Jump to content

Paul C

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Paul C

  1. 6 hours ago, Lizette said:

    Hi Thanks for responses,I am not sure what "bar" over the engine is?


    it means to turn it over by hand and feel how it resists.


    6 hours ago, Lizette said:


    I did look through manual and on line to find possible part with issue. 

    That’s good but if you’re guessing at parts and replacing them instead of diagnosing the issue, it will get expensive.

  2. On 13/04/2024 at 16:07, Lizette said:


    The starter motor was thoroughly cleaned and tested and was working off the boat. Tested with someone else's battery.All fine and dandy until I returned it to its rightful place .Although it's no longer clicking it isn't starting the boat. 

    It's a mystery! Any next move suggestions?



    46 minutes ago, Lizette said:

    Just an update on starter battery and starter motor .All seemed fine battery was charged up ,I double checked starter motor . 

    Installed and not working . We used a booster and tried to start it ,we saw smoke coming from under the engine and smelt burning.

    We think it is a s solenoid with one lead coming from it. We think it goes to fuel injection but unsure at the moment.

    I have no idea if this is any way connected to my existing problem .

    I shall attempt to get under and take photos.

    I am looking through manual for engine and attempting to identify it at the moment.

    I don't want to give up but maybe a call to RCR is inevitable. 


    If the above two posts are to be taken as correct, then it points to something wrong with the installation of the starter, and/or a (partly) seized engine. Using the principles of checking what's easiest first, I'd suggest next step is to bar over the engine. (If you can't do this, or you don't know what a "normal" engine should feel like for resistance when its done, there is little value in yourself doing so).


    The other possibility - incorrect starter installation - has so many variables that its not worth going into them just yet (without sight of the engine it would be a guessing game).

  3. The danger with these kinds of articles (and this forum post) is that if they "cry wolf" too many times, when something important DOES actually come along, people will ignore them. This has to an extent already happened with NBW and its widely ignored, as evidenced above.

  4. 2 hours ago, GUMPY said:

    I got bored with rubbish radio reception and fitted a Nobsound  It has line in and BT. I streamed stuff off my phone or ran it  from the TV output.

    Worked very well just like a large BT speaker 😉

    There are lots of Nobsound units on the market each slightly different 🤔


    I assumed from the OP that DIN mounting size (and probably ISO wiring harness already there), based on "use the same slot in the wood bulkhead". If steering away from fixed mounting, then a bluetooth speaker would be a good option.

  5. Didn't NBW have some other person (Allan ??????) who submitted a string of FOI requests, resulting in him being marked as a vexatious requester and CRT not needing to further communicate with him?


    It just seems like a fishing expedition, with no public interest value.

    • Greenie 1
  6. 3 minutes ago, David Mack said:

    In many cases there is no contract between the farmer and CRT, and thus no contract to breach. There is one contract between the farmer and the boater, and another between the boater and CRT. And CRT's ability to control the moorings against the farmer's land can only be exercised by whether they allow the boater to moor there.

    Indeed true - I believe there are 2 styles of how EOG mooring fees for online moorings are collected. One is where the mooring provider has an overall agreement with CRT, and one where they don't (so the boater pays EOG fees directly). I don't know the situation on Arthur, or his friends, mooring to know which is in force there.

  7. 38 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

    Here's another case. I have a friend who (genuinely) cruises virtually all year, but has retained his EOG farm mooring for when he needs medical treatment. So as long as he's not there for more than a couple of weeks at a time, which he isn't,  although he has a contract for a permanent home mooring, my assumption is that he can declare as CC, saving himself about a grand, as it's no business of CRTs what the farmer does with the mooring, which, obviously, is usually vacant.

    Its a sort of reversal of the ghost mooring theory... the advantage now goes the other way.


    He's either retained his home mooring or he hasn't. And........it IS the business of CRT what the farmer does with the mooring. In the above case, if a farmer is renting out 11 moorings (or the length equivalent of 11) and the contract he has with CRT is for 10 moorings, then he is in breach of that contract with CRT.

    8 minutes ago, Higgs said:


    They (the marina) don't initially require boaters to have a licence. 




    Unless its some weirdly exceptional contract or a marina with a prior agreement than with NAA, I'm pretty sure every marina which requires a boater to have a CRT licence as part of the T&Cs of its contract, requires it from the beginning of the mooring agreement.

  8. 2 hours ago, Midnight said:

    Whilst I think the baton twirlers campaign is going nowhere I do think the surcharge system is flawed and probably will be dropped before too long.  One scenario that has me puzzled is: Boater A is a continuous cruiser so pays the surcharge. Then when winter comes takes an end of garden mooring in a farmer's field for 5 months. Not a home moorer so must be a CCer. He pays the farmer £X a month to tie up to the bank and should pay C&RT EoG charge to float on the water, but hang on he's aleady paid the CCer surcharge. C&RT can't have it both ways so what's the outcome if it went to court?


    I think you're confusing things here. If someone takes a mooring for 5 months, they have a home mooring.


    That CRT are using a "6 months" rule for determining when a boater pays a surcharge, if they spend part of the year as a CCer and part of the year as a home moorer, is another separate issue.


    What would be the avenue it would go to court on? CRT can charge what they like on differentiating licence fees.


    4 minutes ago, Higgs said:


    They don't initially require boaters to have a licence.


    Who is "they" in the above?

  9. I don't think the money is ringfenced - in other words, while moorers are charged more, so are other marina users - the café customers, people who stop for diesel/pump out, workshop, etc etc. Its a business cost that the marina knows it needs to pay, so they ensure their income covers it so they can stay in business.


    Its also because there is a big hole in the banking in between the marina and the canal, that boats can freely (excuse the pun) pass through. If CRT relied upon honesty of boaters who only occasionally nipped out to use the canal to have a licence, while those who never did, didn't need one, CRTs income would be less - partly because of dishonesty (it would be world's easiest licence evasion, if cruising was limited), and partly because the vast majority would go for 6 month or 3 month licences to only cover their 'season'.


    Its an agreement you don't need to be involved in because the NAA is between the marina operator and CRT.

  • 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.