Mike Todd

A pic I took in Oct 2015 late in a dull day but gives the general idea (only added low res)

Can make out a little of what was done from this 2017 report https://connachttribune.ie/planners-order-removal-canal-side-house-entrance-211/

Looks as if the view is no longer the same https://www.iwai.ie/forum/read.php?1,58299

A month or so ago we left our bat at Gayton for a coupe of weeks whilst we returned home. We returned on the day of the official opening - which was taking place about five minutes after we arrived. We were warmly invited to the event and watched as the chairman and Richard Parry performed the opening ceremony. The staff seemed very chuffed by it all a they were clearly set centre stage.

My understanding is (and I could easily be wrong!) that the right fineness of ash (or any other substance) means that it does not fall in the water too quickly so that it has time to be sucked in to the gaps by the flow of water rather than rush by on its way to the bottom. Not all muds, like not all ashes, are the same. Something like good quality pottery clay is comprised of fine particles - same with puddling clay, it is what makes it do what it should, so I guess has a similar property but needs to be properly puddles before it is applied, otherwise as large lumpy stuff it will also fall to the bottom. Of course, if the gap is exposed then slapping a large wet lump into the hole will do the job.

I was told by CaRT chaps ashing prior to a quick repair to a lock that the best ash for this purpose comes from a local steam railway - a result of the type of coal that they use, I believe.

That was not the point - I was reminding readers that it is not the weight of the vessel that counts but what is in it that results in the displacement and hence the scale of the effect. Even so, I do agree that the impact of a canoe seems disproportionate to its size. Not sure that the posts so far really explain that.

Thanks for that information - most interesting - what is your reaction now that this stage has been reached? How do the Middle Level folk feel about it? Some of the Undertakings do seem to require a non-trivial improvement from a navigation point of view, not least that the responsibility form maintaining navigability seems enshrined and not limited to the Link Route. If I have not missed something, it does seem that the whole process has resulted in (as it is intended) an outcome that is more balanced than originally proposed. I am particularly pleased that the provision of moorings and other boater facilities is also enshrined - as I said a while back when we were passing through various parts of the Middle Level, the MLC currently do not provide any facilities a far as I can see, other than the actual navigation. Facilities such as there are, are provided by various small local authorities. We must hope that the new Committee is well constituted and has people who can really stand up for the boating side of things. Well done to all those who openly or behind the scenes have worked on this Bill.

Do you have a link to the new text and the amendments that were made?

Its not the weight of the canoe that matters but that of its occupants! (ie displacement)

Once the engine (outboard or z drive or whatever) is tilted just be careful when you work on it. Treat it like a tipper lorry - ie don't rely on the tip mechanism to hold it up if you want to work underneath. OK to gain access to remove detritus from prop but otherwise - hands are too precious to lose.

As I understand it, every time you take a new home mooring (eg a paid for visitor mooring, marina or farm) you are supposed to inform CaRT and change from CC to HM. When you leave you are the expected to inform them again and resume being CC.

The monthly allowance is a very different issue from the basic one of connectivity. In my experience (Samsung mobile and Three network) the coverage is always increasing - one of the reasons for going with Three originally several years ago wast that they had a reputation for better canal coverage than others. That difference is gradually closing as competitive and regulatory pressure sees the number of not-spots reduced. Even so, as with general mobile use, there remain some surprising places where there is no usable signal. When I get a signal it is more than likely to be 4G - but that does not really say much as its throughput can still be iffy. I have not bothered with installing a fixed external antenna although I would have done so if there was evidence of a real benefit. Most of the time the mobile sits in the main cabin (on the edge of the galley space) and the hotspot readily covers the whole boat, including sitting in the front well deck of a 60ft nb. There are occasions when the signal is too weak for usable activity (such as uploading pix for my blog) and that is usually fixed by placing the phone in the hopper side of the nearest window. If it does not work there it usually seems not to work when fully outside so probably a not-spot. As far as data allowance is concerned, you do have to check that the mobile provider allows that data via a mobile hotspot - some limit it although I think that competition has largely eroded that at the moment. Whilst you can do some estimation of what you need by comparison with your land line usage, do remember that your usage pattern may well change. Is your usage fixed by having to do a particular set of work or does recreational use figure highly? On the boat it may depend on whether you are residential, CMing or genuinely cruising each day. That will reduce your demand for recreational use. You may well find that after a day of cruising, especially one with plenty of locks or swing/lift bridges, your energy for watching a long movie just is not there! Your use of streaming music has increased (mainly via a radio app). If the mobile access really is a deal breaker then it would be wise to do some experimentation (actually on a moving boat) before making the final commitment. It sounds as if you are close to the typical upper limit of what the mobile providers offer so the only way in which you would be able to extend it is by having multiple accounts. Overall, what you are thinking of doing is beginning to come within the range of what many folk do regardless of being on a boat - the use of fixed lines is becoming increasingly specialised, particularly for businesses. One thing you may also need to consider is whether your business activity would be impacted by only having a mobile number. I guess that there is till quite a bit of suspicion around mobile-only businesses, like not having an address to serve legal notices, especially when things go wrong!

That is your assertion about the reason for the sale, not evidence about the reasons given - I thought from something Nigel M posted a good while back that CaRT had to make a case to the relevant MInister to obtain his/her consent. In which case there would be a document trail of the case being made.

What evidence do you have for that assertion?

If the bridge was stuck open then you would hardly be able to drive anywhere, let alone to Distraction.

Classic measurement scenario when you know that you are approximately in the right ball park. You only have to get it to read the frequency close to where you want to be - commonsense helps you reject readings much further away.

Whilst it may be possible, theft is still (unless Boris has changed the law again) a crime. Induction is just as much theft as connection.

Do you know more than has been stated so far on this thread? Of course, as landowners, it is only CaRT that could sell it but was it unreasonably removed from the lessees? Possible causes include rent reviews and related matters (LTRU) - such an asset next to an on-going business is unlikely to be easy for CaRT to monetise as it stands. Simpler to get rid of it if the boatyard did not want to play ball. Where I would be concerned is if CaRT adopted a practice of cashing in assets for large lump sums even when there is a canal-related (or even life wellbeing related) user willing to pay a market rent (such rents are well defined and are not unconnected with planning permissions etc) Aggressive asset stripping has been a well known characteristic of the less savoury end of the market economy. However, I would suspect that this is not the case with CaRT who have less to gain from it as they clearly have a reasonably long term business view. (They cannot dispose of assets in order to return capital to shareholders)

I am sure that any experienced H&S person in industry, public sector or anywhere really will tell you that 'obvious' is not a useful or usable criterion in dealing with risk. What may be obvious to you may well not be obvious to someone else. In any case, accidents frequently happen to people who knew that the hazard was there but momentarily forgot about it. The only really useful criterion is 'reasonableness' - or, in another viewpoint, proportionality. It is when folk lose sight of these that we get the 'it must not happen again' headlines in tabloids and sometimes similar from people such as coroners. Just look at what happened on south Staffs and Worcester locks. In the end it becomes a political/economic argument based on what level of risk is considered acceptable - some risk is always present and 'never' is just not achievable in risk assessments. All budgets are finite and we all have to learn to balance whether a risk is 'worth'taking and also whether budgets are being set criminally low. I have not seen the Thrupp handrail so really cannot comment and am usually reluctant to criticise the judgements of those on the ground who ought to have a better understanding, but I do tend to feel that if the handrail is seriously an issue and really likely to fail then it ought to have a high priority. If the handrail is not absolutely necessary for the reasonable operation of the bridge then it is perhaps one of the few cases where, in the short term, a clear warning notice is called for (in general they are not considered a responsible response to an assessed risk. Perhaps someone has taken the view that although the handrail condition might alarm someone by being extra 'wobbly' it si also unlikely to fail in the immediate future. (Lost of people confuse stress and strain - structural engineers will understand)

It is possible to have paddles (not gates) left open at both ends, especially when going up: If a paddle is left partially raised at the bottom then the lock will nearly fill in some cases, depending on relative leakages etc. An impatient boater may well, seeing that there is only a couple of inches to go, use additional force (aka the boat engine) to push the top gates open. If the gates are then either left open or the paddles up then there will be a continuous flow through the lock. If this is the last boat through in an evening (and I suspect that boats passing through late in the day may perhaps have been over-stretching themselves and are less attentive or careful) then several hours of water loss will take place before an early boater arrives and notices or corrects it. I am not for one moment saying that this happened at Middlewich, and it is likely that unless someone fesses up to having done so, no-one will even prove it either way, but my point is that to belittle the suggestion on the grounds that it is not possible is not helpful either. For the avoidance of doubt, I have believe that I have seen the basic situation occur.

My understanding (and I no doubt could find chapter and verse if I looked long enough) was that the angling clubs that lease waters from CaRT sign up to these rules as part of the lease and agree to enforce them with their members. Enforcement is then via a contractual means which could lead to the club's lease being terminated which would not be popular with their members. Should such an extreme event occur then the club would, be liable to its members for an reimbursement of membership fees, not CaRT.

No

We tried to moor overnight there last week but it was full - others also failed at the same time. There is only room for about six boats. However, there is a little more space just outside. We found it OK to moor there overnight and to go into the city for the morning. The nearby benches did seem in the evening to be doing as stand-in for the local youth club, which no doubt has closed as long with all the others. That said, there is no security in the basin, it is also a public space.

I suspect that if you were to propose creating a canal with locks today, just as they were built originally, then you would fall foul of innumerable risk assessment factors! Similar thought occurred to me when driving along the motorway yesterday, especially with one over-wide load reducing the gap even further . . . A little while since we have been on S Oxford since we stopped mooring there but I recall that most of the lift bridges are unbalanced. In any event, if balanced one day, they will soon be unbalanced as things change, including the weather.