Mike Todd

I know there are some here with plenty of local knowledge of Sheffield so perhaps you might answer this rather detailed question: I know that at one time the end of the navigation at Victoria Quays was after the Straddle Warehouse and some current maps (in CaRT's) still show this. However, my recollection was that it was no longer possible to take a boat into the very end basin after going under the warehouse. What is the actual situation, please?

or even Bottle Scares

When I started driving, (circa 1960) the insurance company made it clear that in the event of an accident never to make any statement that could be construed as an admission of liability - hence the courteous apology was ruled out of order. I must confess that I have not checked this advice in a long time!

see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowances-excise-duty-hydrocarbon-oils/excise-duty-hydrocarbon-oils-rates There is specific entry for bio fuel not for road use.

A good example of the difference between 'responsible' and 'liable' in insurance matters. It is not really important to know who is responsible as it is liability that determines whether a claim can be made against a particular party. When more than one party is involved it does happen that a chain of claims is processed. Whilst it might be satisfying to claim against a passing boater, unless they were breaking any stated speed limit then they are unlikely to be liable. To be fair, they could probably not see that the 'other' boat was not secured - normally the response is that any boat owner should ensure that their boat is secured against any normal traffic. I expect that The Biscuits is correct.

Anything that depends on a magnetic compass for direction will work better well away from a metal boat!

You could, of course, ask for a comparison with a solid round bar but that is 'silly'. In a way, your requested comparisons are equally silly, as any practical structure will contain sufficient material in the right places for the specific application. I doubt very much whether a formal stress analysis (dynamic as well as static) has been carried out for a narrowboat in its design phase! What happens, and happened for a long time with ships, is that 'rules' evolve to distil know practice of what has survived and what has not. This has the advantage that it takes into account loads that cannot currently be analysed (may even not be describable). It has the disadvantage that it does not encourage innovation and may lead to either insufficient or wasted material being used. Early steel leisure narrowboats (which are a significantly different structural problem from working boats) followed a classical process of reducing the thickness of material sued until eventually some were found to be inadequate. As far as I know, the decisions to return to slightly thicker steels was not because of static structural strength (which is what is being talked about when discussing lifting a boat on two fixed points) Sadly. my structural knowledge is now about as useful as the steel in a rusted out ancient working boat! Alas, I have never really re-plated that knowledge to extend its life . . .

We moored above Blue Banks Lock 37 last summer - after having left our overnight mooring on the Gardens pontoon (not currently locked but felt safe enough - we had no problem leaving it there in the morning to go across to visit the cathedral. We have also moored here on the way down in readiness for the river section ahead on the following morning.

The launch of a hull down a slip way is one of the more demanding structural situation. The ship rotates on the fore puppet until it fully enters the water. Stopping running into the opposite bank, if launched on a river like the Tyne, is fun as well.

Ships have to be designed for the situation in waves at sea which can create the analogous situation of being perched stem and stern on a wave with the middle on next to nothing! Of course, the real demands are in dynamic rather than static conditions. Most of this does not apply to canal craft. Double bottoms for ships were adopted for large ships more with a view to preventing pollution rather than structural strength.

I think that the thickness for nbs is engineered with a view to corrosion rather than impact and certainly not in static strength.

Not entirely - if you do not say 'getting back into property ownership'

In know and I was not really commenting on the specific case. However, too many people read these articles and succumb to the temptation, often in response to considerable housing and economic pressure. It is rarely the answer that is expected, as far as I can see.

A tent on the roadside would be even cheaper if somewhat more basic. The problem with the story is that it does not compare like with like - much of the difference lies in convenience and comfort. Of course, she might have been living in a Rachman style flat with limited comfort but that is much rarer than the fact that moving permanently onto a boat is very much about trading down in comfort and convenience. I would also want to encourage those contemplating such a trade to think through the longer term needs as, for the reasons you set out above, moving back when you need to is likely to get a larger problem as time passes (ie the cost of getting back into property) OK, so the NHS is less accessible at the moment but in general it does a great job but its services are often based on the assumption about living in bricks and mortar in a given place. I've see a number of people finding out the hard way what is involved in getting treatment if you are always on the move. It is a lot better than it used to be, thanks to mobile internet, but still problematic. At least CaRT are generally very accommodating if longer stays suddenly become necessary.

Burning better/hotter is not the same as more efficient. It may just be burning more fuel as a result of a stronger draw.