Mike Todd

On the basis of our recent trip this way, I'd say that the Stamp End moorings are: (a) perfectly fine - we spent a couple of nights there and they are pretty quiet and I would expect to be as safe as anywhere outside a marina (but note that we stayed over the BH weekend) (b) pretty much the only place that would meet your criteria without paying, especially if you want to be able to access trains. These moorings are barely 10 mins from station (c) Check your insurance. Ours limits us to 24 hours on an unsupervised mooring. (d) we needed to be sure of a mooring in Lincoln for two nights as one of us had to go down to London for a meeting. Not being sure of the current demand (one previous visit 2012 which was a month later in the year) showed us that VM's are often full. (Actually, this was not true for this time for our first week but was over the BH) so we decided to book with Brayford Pool Trust. They were most helpful but they do only have limited space. We were charged £15 a night which included electricity but note that elsan is back up to the CaRT facility.

Last year in Ellesmere we found that mobile data was appalling and asking locally it seems that it is a problem with all the networks. However, we were advised to stand in the entrance to Tesco as they were about the only place with a sufficiently good aerial to offer a service. It worked!

We have just spent the past ten days on both, now back at Saxilby. For the first part the weed was barely noticeable but it seemed as if it grew daily in the few hot days over the weekend. As yet it is not a significant problem but no doubt those, like NaughtyCal, who are local will be along to point out that we are coming up to the season when it can be really difficult. We made it onto a few of the Navigable Drains on one day and had no difficulty apart from one but that is notorious at any time it seems.

I think anyone can pretty much disown a statement on a web page - most sites have too many errors! It would perhaps be necessary to show that a policy had been formally adopted at an authorised level eg via Board minutes.

Since you have two boats, can you count both mileages together - thus doubling the 'distance travelled' . . . .

We first hired a boat in 1967 from Canal Cruising. It has a sea toilet which emptied straight into the canal. This was common then. Barred not too long after.

we moored last night on the wall opposite the castle. Our did was pretty much level with the top of the wall.

Do also research where you are going to keep it as well as what happens on the move.

As I understand it - and others can correct me if I am wrong - when the canal was closed, the reservoirs were sold off to water companies which have since been privatised. As a result, the summit has very little water of its own and the water companies not only own it (and hence can charge for it as does CaRT in other places) but also control it. As a result, if it is not in their interests to supply, they turn off the 'tap'.

Don't forget that with high river levels the locks at either end may not be open and you could be stuck on a river with nowhere to moor.

Don't forget that the K&A was an important defense line in WW2 - hence all the pillboxes.

Although that is a bit different as the lift operates a booking system that includes the trip boats. If you turn up on the day then you take the next available slot - any booking will take precedence. The situation for the OP was the more normal one of arrival at a lock and join a q.

From my photos (most recent 2015)I cannot see any notice on the pontoons but there is a No Mooring sign on the landward side of the lock entrance from below - there is a waiting pontoon on the opposite side. We have used the other pontoon on one occasion and seen others waiting there as well.

My photos suggest also near to bridge 43 might be possible. The Boating Guide (see pin above for link) indicates 24hr moorings 100m at Cuckoo Wharf but that might be another name for this same location. Looks OK on Google https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Worksop/@53.3063238,-1.1101281,3a,60y,276.47h,82.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4ZC5VuCe2HhHB1jBzGvuaQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x4879082c3c0fcdef:0xff85eacbd2805de5!8m2!3d53.309302!4d-1.122745

My recollection (but it is a five years old) is that it is possible to moor between locks 49 and 50, close to the Priory Shopping Centre. Otherwise, I think that there is not much clsoe to the town centre. However, I hope that we can give a better answer in a few weeks time as we will be heading that way mid-June!

It is much harder to provide time-critical services from a largely voluntary workforce. The main problem is that volunteers are just that with no contractual relationship. Hence, if they feel like not turning up one day then there is nothing that can be done about it (except perhaps in the long term not giving such a person much to do). One example: volunteer drivers. Often a very useful service but if you are heading off to a long-awaited and much-needed hospital appointment then you really do want to know that your driver will arrive in time. With some of CaRT work it is not time critical but I can imaging the reaction if an advertised stoppage ground to halt through the lack of volunteers turning up. The impact, especially in-season, is quite substantial. Hence, and for the reasons cited above, most of the current volunteer activity is non-critical, especially non-time-critical. A planned balance beam re-paint can be left until next time without a great deal of impact. However, let's not re-run the 'it's not a real charity' debate again: it is a a registered charity correctly under the current rules (more so than private schools in my opinion!) One of the benefits of the present arrangement, as I understand it, is that the assets are not in the hands of CaRT untrammelled. Any significant asset disposal is not theirs to determine. Whether or not the protection of having to go to am minister is worth much is another debate! If the network was transferred entirely to an independent company (charity or otherwise - I'm note sure which you meant) then, without such protection, then assets sales would be limited only by the requirement to obtain best/market value and to apply the proceeds to the charitable purposes. Of course, they could liquidate assets and use the proceeds to prop up insufficient revenue - not something I'd see as a 'good idea'.

It was, I recall, significant in a recent seizure case.

I thought that Chancellor Ken put an end to that some little time ago. that is, consistently reclaiming more back than you pay in for VAT. (The occasional 'bad' quarter is still OK) Of course there are plenty of people trying to devise wheezes for not paying all forms of tax in the first place.

Moving off topic title: where do you think this should end? Charges for all special features eg Anderton Lift, Stanedge Tunnel . . . In addition there are plenty of stretches with low levels of usage but where there would be a howl of anguish of CaRT sought to abandon them. Do they make a 'loss'? Surely, since the system receives substantial public subsidies, all canals are making a 'loss'?

Until quite recently, EA and non CaRT navigation authorities did not really seem to be much bothered about overstayers but on certain waterways (notably Thames) public pressure has changed to the extent that some boroughs have taken matters into their own hands by obtaining bylaws that given them powers to act (mainly as riparian owners, I think). I'm not sure that citing EA inaction is likely to last long as an argument against CaRT over-action.

3% or 5% is just an artificial level. What is more important is to understand the relation ship between the evasion level achieved and the cost of achieving it. There will clearly be a point of diminishing returns and I would not want to set (say) a 0% level as this would entail enormous costs. (technically probably infinite). It is also important to understand (although harder to do so) the relationship between evasion level and public/boater confidence. Above a given level then more people will start to9 think, why should I pay? Below that level and either it is seen as a waste of resources or there is adverse reaction from publicity about 'hard cases'. Forget what has been suggested in the past, what level do folk here think is the right level?

Starting from the observation and working back to an explanation: it is certainly my experience that there are circumstances in which increased power leads to decreased speed. But I have not conducted a thorough analysis so . . . I think part of the issue is not to assume that the whole of the forward speed is obtained simply by thrust through the prop shaft onto the boat itself (like it might be with a jet stream) The propellor is pulling water from in front of the boat and forcing it out behind. Part of what this does is to create a 'slope' so that the boat is 'falling' down in a forward direction. If the demand from the prop is increased and the physical context cannot meet that demand then gradually the boat comes closer to the bottom and ground effects take over. Ultimately, and one has seen people, not always novices, doing just this - they end up with the boat 'attached' to the bottom and the more the power is increased the more the boat is pulled to the bottom and stays there. The wave effect no longer propels the boat forward and all of the energy is dissipated into, in effect, churning up the mud. Another context is to watch closely what happens when passing through a narrow bridge hole. If the power level is kept constant then it can be easily seen that the forward speed drops noticeably. Overall, any 'proper' analysis needs to recognise that the changes in power (which usually result in greater thrust but, of course, there is the possibility of causing bearing to begin to seize so that less of the power goes into thrust) alters the overall behaviour pattern so that linear formulae do not necessarily work. One other item to throw into the ring: on a sea shore, waves break because of the differential ground effect: the top part of the wave continues at its deep(er) water speed whilst the bottom part is slowed down - ground effect - which allows the top part to overtake and hence create the breaking wave. All of which probably proves that my involvement in hydrodynamics of hull forms is very ancient indeed and that I have forgotten almost all of it! Instead, I simply prefer to treat the canals with a degree of respect and seek to find the way in which they work for me rather than against me. Makes for a simpler life, especially as one's own physical capabilities reduce! (Note: I keep putting more and more into it but life inexorably insists on slowing down . . . )

. . . and may actually decrease the speed as the extra engine power draws more water out from under the boat and hence decreases the clearance even more.

It is rare that leakage at both ends is the same. Hence it will rarely balance at half full. Unless one knows the lock well (every day as it can change quickly) there is limited chance that a boater will close the one that leaks less. Closing both doubles the chance that water loss will be reduced. As a slight diversion, we came down the Leicester section a couple of weeks ago from Foxton and at the top locks (we moored just one down overnight) we were asked to delay setting off the next morning as the lockies (at least 2 if not 3) were running water down as the Shires lot needed more water to fill some very low pounds (some were still not over full when we reached them. The explanation was that the upper flight had been worked on over the winter and now leaked very little unlike those below Kilby. As a result, not enough water was getting down the flight - as had been happening hitherto. Amusingly, that lockie was going to a water management meeting in the afternoon! All indicates how complex water management and conservation is and how apparently well-intentioned actions can sometimes have adverse effects. I suspect few boaters, of whatever length of experience, have access to the SCADA data and water modelling system that the lockies are guided by. The lockie who first asked us to wait had actually been sent an automatic message before he left home, telling him what he needed to do, based on the monitoring data and model. Whilst some belittle the expertise at CaRT, as techie I tend to be impressed with the knowledge, skill and modern tools that the staff on the ground have at their disposal (which are improving all time so long as investment is available). I strongly suspect that they are able to take a much wider view of the system than an old style lengthsman who, as the name implies, only had a fairly limited view.

As hominem remarks like that don't take us much further forward. What Phil said in his last post seemed to make sense to me so what about it gives you a problem? As it happens, I would generally prefer to use a ladder to get back down and then to motor out, especially if not on my own. However, there are advantages of alternatives, including that described, if you have then to go back and close the gates (since we are not on the Southern GU!). Equally, we have a narrowboat so there is room for the boat to move sideways, unlike the wide beam that started the discussion. Whilst I am quite a fan of trying to works locks (and anything that moves) as efficiently as we can, not least to minimise the amount of wasted energy, I do also like to vary things, hence there is no set pattern as to which of us steers and which operates the paddles etc. It is also interesting to experiment and work out what works best, both for us, and in the differing circumstances across the system. I doubt very much if there is a single preferred solution and even at the same lock it can depend, including on what traffic there is about.