Paul C

I'll skip over the rhetorical question, and answer your question with another: okay accepting that they should pay something, what sets the amount they pay? Do CRT impose a flat-rate amount across the network, should this relate to anything other than a figure they think they can get away with, for example how about it actually relating to the cost of providing the service that is offered?

Actually if you took the time to read it properly, and try to be a bit more positive rather than simply having a pop at Nigel, you'd realise there is a lot of sense in his post. Yes, a "service" is being provided, but after the initial works to create the opening (which is probably paid for by the marina developer), the initial water fill (which is a separate agreement/cost, I believe) the actual costs incurred as a result of the connection are minimal, and certainly not the 9% of total number berths x mooring fee. Yes there will be a little more water lost through evaporation and leakage, but the marina developer needs to satisfy CRT of the water-tightness of the marina before its allowed to be connected. The main extra 'service' is the potential greater number of boats a marina potentially brings to a particular area, eg an increase in boating traffic. But I doubt the actual differential cost in those extra boats incurs anywhere near the actual connection fee. So I'd say it is a 'hidden' cost to the (marina-moored) boater, call it a tax, or 2nd portion of the licence, etc it amounts to the same thing. Its similar with EOG mooring fees, possibly even more so given the much greater cost which is paid by the boater here. Those boaters paying neither EOG mooring fee nor marina connection fee (indirectly, via their mooring fees) are getting very good value for money compared to others. Unfair? Possibly, but one has the choice to seek out a mooring without the extra fee, or CC.

Just looked at the links too - stainless steel would be much more suitable! Don't put in a 90 degree bend though. Have a look at the installation guidelines on BS8511 and the stove installation instructions for the max. bends allowed. http://www.stovesonline.co.uk/stove-chimney-documentation/Installing-stoves-on-boats.pdf

Yes, for the reason in the other thread you started on the same issue - the material needs a reserve of thickness to allow for a reasonably long life taking into account high corrosion rate. A 3" drainpipe will work, but not for long....

I don't think its a massive issue. If you must, you can stop in a bridgehole in a narrow canal, or simply pull over to the left and slow/stop the boat if its not too windy. If it is, then you can moor temporarily with the centreline etc.

I reckon there's some kind of interlink to allow both rudders to follow each other and turn the same direction. The reason for 2 rudders? 2 engines, but I don't know why. Possibly for efficiency reasons (one for canals, both for rivers)? Redundancy? Compactness of install? It would have been more complexity/expense to create a third pivot point in between the two rudders, so the tiller connects directly to one or the other rudder. One tiller, but offset, would have looked a bit funny, but possibly for some situations led to problems, so 2x tillers were fitted to give an advantage in controllability. That's my best guess.

Bidding has ended, at £3800.

I don't think we can be too harsh. There's been a recession of great proportions, nobody could have predicted how deep it would be, and how long it would have gone on for. 5 years ago, things looked rosy and boat numbers were increasing, it would have been easy to be convinced by a business plan which took this into consideration. What's happened has been a worst case scenario. Boat numbers are no longer increasing, boaters are feeling the financial squeeze like everyone else and continuous cruising has risen in popularity, no doubt partly due to its reduced cost compared to a home mooring. The network access agreement is basically, another indirect payment made by boaters to CRT, via the marina they're at, even taking into account that the agreement is based on number of berths in total (not just occupied). Anyone with a brain will see that its a cost that the marina pays, which has to be met by its customers, and their moorers are the steady income forming the majority of those - simple arithmetic. End-of-garden mooring charges are a similar thing. The fact that BW made it fixed (and thus inflexible) might possibly be seen as fair, but in a recession its going to have effects such as this, so in a way I can partially see the marina's argument that its actually quite unfair, especially when comparing to older marinas where no agreement exists. If more marinas feel the squeeze and can somehow cooperate to launch a larger, focused campaign to CRT, then possibly the agreement could be altered going forwards. But one upset marina isn't going to change much, especially with high court cases against it and strengthening CRT's position. Of course, the boaters stuck in the marina are kinda caught in the middle of it, but plenty of notice is given, there's plenty of other marinas and there's always the option to move the boat, so its not disasterous for them. For this particular marina (operator) the future doesn't look bright though.

I imagine CRT aren't as daft as to not take into account in their budgeting that occasionally marinas don't get the business they thought they would, and are sufficiently financially fragile that they'll go into liquidation, resulting in the access agreement payment not paid. So they'll not worry too much about relentlessly pursuing the lost money, that after all never existed in the first place (not enough moorers --> not enough income --> not enough to pay the access agreement etc). Hopefully instead of permanently sealing the entrance, they'll put a gate across it with the means to let out unlucky moorers who for whatever reason, have not gotten their boat out the marina by April but may on request want to get back onto CRT's canal system etc. But it won't be for the day-to-day ins and outs of the marina, it could be a one time departure. If the above is possible, then the existing moorers don't need to be worried too much about being sealed off in a bankrupt lake.

It depends on the implied conditions attached. For example, if a cheque was sent with an explanation that they couldn't/didn't want to pay any more, and that accepting and paying in the cheque implied acceptance of the reduced payment amount, then I could see why they'd choose not to pay it in yet pursue full costs. Remove the implied conditions so it can be interpreted as part payment with an amount outstanding, and its a different matter.

Plenty of boats have/had gas lockers with a slot in the bottom for ventilation, and the floor of the gas locker was so arranged that it is almost on the waterline- so depending on fuel load, other items etc may be underwater by design. This is a REALLY bad design in terms of corrosion resistance, since the base of the gas locker is at the worst place for corrosion, and its failure would lead to a sunk boat. Our boat was like this, and it was picked up on the survey, to the point that the surveyor deemed it unsafe. Luckily, we'd not bought the boat at this time so the work was done to raise and rebuild the gas locker floor, so it was clear of the waterline, free of charge (the seller paid). This job involved the boat being dry-docked and welding the new floor, and cost I the region of £800 or so. Apparently at the place we had it done, its quite a common job. As I understand it, we could have simply cut a slot for the drain hole, and 'patched up' the badly corroded existing floor - but we took advice and had it done properly. Obviously the above relates to a gas locker, the requirements for a petrol can locker are probably very similar.

If you can get a round hand file into the existing hole, then it could be enlarged into a slot and partly sit above the waterline.

Series hybrid is the name for that setup. Yes, according to the rules you've quoted, can't see how it wouldn't qualify. After all, the electric motor is the propulsion but it doesn't say how the electricity is generated. Of course, a plug-in hybrid or something using batteries and solar power (possibly with a diesel generator too, or something else) would be lower emissions etc.

Why is everyone afraid of advertising of services useful to boaters?

The thing with canal boats is, they don't go that fast anyway. So you can see a lot of stuff yet still keep going in it. So long as there's reasonable daylight, there's no reason not to keep going all through the day. Early morning and evenings are 2 of the best times to cruise, partly because of the light and partly because most others have stopped so its quieter, no queues, etc.

Dawn Chorus (the share boat) is based at Nantwich, Chester is a popular run for them. And, its going to be one of the few boats at this time of year on the move. And I recognise the boat, from the picture, and the article mentions canal boat/barge (I know a narrowboat isn't really a barge).

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the proficiency of the driver, but Dawn Chorus is a shared ownership boat.

Just for clarity MIke, when's the last time you were on the Llangollen canal?

Exactly - the first election was based on not much more than promises of the candidates, and the reputation of IWA backing 5 of them. This time, boaters will be able to judge on previous performance too, and also decide if IWA link is good or not.

Its not damaging, it just takes longer.

Its going to be bonkers trying to get this into the interior of a boat, is it really going into a boat???? Does it fit through the doors?

I do get about much, but in a different area of the country to you. I've not boated past recently-worked-on, or newly-installed, piling recently though. Possibly what you saw was partly installed piling? Who knows? (Do you have a picture?)

I noticed it, but made no comment. Reading the planning apps and the amount of ill-feeling in the local area for a marina, it came as no surprise.