Mike Todd

As with NAAs and charges for water (in and out) where the new contracts were made much more realistic, it often takes a serious issue to precipitate a review. I strongly suspect lawyers are already at work changing standard texts for all new agreements to abstract. The problem with contracts is that more conditions you anticipate the longer the text and the more opaque it becomes. Whilst we have had plenty of warning about climate change, the present situation seems to have caught a lot of people on the hop - my concern is that the media have yet to catch on the the extent of the present water shortage as it has not yet led to issues for the general water customer. The impact on boaters does not justify front (even any) page news.

!

AIUI, in the days of working boats, overnight mooring was rare. Initially, boaters did not live aboard and worked day schedules. As trade fell in competition with the railways, boaters with limited resources to find housing moved, as today, onto the boats and necessarily took their families with them. As was typical in working class society at the time (esp in the early parts of the industrial revolution) whole families were a working unity. (It was said that a wife was chosen not on good looks or even for love, but for the strength of her arm!) As result the profile of many canals did not provide for mooring close to the towpath - something that K&A users repeatedly forget about today!) I think that even the Idle Women spent more, or at least as many, nights moored at a turn around base than on a wild mooring. If my understanding is correct then it is small wonder that the legislation did not really provide for today's common usages.

There is/was a notice at the bottom of the flight re an illegal abstraction that had been going on for a while and causing considerable problems. Is it still there? I forgot to check when we left Cropredy (never top return?)

No need to change the rules in the case of our present marina as it will soon be stop planned and locks immediately above and below will be closed. We could not go back to our mooring if we wanted to!

I really cannot see any good argument to change the established regime. Note that it is not really CaRT that is closing flights but the lack of water. The official notice only confirms the reality, although there is some indication that new considerations make comparisons with yesteryear difficult - care for moored boats/boaters and wildlife is now being taken inro consideration when assessing whether a given stretch is safely navigable. The current rules allow for circumstances such as we now have - still well worth letting CaRT know if you believe that you cannot move every 14 days or fewer. All too easy for some folk to claim they cannot move when the reality is that movement is possible if limited. It is perhaps important to understand one of the factors why CaRT are particularly concerned to maintain the framework - boats that stay longer soon start to take over the adjoining bank and even the towpath and it can be quite a challenge getting them to get back to moving when there are no longer any stoppages. In my experience, CaRT have a good record in responding to requests to stay in one place longer than 14 days when the circumstances indicate (whether canal conditions or personal factors) but are increasingly concerned about those that really do not accept that limits on staying in one place (without a mooring agreement ) should exist or at least be applied to them. As it is, CaRT are free to be as flexible a conditions dictate - I'd be interested to hear of any cases where permission has not been granted when requested in the context the OP posits, anonymously if that is best.

We went up the Ashby at the end of June. The water level is definitely down but not by as much as some suggest. (NB It is not always easy to estimate the amount the level is down as some folk look at the wet part of the canal edge but forget that it rises as a boat passes by). FYI we officially draw 27 in. The canal has long had a depth problem but apparently some dredging (i suspect more to the south) has helped. Vegetation management, as everywhere, is becoming an issue as the long growing season extends (I was walking on part of the K&A yesterday and at one place the reeds, and whatever the rhubarb like plant is, have grown so dense and tall that I missed some of the moored boats as they were all but invisible from the walkable towpath) The main problem does seem to be from boaters who want to go faster than conditions allow. We spent much of the time on tickover (850rpm) or no more than 1000 rpm. At that rate we cruised comfortably with minimal delays. Only one real trip to the weed hatch and that was for wire and plastic. Overall, we made as good, if not better, progress as those who wanted to blast at full throttle. We did not have a lot of problems in mooring - plenty of armco (at least until the SSSI) but one night we did have to settle for one end sticking out a bit.. It is a great cruise, especially if you don't mind the lack of locks to distract. Note: do make sure that you stock up the larder no later than Hinkley - the only real option then is Market Bosworth which is a bit of a hike. I cannot say what the level is now or may become by the time you are ready to go there but it is part of a very long level. From Coventry, through Hawksbury and then to Atherstone, as well as up to Hillmorton is one big reservoir and will only change slowly. (We deliberately choose our route to allow one crew member's arm break to heal properly!) From Marston to Fradley was good as well, even better on Trent and Mersey down to Shardlow. Enjoy.

Lots of things were not permitted but that does not say that they did not happen. Otherwise, why so many "DO NOT . . " notices, some of which persist in odd places. I suspect that such practices were only forbidden after it was found that they were happening. A list of all possible or plausible malpractices would be very long indeed.

As I read it, most of the data losses from scammers occurs by them gaining access to a database. The data there will be the same regardless of whether you paid by phone or online. In general, the CC companies' online processes seem as secure as shop based card machines (for example) But maybe I am guessing/hoping!

There are other places where a similar operational process is needed - where a canal bridges carries a road immediately across the rail tracks. If memory serves me (not always correctly!) I am thinking of places such as Godnow a it further inland from Keadby.

I had thought that there were plenty of reports of Canal Companies objecting to some of the ways in which boaters used the locks (and other assets) because they caused damage and cost the company money as well as loss of tolls if there was a closure. OTOH, I cannot lay hand to a specific reference - I am sure someone will. Stand alone strapping posts are a bit different - used in place of brakes! - in that damage to them does not cause a stoppage and their replacement is relatively cheap.

Seems to be a long queue at New Marton (at least when we go that way!) even though there is no obvious reason. It must be a quiet complicated situation involving hire boat times, popular overnight moorings etc etc. The queue is often much longer than at Grindley Brook.

To a large extent in 'government contracts' the government is the customer. It is the private enterprise contractor who underbid to get the work who runs over schedule! Or where the 'rules' change part way through - like requiring bat tunnels!

Traditionally, a stern strap was passed around the gate (esp when descending a narrow lock) which closed the lock and stopped the boat in one move. Of course, such a practice is now deprecated as too many people get it wrong and cause more damage than anything else. There are videos about that show some of the ways in which 'traditional' boaters saved time and/or effort - such as opening bottom gates in a wide lock when descending. These are fascinating and important to understand if seeking to discover the reasons for certain aspects of lock design. Bit it does mean that answering the question about what is the right way is complicated because, for an experienced steerer, the best and/or traditional technique is no longer available. For example, in some places where a narrow top gate once had a reinforced upstand to the outer vertical edge, that is now obstructed so that a rope cannot be passed around, or newer locks omit the feature. AFAIK, the original designers of locks and canals did not issue a manual about the correct way to use them. Hence, even traditional means what users gradually worked out for themselves - with owner and operator having conflicting objectives!

I did hear a figure for the annual cost of back pumping on K&A - alas I have forgotten the detail! - it was said that it makes the K&A the most expensive navigation on the network.

Perhaps due to increase in train weights? Or traffic density?

Depends on specific lock design. Some intentionally create a strong forward pull on the boat, so long as it us close enough to the top. The closeness depends on the lock! In some cases, the pull us too strong for the boat in full reverse to resist and the result is a substantial impact in cill or gate. It us quite easy to muss tge pull staring until it us too late to do anything about it. My understanding us that this was intentional for full length boats, not many short boats anyway. In some locks there is a specific bumper board that hangs in front of the cill. I am not sure whether it is to limit the effect of unintentional impacts or whether it was accepted practice. Although the practice is called riding the cill, I suspect that it is a misnomer in the sense that the cill is the angled shape that the gates fit against, below water, to create a seal, along with the way in which the champhered edges come together vertically. In most cases, the riding is against the main bulk of the lock below the cill. This arrangement can be seen clearly in deeper locks where the lower water level is below the cill. I also suspect that damage is largely done on an impact rather than sustained pressure on what is a large wall. So, if tte steere comes into the lock and reaches the far end at 'zero' speed then not much happens. In many narrow locks the gate itself is protected with a thick steel plate, again seemingly intended to mitigate the effect of a boat's bow on it. It also ensures that the bist does not catch under the balance beam. There are various reasons why the practice is helpful to traditional boaters which are different to today's boating scenario. How many boats will enter a full lock from above and fail to come to a full halt before reaching the bottom gates. Impact here is more likely to have a serious consequence. Hanging too far back risks either the rudder or something else being trapped between the gates, leading to a sinking. Overall, there many ways of working a lock, whether single handed or not. I do not believe that any if them are without some downside so it is up to the steerer to make their own risk assessment.

Try white spirit instead - with orange or tonic as you please.

People were generally shorter and smaller back then depending on diet. If you study old seating plans for parish churches with pews you will soon discover the differences between then and now

It is not like a parking charge where you pay for the time you are there and anyone else can use it otherwise. More like the cost if having your own front drive and knowing that you can park there whenever you want it. Overall, you are likely to end up paying the same in the long term so that the provider's revenue matches the costs involved in its provision or, in the case of much on-street town centre parking, a means of sharing out use fairly. A means of controlling long term stayers . Oops! Careful what you wish for. . .

Which Aston Lock?

Bow haul as far as you can then flush?

And continental, I hear.

Or that there are so many people running a business with no experience of what government is about. In which case it is surprising how often I see their names on a boat.

I have just seen an online item https://insolvencyintel.co.uk/louis-and-joshua-boat-builders-limited/ that seems to suggest that Louiss amd Joshua have appointed liquidators. Does anyone know if true (sad of so) and what is the background? I don't know how reliable insolvencyintel are. Actually I have now also see the official Gazette https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4911379