Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

Paul C

Member
  • Content Count

    10155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Paul C last won the day on October 16 2016

Paul C had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

415 Excellent

7 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

10772 profile views
  1. The irony is, the Arctic is warming up anyway. In years to come, there won't be a separate specification.
  2. Hmmmm......well yes true but its a different consideration. If its possible to buy the length of cable for each purpose, and one of those purposes can be done cheaper, normally it would be cheaper overall. If its possible to "consolidate" a number of slightly different required specs and buy in bulk (at a significant saving) a quantity of cable to satisfy all those specs (bearing in mind that some uses it would be overspecified), then.......yes..........its possible that the cost saving by consolodating into one bulk purchase, outweighs the cost saving by having each use case correctly specified and the cheapest for each use is obtained in the right quantity. For example when I wired some mains on my boat, I didn't need 100m I needed about 15m, and it didn't have a shoreline connection (just batteries and inverter to provide the mains) so an 85m shoreline would have been as useful as a chocolate fireguard. YMMV.
  3. Yeah but if it doesn't actually offer any tangible advantage in a situation (for example, the cheaper one can "do it" and the advantages of the more costly one wouldn't be exploited in this use case) why pay more for the sake of it? AIUI if you're not bending and wiring up wires in severe cold; or the wiring layout is sensibly planned out so there are no sharp bends anyway, you'll not perceive any advantage except perhaps if you're chucking it round during putting it into and out of boxes during the fitting.
  4. Of course, you balance the risk of evacuation against the risk of staying. What you seem keen to do, is to offer a judgement on a situation from your armchair. The captain of the stricken ship decided that helicopter evacuation in a slow, orderly way is appropriate. If it were on fire I suspect he would make a different decision - but I don't know. I am not interested in second-guessing the decisions of a captain of a ship in an ongoing emergency; or speculating on vague "what if" scenarios (not all fires are the same; and there is the ability to fight a fire onboard a ship, they have equipment to do so and/or salvors can often bring it onboard).
  5. They would have taken to the lifeboats, not waited for helicopter shuttle off of the cruise ship.
  6. So its like a widebeam but with a hulking great vertical wall of metal right down the middle. Hmmmmm..........
  7. They don't have 30 boats (do they????) And your link/search is misspelt anyway.
  8. Taps connected to the mains water supply here
  9. I guess they couldn't turn it around - or was that their rudder subsidiary?
  10. Missing number - they'd be thoroughly useless at taking any action on that. But it doesn't really matter anyway (to them). They have ways of identifying boats/boaters who think they're above the law and don't display - the nature of canals and boats means that it would be rare for 2 boats to exist which are so similar as to not be individually identifiable (might....just might occur eg with ex-hire boats or something...). They take detailed pics, there would be features or marks etc on a boat to identify its the same one. And the would apply any enforcement notices directly to the boat itself, so don't actually need the owner details etc. In fact, they're totally unbothered by the owner details. An owner would probably want to know they're having action taken against them, so its a bit of a daft thing concealing the boats identity anyway. The mooring situation - they'd probably deem it a contractual issue and not get involved. Of course, if it were moved off the mooring, then it ended up overstaying on the public towpath, they might get involved then. But its a long process from first taking action to boat removal.
  11. Its a legal requirement. Without getting into a massive debate on poverty etc, if you can't afford to own/run a boat and all the legal requirements that go along with it (there will be costs far greater than the £20 licence plates!) then its probably unwise to get into boating in general. In a more general sense, if your lifestyle choices depend on bending/breaking the rules, I'd say those choices are wrong, not the system.
  12. I honestly don't know - the point being, contacting CRT on their main customer services number probably won't get you through to the actual person/people who run that mooring, you might need to contact some other area, and it might end up being a PITA to find out anyway. The "water-damaged" generator option is looking more and more attractive......
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.