Alan de Enfield

Maybe that's where I am getting confused. You could have a 110Ah battery that is sulphated and only has 6Ah capacity but it can still be fully charged at 12.9v and show 100% You can have a brand new 1000Ah battery bank that shows 12.9v and show 100%. Voltage alone gives no idea about battery capacity.

My understanding is that you need to 'tell it' what the real (current) battery capacity is - not the theoretical, so it can work out when the batteries are fully charged.

C&RT have already tried as they ADVISE that ,,,,,, If you need to work in a fixed location If you have children who need schooling in a fixed location If you have medical requirements that mean you need to be in a fixed location for long periods Then you probably would be unable to meet the rules for claiming a licenc based on having no home mooring. C&RT in 'in a bad place' with very few options. The cannot invent requirements, they cannot make new laws, or, amend old laws. Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Co. (1880) 5 App.Cas. 473, Lord Blackburn said, at p. 481: 'where there is an Act of Parliament creating a corporation for a particular purpose, and giving it powers for that particular purpose, what it does not expressly or impliedly authorise is to be taken to be prohibited; ...' [my emphasis] This was cited with approval by the same House in the 1991 judgment in McCarthy & Stone v Richmond LBC, with all 5 Law Lords in unanimous agreement on the point. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1989/4.html The Stourbridge case needs to be read in full, to understand the context. The canal company wanted to rely on the common law right of a landowner to charge for the use of their property, although their enabling Acts only gave powers to charge tolls for passage through locks on the original section, whereas an upper section had no locks at all. Not even commercial boats had to pay tolls on their cargoes if they stayed on the lock-free sections, and some carriers did just that. For awhile they paid demanded tolls anyway, but when the prices were arbitrarily increased inordinately [in their opinion], they baulked, and refused to pay anything at all anymore. The court agreed that they did not need to. The full judgment is online – http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1831/276.pdf

For comparison The 2nd example looks (to me) to be more, darker bluish

Yup - He's lost.

His needle has got stuck in that groove again - someone give him a kick.

Thats the sort of thing my 8 year old Son would have said, along with stamping his feet, when he knew he had lost the argument. That'll be all from you then ?

Indeed they have, but only the T&Cs that are lawful can be applied, C&RT can request compliance with other T&Cs but at the end of the day C&RT do not any authority to write new laws'. Again - Nigel Moores take on the subject : Legality OF C&RT’s T&C’s It should be clarified that much of the T&C's are a repeat of, or reference to, byelaw provisions, and enforceable in law by the method prescribed (not by unlawfully making them a contractual condition for issue of the licence). Those cannot be said to be foisted upon us via the T&C's, justly or unjustly. Others are sensible guidelines without the force of law, which boaters would do well to adhere to. But yes, certain other morally and legally objectionable ones do purport to dispense with statutory protections – and consent to share one's personal information where that would conflict with the current law would be amongst them, as would the grant of permission to board boats regardless of the statutory constraints of the 1983 Act, as would also be the case with agreeing to pay the costs of CaRT moving your boat off from where it was obstructing (BW fought and lost at least one case in which they alleged such a right to charge for doing so). Nigel Moore 2/3/19

It is not stated anywhere in any of the Acts. It is 'permissive' that they may stay 14 days max, but, it could also be enforced, at 24 hours if C&RT wished. It is dependent on the whim of the navigation authority.

No, absolutely not the same : CCers have the legal right to moor for (up to) 14 days .HMers do not have such a right. CCers must move to a new place -maybe a parish, or a country etc. a HMer can move 100 yards and be in a new place.

Not only, because previously, caravan parks could use Red diesel, and now they cannot, but the sost of mower spares has increased. Many caravan sites include the cost of 'leccy in their fees, now the leccy has gone up by 2x (?) their previous rate they are making less money.

The comment was in regard to moorings, not licence fees. As I'm sure you remember (it has been mentioned to you many times in the past) BW / C&RT can set whatever licence fees and subdivided to cover any categories they wish (fat boat, thin boat, long boat, River only boat, CCer, HMer, steel, grp etc etc.) It is enschrined in law in the 1971 & 1983 Act. New Charging Bands For Boat Licence Nigel Moore 6/1/18 The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel. I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations. British Waterways Act 1983 .....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their inland waterways, the Board may register pleasure boats and houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment of such charges as they may from time to time determine: Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of State under section 4 of that Act.

And of course the word (and definition) "Place" has a different meaning dependent on you being a HMer, or a CCer. This was mentioned by a Judge as being very unsatisfactory. For a CCer a 'Place' is commonly explained as being a parish, or an area a 'kilometre from a previous mooring place'. For a HMer a 'Place is a boat shaped and boat sized piece of land / water' where the boat can be kept.(Maybe best descibed as a 'location') The Judge suggested that if a boat with a home mooring moved sufficiently (just a few metres) such that it was in a different boat shaped / boat sized pieces of water, it would indeed have moved to a 'new place'. There is no requirement for a HMer to move every 14 days. although, and there is no legal right for a HMer to moor for anymore than 'overnight ............................. Nigel Moores take on the subject : From the very first enabling Acts, the towpath was not to be obstructed; it had to be available to all for the use it was designed for – accordingly, overnight stays would have been the only (perhaps) tolerated use for mooring. In one of the major canal company’s Acts, in fact, pleasure boats were even banned from ANY use of the towpath (and that clause has never, to my knowledge, been explicitly rescinded). Over the latter part of the 20th century, longer temporary use of the towpath for mooring became tolerated on a pragmatic basis, with 14 days fixed upon as a rough guideline for reasons lost in obscurity (for all that BW came up with postulated origins during the Select Committee hearings on the 1990 Bill). Obstruction remains on the statute books as an offence, updated even in the 1995 Act, and overstaying stated times on selected sections has been used with County Court approval to qualify the boat – being thereby regarded as an obstruction - for being moved under s.8(5) of the 1983 Act. Anything longer than an overnight stay, as I see it, is simply permissive – with the exception of boats without home moorings, for whom only, the right to 14 days (or more if circumstances dictate) is enshrined in law. For boats with home moorings when cruising away from those, the 14 day limit would apply only as a permissive one based on a fair-play comparison with the ‘continuous cruisers’. It is simply, in other words, that CaRT would find difficulty in justifying the application of differing standards based only on the nature of the boat licence application.

According to my Grandfather (a family of butchers for well over 100 years) they had to put bread in the middle of the sausages so they "could make both ends meet"

Surely CCers cannot just use the canal 'as they wish', they have to abide by rules and conditions that HMers do not.

So, yes, if you paid an extra charge (for a mooring) then you could use the canal as you wished.

And if you haven't got a mooring, you have to obey the rules about how much and how often you can use the canals, and, how long you can stay tied up.

If you have a home mooring then you DON'T need to use any specific 'amount' of the canals, you have paid the extra to allow you to use as much, or as little, as you wish.

So, as suggested, it is an LPW4 with left hand rotation (A) and build number 48. I have PDF manuals, if you would like copies - just message me with your email address.

I remember his budget was max £400k so this might just slip in by the time it was equipped.

There is Lister range numbered LPA3, LPA4 etc I wonder if it is one of those. My Lister manual covers the LPA3, LPA4 as well as the LPWS3, LPWs4 etc, LPWT3 ........... I think it is probably an LPW4 A (rotation) and 48 (build), but having said that .............. But - Could it be an LPA4 48 ? With the '48' being the build specification ? Engine Serial Number The engine serial number is stamped on a plate attached to the engine. It is necessary to identify the type and build of each engine to enable the correct maintenance procedures, as described later in this publication, to be carried out. An example number is shown below. 03 00123 LPW3 A 01 03 ............ Year of manufacture code (03 = 2003) 00123 ...... Consecutive number of engine LPW3 ...... Model (T = turbocharger, S = indirect injection) G = gas fuelled) A .............. Anticlockwise rotation 01 ............ Build of engine 01.4.3 Marine Builds Marine engines are designated Builds 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49. In general 'Alpha' marine propulsion engines are designed for the following applications. LPA - leisure and commercial craft. LPW - workboats and commercial craft. LPWT - workboats and commercial craft. LPWS - canal boats.

Thankyou - as this is a response to the previous article the live link is to that previous article.

I think he is asking about hoses !

The Guardian (1 hour ago) : Your report about increases in licence fees for canal boats neglects to mention why the increase in fees is necessary (Fee hikes will price us out of canals, say houseboaters in England and Wales, 19 April). The Canal & River Trust (CRT) has, from its inception in 2012, received a grant from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to help with the finances of running and maintaining more than 2,000 miles of the 200-year-old inland waterways network. This grant is no longer index-linked, and over the next decade this will result in a shortfall in funding to the CRT of approximately £300m. This shortfall will have to come from somewhere, and a proportion of it has to come from increases in boat licence fees. A campaign called Fund Britain’s Waterways has been set up to try to get more funding from Defra for all Britain’s waterways. If it is successful, the large rise in fees will not be necessary. Some of the London boaters who seem most vocal in criticising the CRT would do well to support this campaign. Michael Geraghty Oleanna, Trent and Mersey canal In recent years many people have taken to living on water. Driving this trend is a housing crisis and the exorbitant cost of rental housing in many cities. One consequence is the virtual choking of canals in many urban areas. Many have become boat parks, straining water, refuse and sanitary facilities to the limit. Many would-be boaters buy the cheaper “continuous cruiser” licence, but with little intention of going anywhere. The waterways network faces enormous challenges, and the Canal & River Trust’s business model has problems of its own: many people like canals and enjoy the benefits, but it is boaters who pay to use them. The issue is not helped by people paying for a cheaper licence that does not reflect their use of the canal. Kathy Squires Ferndown, Dorset

A few years ago I decided to build up a set of spare hoses for my Ford boat engines (6 litre, 6 cylinder). The hoses bore no resemblance to anything that could be found, then I saw a guy on ebay advertising 'made to measure' silicon hoses. A couple of them were different sizes at each end, but it was no problem. Just gave him the length and required fitting sizes, + any bends or curves and he made them up. Even get to choose the colour you want. Price were not dissimilar to 'off the shelf'similar items.