Tacet

Struts could be put across the cabin sides before lifting. The whole lot would probably keep its shape better than removing the roof alone. I'm not saying it is a good idea, merely it is (perhaps) a better idea than raising just the roof Yes - except that you could probably use a flat piece to make the upstand. It could then be off vertical if you wanted to be posh and maintain any tumblehome. There could/should be an existing upstand but they are vulnerable to rusting

I would not have taken this boat on, as it is too much work for me. But if I was in you position with a wooden top that needed to be raised (rather than replaced) I would at least consider adding the extra bit on the bottom end of the cabin sides. Run around just above the gunnel with a circular/reciprocating saw, lift the top off in one piece. This removes the scruffy lower edge of the cabin, which is the most likely area for rot. It will also allow you to get at the steel wood interface where leaks and rust abound. Weld a new steel upstand to give the extra headroom and reassembly is then the reverse of removal. What it will look like, I'm not sure but same applies to increasing the height at the top. Quite possibly less work than peeling off the roof (which is bound to get wrecked in the process) and piecing in timber on the sides.

That's interesting. Using Canalplans standard settings, it's a 76 hour trip via the Richdale. If the generator was running half that time, it's a fairly thirsty 2.5+litres per hour. A standard-ish modern narrowboat might typically consume 1.5 litres per hour, or about 120 litres for a similar trip. But the rate does shoot up if you are pushing on, I'm told.

Isn't £0.50 per kWh unbelievably cheap for batteries?

Mmm.....

Whilst they are not that onerous, there are several BSS requirements for AC. For example 3.3.1 requires all cables to be supported in a safe position.

Can we have some numbers? Hours travelling and hours generator running would be interesting. As would volume of diesel consumed

This wording better suits a conditional agreement for sale than the final transfer.

The side ponds at Watford and Foxton operate as single locks in a conventional flight. The side pond is, in effect, the intermediate pound. Therefore, they neither save nor lose water compared to individual locks (without side ponds). But compared to other (all other in the connected system?) staircase locks they are more economical. Staircases such as Bingley are very wasteful when turned to allow a boat from the opposite direction to pass. On a single lock with a side pond, it effectively becomes two locks again with the pond operating as the intermediate pound. As Scholar Gypsy has said, it does not half the use of water as the side pond itself rides and falls when operated. This also occurs with locks in a flights, but is less marked as the pounds are larger than side ponds.

Question for @1st ade. Was Magpie one of those kids whose delight was more in planning his adventures than doing them?

That's about it. Unless you want to make it more complicated by considering the area of the side pond may not remain constant as its depth changes. My recollection of using them in the 1970s was that, going up for example, you drew the side pond paddle as you walked from shutting the bottom gates, as intended. But you didn't wait for a near level and drop the paddle. The practice was to then draw the top gate paddles before returning to the side pond. When the tide turned, that is water was heading into the side pond rather than out, you dropped that paddle. It must have saved a little water over neglecting the side pond entirely and maybe you worked the lock a little faster.

A boat cannot generate much rotational inertia when the stern is still in a (narrow) lock; it would be quite an achievement to bash the plates in. Clouting the wing wall would be an easier way of doing it, but the lock narrows would need to be a good way off. It is nothing like as cruel a cross winding either. A boat cannot generate much rotational inertia when the stern is still in a (narrow) lock; it would be quite an achievement to bash the plates in. Clouting the wing wall would be an easier way of doing it, but the lock narrows would need to be a good way off. It is nothing like as cruel a cross winding either.

Thanks. Whenever I try to look at the RCR or RCD https://web.archive.org/web/20120608095401/http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1994:164:0015:0038:EN:PDF it only seems to have reasonably basic requirements, mostly along the lines of everything should be adequate for the job; there are some areas of exception. Yet MtB recalls some RCD stuff about open flue appliances; where is this to be found, for example? Or was it/is it a lot simpler than some would have us believe?

I've done it once or twice and, to be fair, the volocky (a different one?) had a think about it and accepted it caused no problems.

Cross winding when entering locks would dish the pointy end plates, but unless you're going in astern, it would be some achievement to bash the stern plates in. I can't see that frame corrosion would give the same lovely ripple effect. Any movement so caused was surely take the whole plate with it.

In essence, the side ponds at Foxton and Watford are the same as intermediate pounds on a conventional flight, it's just that the boat goes not pass through it. The red before white thing is a bit overstated, it is no different from someone drawing off the lock above you before you have drawn the paddles to fill your lock. Drawing white first can put a lockful of water (probably only a bit of a lockful in practice) into an already full side pond. This runs away over the weir needlessly and means that when you draw red, the sidepond drops its level. But its not a perpetual reduction, if a dozen consecutive boats draw white first, the sidepond would still only be one lockful down. If you're so inclined, you can draw all the red paddles in a Foxton staircase before any drawing any whites, without causing any problems (assuming there is no other boat in the flight). I think it saves a few milliseconds if you discount the time expended discussing it with officialdom.

I'm questioning - not suggesting! Elswehere 'Alan de Enfield' has said that the RCD is now called the RCR, which makes sense to me. I.e a former EU Directive has morphed into a good old UK Regulation. And until you get to the bit about engine emissions, the RCR compliance seems very straightforward in itself. From another thread, about tank inspection hatches, it was (I think) eventually concluded these are not required despite earlier assertions to the contrary. There was nothing drawn to anyone's attention otherwise. The RCD (and I genuinely don't understand what that has now to do with UK boats) was quoted as broadly saying that compliance with ISOs was deemed to be compliance with its own requirements. And the ISO (or was it British Standard?) required inspection hatches. But the concensus of the small number that remained interested seemed to be that neither the RCR or RCD required full compliance with ISOs.

Alan knows much more about this type of thing, but where/what is it that bans open flue appliances? The Recreational Craft Regulations 2017 require gas appliances to be installed in accordance with manufacturers' instructions and maybe that precludes it in practice, but where is the rule in principle?