major craft conversion. In this context, it means something that alters the craft to such an extent it may not meet the essential requirements. The essential requirements are in Regulation 6. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/737/regulation/6 and relates to endangering persons, property and the environment as well as complying with the wider Schedule 1 requirements. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/737/schedule/1. The gas requirements are quite modest e.g. no.leaks So, I think it is a leap to say installing gas is always a major craft conversion and therefore required a PCA. It is quite possible to do gas installation work that would neither be safe nor meet the RCD (e.g leak) but it is equally possible to change an olive and leave a leak - and not even Alan would say that is a major craft conversion requiring a PCA

My recent experience is that there only a couple of trips available in each direction a day. Much of the time it is doing nothing Must be something to do with saving 10p by putting two boats in the caisson as it can't be reducing staff costs.

Not really. Most houses now comprise registered land and the title is therefore guaranteed by the government.

3p per foot per week, is my first recollection of mooring charges.