Mike Todd

Can you give us some idea of the costs inc fitting and what range that will give you? How will you fit them in? (We all like a trailblazer!)

On that basis we would not have the likes of Aylesbury etc. Me, I'd do it cos it's there!

So then everyone will put their genny on the towpath and call it an electric charging point!

Unless you are using the goat chain differently from an y way that I have seen, it is still a means of tying the boat up by rope which cannot readily be secured by a padlock. That said, it is intrinsically better way since to unloose the boat requires going onto the boat to untie it rather than pulling out a pin and tossing it into the water with the rope still attached.

Ah but they have bow thrusters to compensate - seen one steering principally with them!

Would make a lot of sense if the connection through to the Weaver near Weston Point were re-made. Another great circular route.

A simple way to experience if us to take a sheet of paper, A4 will do and hold one short end so that the sheet curves downwards. Then blow across the top of the sheet from where you are holding it. You should see the sheet rise up. If us easier to do than explain! Btw I'm not sure that it needs to be shallower one side but a result of just not being quite in the middle. Doesn't take much off centre to produce enough net difference to move the boat to one side bur once you start it is a self magnifying process.

Not heard of door locks?

Depends on what you need to have in each cabin. 60 ft narrow can easily have two cabins and a shared walk through bathroom, a galley and sensible living area. It can also just about go anywhere, albeit with a bit of special magic. You really are not going to know until you try it - hiring for a week will go a long way, but best to do it in January/February so long as the hire boat has decent heating - at least you would discover how much heat you do need!

That is a somewhat inferior system design: an attempt to login is not the same as logging in. Once the name/password have been entered, one response is "combination not recognised" (or whatever) and another is"you are logged in". It is entirely feasible/sensible at that point (before logging someone in) to post "you are banned". This at least means that the user knows that they have supplied correct combination but avoids a possible system vulnerability by logging someone in that should not be, even if for a short time.

But the net balance between the two depends on elasticity (market not hulls!)

did you mean downgraded?

see http://www.unlockruncorn.org/rlrs It confirms my recollection is that the construction of the new bridge opens the opportunity to pass under the initial and main obstruction - the rest of the line is protected in planning terms.

But if you tell one person you do not live there, it is asking for trouble if you then claim that you do live there to someone else.

Don't forget maintenance (depreciation). As a start point, assume that your boat will be depreciated over 10 years (you can argue about the length but thereabouts is a good start) so that each year you should be setting aside £3K (plus inflation allowance) to replace it at the end of that period. A more complex calculation would take a detailed look at a long term maintenance schedule, allowing for the fact that the worst case always happens! (usually at the outset . . .) With a proper maintenance programme you could maintain some residual value at the end of the depreciation period. Even so, your budget should include maintenance expenditure (as well as depreciation allowance) each year - £3K might just be realistic, but talk to others in a similar position. What you don't want to do is end up in a few years time with a comfy home that is sinking into the water (not so comfy then) or where some of the major facilities no longer work. If you really do not intend to move and stay permanently hooked up to electricity, then you will be less worried about engine and generators (a big worry for others) but do allow for a proper external repaint at a suitable interval. Make sure that your valuation for insurance is realistic. If you over-insure then your premiums will be higher but come a payout, for anything not just a total write off, your insurance company may apply a reduction. Similarly with under valuation - you will only get a proportion of what you might be expecting. You might want to discuss with the broker how their policy works over the depreciation period - will you still be paying the same (+inflation) period after five years when its market value may well be much lower? You should also look at another ongoing thread about living 'under the radar' with regard to permanent residence. What may not worry you right now could well become more significant as time goes by. None of this, or any of the other comments, is meant to deter you from owning a boat and even living on it, but aimed at ensuring you do so in a realistic context that helps you plan ahead. Putting off longer term matters means that you will not be able to weather a storm when it arrives.

The 'fraud' lies in the supply of false information (about true place of residence) in order to obtain a supply (of a mooring) knowing that a condition of that mooring is the existence of a 'permanent' residence elsewhere. It would be a matter of obtaining services on false pretences and also (potentially) putting the marina at risk of any penalties associated with not keeping to its conditions of existence. In particular, it may well create issues around council tax and what the marina is due to pay to the council. Cases where you are supplying a correspondence address are different as that does not require you to state something that is not true. But other boaters might wish to note that some important documentation may then not reach you within due time. We have just returned home after four weeks away and some important reminders of things to do within two weeks arrived in that period.

The issue comes if you supply copies of such bills as 'proof' that you have a main residence elsewhere when you do not. That's fraud! Of course there are plenty of things that one can 'get away with' for a long time but they do have a habit of going wrong when you can least afford it. By all means get the most out of the Terms and Conditions to which you agree. I've used the same story for a long time but with two village shops and caulifowers!

How many times does it have to be said: it is not the case that a range of 20 miles is acceptable but that one of less than 20 is unacceptable.

Methinks there is a story buried in that reply.

Right, let's engage in a thought experiment. Suppose someone invents a machine to convert solar energy into a liquid that works in a diesel engine but priced on the market at 50% of real diesel. And 25% less than charging a battery for the same distance, including capital costs. Would you use it? In other words, how far are your environmental concerns able to be modified by market prices?

I don't think there is such a thing as renewable energy - doesn't entropy get in the way? All that solar, wind, coal, gas, oil are doing is converting energy from the sun by various, sometimes lengthy, means. OK, so we do not expect the sun to run out any time soon but that, of course, was the expectation with fossil fuels . . .

Being required to take the boat out of CaRT waters does not, in itself, make them homeless. That can still live on it if, for example, they can find someone to let them plant their boat on their land, for an amount they are prepared to pay. They might also discover what happens if they then fail to make the agreed payments.

But remember that range is not the same as distance travelled. 17.7 miles travel could be achieved by moving around half a mile up and back every two weeks. Range is then half a mile. But in any event the requirement is to convince the Board that he is engaged in a bona fide navigation for the period, ie a year. It may well be that the Board was unconvinced. There is no requirement to travel a range of 20 miles, or any range, but CaRT have advised that a range less than 20 miles is unlikely to convince them.

CaRT winter moorings explicitly exclude the 14 either side possibility, do they not?

The statement says 'looking like' - which seems fairly factual. It does not assert that he for definite cannot appeal. I susepoct it does not take a special set of spectacles to see it 'looking' like that.