Paul C

Its not as simple as that though - because the body which is empowered to police the RCR are Trading Standards. And since there is no 'sale' of the boat occurring, they are basically not interested. It is a crime which goes unpunished, an injustice if you like. But one with no victim. And furthermore, it seems that Scottish Waterways are happy to accept a boat onto their waters WITHOUT the RCR or PCA, so long as it has a BSS. Put simply, they are happy with a less exacting check on the boat (a BSS is much cheaper than a PCA). Even if its a new, or new-to-UK, boat. So my pragmatic interpretation is, in this scenario, "you don't need a PCA".

No worries Alan de E, that's your interpretation of the wording. I and others have a different interpretation.

But its still not "on the UK market".

That's why I said "most"!

Indeed. When they do double blind drug trials, I believe a proportion of the people who received the placebo report headaches, dizziness, vomiting, etc etc

Apologies, yes its possible to simply go the "BSS" route and obtain a BSS within a month of putting the boat into a Scottish Canal. Even for new boats, it would seem. And I don't think you need the PCA since its not being "placed on the market" - its just being imported by its owner, who will remain its owner. I was misled by some of the posts above which suggest its a requirement but I don't agree. It will be interesting when it comes to selling, but that's another kettle of fish.

I vaguely remember reading on here that most flooded lead acid batteries are pretty much the same. The different price for the (for example) 5 year guarantee vs the 2 year guarantee simply went into a fund because x% of batteries failed anyway and they sometimes honoured the guarantee for 2 or 5 years.

I imagine 2 paths could occur: 1) The OP ignores the fail and puts the boat in the water (presumably onto Scottish Canals' water). It would be unlicensed, uninsurable and subject to whatever process Scottish Canals uses to deal with such vessels. It might also be impossible to obtain a mooring without the necessary admin 2) The OP respects the fail and does not undertake the relevant work. It would remain on dry land at its destination in Scotland, probably accruing storage costs on their yard. Given the high cost of transport, it would be folly to bring such a boat over without all the paperwork in place already, for it to only sit in a yard, or be subject to seizure etc. And I know there's plenty of boats in England/Wales canals etc which probably need a PCA and would probably fail it. PCA isn't important, until its important (like, buying, selling, first licence, etc)

My thoughts were Derek R was able to base a decision/judgement on the BBC despite not watching any of their television (or paying a licence fee). Sounds like he has been "influenced" by something/someone else into that, rather than gathering facts and evaluating it himself.

It sounds like you could only go on a small subset of CRT waters; and that CRT waters were a small subset of where you could go anyway. So not really the same situation as (for example) a 56' narrowboat which is firmly located on CRT canals and isn't seagoing. Given the above, I don't blame you for leaving CRT canals and not renewing the licence.

We're not talking about no water, we're talking about non-navigable (or possibly, navigable but disconnected). As a helper, I find it useful to consider these 'stages' of canal usability: 1) Connected and navigable 2) Disconnected from the rest of the system, but navigable 3) Non-navigable but in-water 4) Low/no water but the route preserved 5) Filled in but route preserved 6) Filled in (and possibly built over) I believe a lot would be left at 3 due to drainage function and preservation of habitat for aquatic wildlife.

If a leisure user simply parks the boat and leaves it there, a marina is objectively better than an online mooring. Being squished up means things are closer eg elsan disposal, car park, etc (accepted that some online moorings have car parking right next to the boat etc). The needs of someone who regularly stays, or lives, on the mooring are very different.

Thames is a river though…….

So its okay to moor without permission, and/or fly-tip rubbish, so long as it doesn't actually "disturb" the landowner (who has riparian rights)?

Yeah, it would probably be an old gasket or hose to blow first. I'd never just fit a higher pressure cap in an effort to get higher cooling performance. Skin tank or re-plan route/time.

So long as a thermostat is fully open (as it would be once an engine is at the "hot" end of its range of operation, it wouldn't matter what its rating is. Higher pressure means higher temperature before boiling. And higher temperature, given the same temperature of the river/canal water on the other side of the skin tank, means a higher dT and thus higher cooling capacity.

Something tells me the laws of physics are against you: 1) To go upstream of a (relatively) fast flowing river, you need to achieve a certain speed for a length of time, to make the journey. Unlike a benign canal, there will be a speed where you're motoring in the flow, but actually stationary or going backwards WRT the land. 2) Speed is related to engine power 3) Engine power which can be sustained, is related to cooling capacity. Unless you know you can achieve a speed where the engine doesn't overheat and can achieve a steady state power delivery, and that speed is above the flow of the water, its doomed. It would be unwise and unsafe. This also means, so long as you ARE 'beating' the flow of the river, it IS possible. So a journey which might take another boat an hour, might take you 6, but without overheating. It will use much more diesel and time, but it would be possible.

What is the strategy?

None of which actually matters, if there is no money.

It won't, but then why would it need to be? Think of it another way. Historically, we know that the UK canal network was built at (approx) 7' wide. Some canals were 14' for "progress", and a few ship canals were built and river navigations improved (Weaver, MSC, Exeter). Compare with other countries where over the decades, they have upgraded and upgraded. There, commercial traffic remained. In the UK, there is now 0% (probably a bit, but its a rounding error) of commercial traffic on the canals. Its entirely for leisure and liveaboards. Now imagine, if the railways declined to such a state that there were no commercially operating trains any more, but there still existed a small number of "leisure" train users. Would the Government continue to fund the railways and keep its network as-is? Put simply, the Government has determined that there is no appetite for the general voting public to prop up leisure boaters, liveaboards, CCers etc with a huge subsidy. They created CRT to try the charity route. The grant is going to decline to £0. If there is not a significant increase from boaters (I suspect the amount required, if funded 100% from boaters, is not possible to achieve since many will find it unaffordable and be obligated to leave, some way or another if they live on the canal) then something has to happen. That something, is (IMHO) a managed decline with CRT being the 'fall guy'. A bunch of CCers getting slightly less value-for-money than they currently do, is very low down on the priority list in the grand scheme of things.

If they're CCers they could move to a canal which is open. Let's not forget that, say using a (plucked out of the air) "50% are closed" figure. That will be the lesser used canals, so much less than 50% of CCers would be affected. And let's also not forget that 1) CRT are NOT a housing authority, 2) to live on a boat with no fixed abode, is already technically "homeless" since a boat is not interpreted as a home. In reality, the "managed decline" will not result in widespread closures of canals, instead it will simply make a connected and navigable canal system into a series of disconnected sections, with relatively few actual "closures" which require no boats on it. CCers would be able to choose to cruise to one or another side of a stoppage, much as today where some boaters seem to be able to work around stoppages and keep moving no bother, while others seem to be desperately unlucky.

I broadly agree with the above but would question the points regarding liveaboards. The reduced network certainly could sustain all the liveaboards, in fact it would benefit them being on less of the network because services they need can be more efficiently provided. The "not where they need to be" and "them becoming homeless" aspects: are these liveaboards those with a residential mooring or a houseboat; or those in contravention of byelaw 30?

That's the ignition switch, terminal 17 is start and terminal 19 is pre-heat. Terminal 50 is (confusingly) also "start", but if its direct to the starter. I meant, short from 30 to 50 on the STARTER, this will energise the starter solenoid. But since you now have good access to the ignition switch, check its +12V at terminal 17 while you engage the "start" position (and not 12V when its just "key on").

Its not the batteries or the isolator. You can bypass the ignition switch by putting +12V to terminal 50 of a starter (might be labelled terminal S), for example by shorting a spanner or screwdriver from the +12V big terminal (B or 30). That way you can test the starter motor.

Why?