Paul C
-
Posts
12,391 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Paul C
-
-
Thanks for the replies so far. Note that I said most efficient, not 'fastest'. If you're in no hurry, then fair enough do it at your own pace but there's different degrees of 'hurry' or more accurately, the good feeling attached with not wasting effort/time. This might become important if you're eg doing a cruising ring in a week's holiday with lots of locks (eg South Pennine ring in 2 weeks).
Obviously if the distance to the next lock is too great, the 2nd person is getting on the boat; and if its adjacent, then they'll be walking (ahead). There's a few variations you could do, and I guess it depends on distance between locks:
1. Moor on the lock landing, both work the lock, someone gets the boat and drives in, moor on the other side of the lock (landing), and both complete the lock then set off.
2. Quick 'drop off' crew member and either hover (not recommended with a weir or lots of other boats) or then moor up with a rope. Maybe go up, maybe wait by side of boat.
3. Quick 'pick up' of crew by reversing up to the gate rather than mooring at the lock landing. Once again, a weir makes this tricky/not advisable at times.
4. Various ways the boat can be left to drive itself into or out of the lock in a safe and predictable way.
Substitute "wind" for "weir" if its blowing a bit.
I have seen the technique of strapping the gate behind you but I can't see how it could be perceived safe - that rope is going to inevitibly be near the prop, in the water, if its too loose, etc. Never minding the judgement of speed, length of rope, possibility of trapping a finger or simply not getting the wrap on and crashing into the front gates, etc.
-
Why would you need to get back on the boat?
You should be finishing off your lock while the 2nd person is getting the next ready
I've heard of it but tended to want to stay on the boat - do you mean to drive it in slowly and leave it in idle forwards, pushing against the front gate. Our last trip was on the Llangollen and with the fierce weirs, I tended to drive in to the lock quite quicky, to minimise the effect of the weir. I tried a few slow approaches and deliberately 'offsetting' the alignment of the boat to the lock, then allowing the weir's current to take effect, but it would also tend to alter the alignment of the boat in far from predicatble ways - so I went back to driving in at speed. Also, a lot of the time it was windy, so with weir + wind, driving in quicker than average worked out well. Hence, the reason to stay on the boat was to control its speed as it gets into the lock.
If there's another way to control the boat, in a strong wind + unpredictable weir, without being on it.......I've heard/seen using a rope to slow it (and possibly to close the gate too) but that's a bit too advanced/unpredictable for me.
-
What's the most efficient way for a crew of 2 to go about a lock? Lets assume there aren't any other boats around, and that 50% of the time the lock will be set in your favour, the other half of the time its against you. And that the distance between two adjacent locks is far enough, to justify the 2nd crew member getting back onto the boat instead of walking in between (they might be overtaken by the boat unless they walked fast enough!).
In our last trip out we were able to do a few little tricks such as the driver getting off and closing the 2nd of a pair of gates (going uphill in a narrow lock) then getting back on the boat - but only if there's steps at the foot of the lock, and a guaranteed way to get back onto the boat quickly (usually jumping onto roof - bit dodgy).
Another trick was to offer to 'finish off' a lock if we had arrived and a boat was already using it in the other direction. This saved them having to stop to pick up the crew, thus no need to block the lock landing (where our boat would be moored).
I also tried the 'stepover' (step over the 3ft gap when only one of a pair of gates on a narrow lock are closed) to save a walk of ~140 or more feet, again a bit dodgy that one!
Any further tips are welcome...
-
Can't see how it could be recommended without a tree strop - for the sake of the tree!
-
Well, we're back from holiday today, and already miss the canal a lot!
We planned it meticulously on Canalplan but were a little short of the first part day's stop, due to the boat facing the wrong way to start with (they have a winding hole only just large enough for our 57' boat) and a queue at Hurleston locks. So we got up early the next.....and passed that nights stopping point at about 2pm.....so carried on. And made it to Trevor a whole day ahead of schedule. Maybe we were lucky in that we didn't get significantly held up at any of the 'hot spots' (ie Grindley Brook, the aqueducts, the Chirk tunnel). We heard tales of horror from other boaters who were, for example, stuck behind a dreadfully slow boat over an aqueduct, or were waiting for an hour for a tunnel to be clear. We even got a 'free' service at Trevor, and did a trip down the Llangollen arm, albeit to the first winding point, not all the way into town.
Our speculative booking the morning of the passage down Frankton locks was successful (phoned at office opening hours of 8:30am but needed a call back for the relevant person to get in!) and the Montgomery is truly beautiful, possibly helped by its being a 'bonus' for our trip and definitely helped by the limited boats on it. Needless to say, we took it easy on this canal and had a wonderful time (the highlight of the holiday for my GF).
We even had time to spare at the end, so were able to have a lie in, make several long stops and go 3 locks beyond the hire base, turn, come back up the locks and moor just before it round the corner. (Could have gone to Middlewich!)
Definitely a case of "the early bird catches the worm".
-
The easiest way to make someone forget an important piece of information, is to tell them 20 other important pieces of information at the same time!
-
A typical hire boat apparently costs approx £200 to 'turn around' ie cleaning, pumpout, dealing with minor technical issues or small breakages, staff wages, etc. So hire firms probably won't let a boat be hired without covering this amount + fuel. If you look at typical day boats vs weekly hire boats, notice how they tend to be MUCH more basic and 'easy clean' - for example leatherette seats, floors which can be mopped out, etc. Thus their turnaround is simpler and lower cost. Once you get into any lengthy period of time on a boat including overnight stay, the turnaround costs escalate. Claymoore's offering is interesting, their summer rate for 1 night on a boat (22 hours hire) is £160 or so; and their collection and return time is 2pm - 12 noon, so they're reckoning on turning around in 2 hours. Not personally seen the boat though - maybe they suffer a small loss on a 1 night hire but reckon on return business?
-
Claymoore (Preston Brook) do flexi-hire, although I don't know the minimum period.
www.claymoore.co.uk
Midway boats (Barbridge junction) used to do short break hire, unsure if they still do (just had a quick check on their website and its not mentioned):
Plenty of hire firms do 'short break' hire and often split it Fri-Mon (4 days, long weekend) and Mon-Fri (5 days) at the same price. Most of them discontinue offering short breaks in the summer holidays though.
-
I can see some validity in this point of view. But only some.
What people miss when they spout this line is that without the boats, canals would cease to be an attraction to many of the other users. Anglers might think it would be wonderful without the boats, until they found the canals had degenerated to where they were before the revival of boating. In my experience, walkers like the canals because of the boats, the colour, the activity. Would they be as keen to walk alongside a stagnant ditch?
Good point - and one which helps to explain the funding gap between the licence fee x number of boats, and the difference between keeping a canal navigable, rather than just 'in water'.
Think yourself lucky Mike that you have Hack Green between you and the Nantwich/Barbridge/Bunbury day boats!
Of course....nothing worse than a hire boat.....except a day boat! However, sometimes experienced people who are perfectly competent at driving a narrowboat considerately hire day boats (probably the exception rather than the rule though).
-
As a newcomer to the world of boating the very first thing I was told was not to create any wash when passing other stationary boats. So far I believe I have done ok looking over my shoulder to see if any movement takes place as I move by. What thought did occur to me is that if other boaters are unaware of the fact that their wash is causing an issue to others then why not put a sign on the stationary boat saying please pass slowly (forgive me if this is a stupid idea)?
What I also found a bit scary was that last weekend there were boats moored on both sides of the canal and I had a boat coming towards me. I slowed to almost a stop unsure if there was room for both of us to pass and did feel like I was drifting towards the other boat at one point until I picked up the revs a little.
The other thing I was concious of was passing moored boats at just above tickover gave me a sense that the boat owner behind me found me a bit annoying trundling along so slowly. I thought this was what boat ownership was all about or is it the Sunday driver issue all over again? As I made the turn into our Marina entrance I was quite surprised to find he didn't slow up for me making my turn (wasn't sure I could make it in one) again making me feel somehow inadequate and also unnerving me as he passed close behind me. Am I expecting too much from other canal users to give me space when entering or exiting a Marina or is this also an example of playing Chicken?
I think you need to make a judgement on what's a reasonable amount of wash to leave, since its impossible to not leave any, strictly. You should go slow enough to not bump around the boat and keep it secure on its mooring, but if people can't be bothered to adequately moor their boats then ultimately its their problem, not yours so don't go super slow otherwise you'll never get where you want to!
If someone's behind you then its equally as courteous to offer they overtake (or match their speed), as it is for them to 'back off' and give you space. I always let boats go past in a convenient spot well before maneouvres such as mooring, turning or entering a marina. At some point, you're so close anyway that you can no longer offer the overtake - so try to plan ahead, or make good way anyway so as not holding them up if an ovetake isn't possible.
-
Why is it any more inexcusable from owners than hirers??
This place really is becoming exceedingly bloody tedious recently.....
The wrongness is the same, but in the grand scheme of things its not crime of the century, but a minor misdemeanor. Thus, it is forgivable from an inexperienced boat crew (ie probably but not necessarily a hirer) but not excusable from someone more experienced - one might assume that someone who owns their own boat is experienced, or took effort to learn to do things properly.
Hirers get approx 1 hour tuition, they can't expect to know all the 'rules of the road' in that time.
-
This is the sort of thing I'm after:
Which is a fairly standard layout. I keep seeing this interior beautifully done on fit-outs by Liverpool Boats, but have yet to see it on a trad.
I'm not an expert (and don't have a cutaway side profile) but that looks like a semi trad stern, not a trad stern. On a trad stern boat, the 'interior' starts about 3-4ft from the extreme rear of the boat. On yours, there are steps around 8 feet from the back. I am guessing those steps lead from a deck-height floor. I'm guessing the area above the deck height floor doesn't have a roof over it (otherwise it would only have about 4ft headroom there), and is open to the air. So, its a semi trad.
I've not seen many trad stern boats where they've successfully squeezed an engine, batteries and other engine bay equipment into the much smaller space, ie don't have an engine room too, although they do exist (eg smaller boats with smaller engines and less kit).
-
Actually, I'm still a bit confused about the OP, and was waiting for someone to pick up on this. Surely going up a staircase, the middle (and top) chambers should be full? And emptying the chamber above is what fills the chamber below. Yes, I know that you've got to be careful about levels, etc, but I can't see what was wrong in principle with what was described. Or have I misunderstood what was going on?
You're right, it was a bit more complicated than that though! Another boat had just gone down. The people going up who flooded it had entered the lock but forgotten to, or not realised they had to, FILL the middle chamber. So they wound the paddles up between bottom and middle chamber whereupon the level rose of the bottom chamber to half what it should be, and the middle chamber fully drained. They then started to fill the middle chamber and top chamber, and slightly overfilled the middle one (easy to do when you're trying to guesstimate a partial lock's worth of water).
Partly my error in not explaining the above, and partly my error in getting the 'simplified' original explanation the wrong way round.
Basically, they never had the levels right to start with, tried to 'improvise' half way through and muddled up the relative levels of the chambers and the result was a flooded pavement.
Another way to explain my simplification: they'd never filled the middle chamber to start with, opened paddles too early resulting in draining it, and then overfilled it, so it didn't 'empty' to its normal lower level and in doing so it didn't neatly 'fill' the bottom chamber to its normal upper level.
-
I appreciate the concerned advice, but I lose everything if I do nothing; I have a reasonable chance of success if I challenge.
As Allan (nb Albert) said a couple of times, who won/lost re: final outcome is not as important [to everybody else] as what was won and lost [my paraphrase], but the issue has been raised enough to warrant a response of some kind.
In terms of overall success, it is usually simple to determine that; but as the earlier quote from the judge should have made clear, in this case it is not so easy to answer.
The indicator is always the Costs award. The rule is that “costs follow the event”. I cannot yet say anything about the Cost Order, because the sealed Order has not yet been sent out and it would be contempt of court, so I understand, to quote it until then.
But I would be interested – given that BW were marginally ahead in that they received the OK to force the boat off the mooring, what percentage of their costs do you think they have been granted?
No worries, in which case I wish you good luck with the appeal. Whilst obviously this is personal to you and means a lot, hopefully some good can come out of it all for the general boating community and:
1) clarify mooring rights/lawfulness/policy/etiquette etc in all types of water, not just canals, that are inland waterways. Hopefully a level playing field can be achieved which is seen as fair by all.
2) oblige BW to show consistency and transparency in dealing with enforcement issues such as this.
-
Any interesting tales of complete muddle-ups or embarrasing problems in them?
I was at Grindley Brook (3 chambers) last weekend and saw 2 incidents. The first, was when someone tried to go up but hadn't emptied the middle lock. Well, they did, but only once the boat was in the bottom lock. The result being, a flooded bottom lock with water flowing over the pavement and down the path to the side. After a bit of head scratching, I realised it didn't in fact waste any water because 1) they'd have needed to turn the lock anyway (emptying the middle lock) to go up, thus using 1 lockful of water in the process and 2) the water flowed back into the canal. The other was when a paddle was left slightly ajar, and an exasperated husband was trying to work the locks, meanwhile his wife was on the boat ON THE MOBILE PHONE!!!! They were descending, and obviously neither was monitoring the lock because you could see it was draining beyond the required level. The funny part came when she tried to move the boat, with the level almost at the bottom (2½ feet below where it should be). Needless to say, the boat was firmly resting on the bottom of the lock and didn't go anywhere. She misinterpreted it as something stuck in the propellor. We couldn't bear to watch any longer, and took a walk away somewhere else, but they were still there not much further when we came back later and they did eventually get to the bottom.
Previously we were at Bunbury (2 chambers, wide lock) and a party of men on a boat entered the lock, blindly unaware that to go down, the bottom lock needs emptying. They too managed to overfill it, but the design of those locks means it just goes over the gate. Once again we couldn't cope with just sitting there watching the cogs slowly turn into place in their brains, and had to walk away down the towpath a bit. Came back half an hour later and they were still there, as far as I know they might STILL be in the lock somewhere.
The common factor seems to be that people simply don't understand that a staircase needs to be 'set up' before you put the boat in, or at least during its entry into the first chamber so that water isn't wasted and progress through it is efficient. Despite very clear boards with diagrams!
Any embarrasing tales to share? If needs be, you can say 'a friend' was doing it rather than you.
-
Having just read the judgment, a rough summary is as follows:
- Moore attempted to show he had a right to moor, either through riparian rights or through a provision in the original GUC Act. Judge said no on both counts (in no uncertain terms - the language is pretty strong by the standards of these things).
- Moore attempted to claim that mooring "without lawful authority" is synonymous with "unlawfully moored". The judge disagreed. (in my view correctly, "unlawfully moored" would require some form of conduct which is contrary to a rule, "without lawful authority" simply means you are doing something which you have no right to do). Moore's failure on point one above meant he didn't have lawful authority, and the section 8 notice was therefore, on those grounds at least, valid.
Those were the substantive points regarding mooring rights, and Moore lost both.
Moore also argued that BW had a "collateral purpose" in serving the section 8 notices, specifically that it was in cahoots with a developer. The judge disagreed.
The penultimate point was that BW's procedural approach breached his "legitimate expectations" of how they would conduct themselves in carrying out a section 8 notice. The judge agreed on this point, and suitably admonished BW who certainly should have handled it better.
Finally, Moore claimed his Human Rights had been infringed. The Judge provisionally agreed, subject to further submissions on this point.
In a nutshell, them's the facts.
Well it doesn't explicitly, but it's the very obvious consequence of the judgment. You may not strictly require BW's permission to moor, but should you not have it you risk them coming along and removing your boat, something this case has confirmed they are entitled to do. It's no different to saying you don't need permission to park in a car park which says "unathorised vehicles will be removed". You can of course drop your car there without permission if you fancy it, but it wouldn't be the brightest of ideas. For all practical purposes this case confirms that unless you can show some indpendant right to permanantly moor you need BW's permission if you are on their waterways.
The point this raises, as Nigel has said, is that statutory/common law rights to permanantly moor online (i.e. have a home mooring) are almost non-existant. This is however only relevant on a technical level for those who love understanding the minutae of waterways legislation. In the real world it is dealt with by contract. By having contractual agreements which permit permanant mooring BW are in effect contractually denying themselves their right to issue a section 8 notice against the relevant boat for mooring "without lawful authority". Were they to attempt to remove our hypothetic boat for which it's owner has a contract with BW permitting it to be moored they'd be in breach of contract and you'd be very likely to win an injunction preventing them from doing so. There is not therefore much danger, as has been suggested, of BW section 8'ing every boat which has an online "home" mooring.
Jenlyn - we get that you dislike/hate/despise Dave Mayall. Could you maybe just stick that in your signature or something though, rather than having to follow pretty much every post Dave makes with one that says little more than "This post isn't going to add to the discussion, just thought I'd repeat that I don't like Dave"? It's bordering on obsessive.
That's a pretty good summary Spesh, thank you for it. I too read the entire judgement, and agree with the judge not only in his decisions but that it was way too lengthy and drawn out! I also admire Mr Moore's persistance in pursuing this, and his coherent replies to some of the points raised on this thread. But ultimately, the law is the law, and they've decided against you in this matter. I'd recommend you possibly think seriously about seeing a solicitor before you get too involved in the appeal, maybe its time to acknowledge they 'won' and you 'lost'?
-
Thanks for the replies, I think I'm coming round to the idea that its just that little bit too ambitious. I did try to see if our particular boat was hired out the week before too, and if not, extending our week to 10/11 days to make it easier - alas its booked the week before by someone else. My frustration would be if we end up with a day or more to spare, having driven past Frankton junction and not done it, knowing we could have.....
I think we'll just mark it down as a long term aim to one day return to the Llangollen and do the navigable section of the Montgomery too - and plan it properly to allow a bit of flexibility, etc.
We are on the beginning of hopefully a long and happy acquaintance with the canals, seeing more and more of the network, both local to us and further beyond - and acknowledge that while we have already gained a bit of experience (a very varied week's holiday last year and 3 day trips, including a RYA Inland Helmsman course), we have much to learn and discover too. I have already looked at a summer break too, and we've scoped out hirers etc - we're looking at cheshire ring or something similar.
-
To confirm, we'd plan to go down the Frankton locks one day; travel on the Monty that afternoon, turn around at some point (maybe the navigable limit but in any case so that we'd make the next day's booking to go up the locks), moor up overnight on it; and go up the locks the next day - ie spending ~22-26 hours on the canal, not 2 hours.
I agree its ambitious, and that the 'pinch point' is likely going to be Grindley Brook - but if we smoothly get up the staircase (on our trip out) and have the time to do the Monty, then our return trip has enough 'slack' to cope with a (for example) 3-6 hours worth of delays. And of course we'd have more of an idea of the delays due to Easter hols, etc. And of course, we'd be going downhill (with the flow) to get us home- which helps a little, but not relying on it!
-
Hi
I've been a lurker on the forum for a while, and read plenty of posts but not yet posted my own.
Last year my girlfriend and I hired a narrowboat for a week in the summer, and did a trip from Preston Brook to Ellesmere Port and return. It was an eventful trip, many exciting things happened! But also there was time to enjoy the rural landscape and relax properly. So now we are hooked on the canals and love to explore them by foot (assisted by car) whenever we get the chance, but of course yearn to be on a boat too.
Within a week of completing last year's holiday, we were researching our next trip possibility. We decided to use the flexibility hiring offers you, by choosing a route principally, then finding the hire bases nearby (and not so near) which makes that trip achievable. Also with hindsight (last year we booked at late notice without seeing the physical boat we'd have, but others in their fleet) we spent a good deal of time looking over the boats before deciding and asking targeted questions. After all, these things aren't cheap and we want to get the most out of our limited funds and time off work! Its also worth adding my GF is a teacher, so is limited only to out-of-term times - so we have booked for the 2nd week of Easter holidays.
So, we booked a week's hire from Anglo Welsh (Bunbury) with the aim to 'do' the Llangollen canal. We have also spent many days out exploring this beautiful canal, of course looking at the significant landmarks such as the aqueducts, grindley brook staircase, Hurleston junction/locks and Wrenbury. But yesterday we took another trip, this time to Frankton junction/locks and a mile walk along the Montgomery canal.
I have used Canalplan extensively to find detailed information on timings and features of the Bunbury-Trevor (we won't go all the way into Llangollen, we'll turn at Trevor) and I'm happy its easily achievable in the week, putting in around 8 hours/day cruising which with the daylight, will be fine. Indeed we might have a day or half a day left over.
Last night I also calculated that its JUST possible to do the trip AND combine it with a day spent on the Montgomery (connected navigable section). The location and timing doesn't split it neatly into an even amount of hours cruising per day (to lock through Frankton junction needs to be done in the 12pm-2pm window, and booked in advance). But its possible by putting about 9h 40m into the first few days (and about 4-5h in the first day) to get to Trevor and make a spare day available on the way back. Once we're back on the Llangollen canal, the cruising plan shows a much more leisurely 6h/day to get home in time. I am happy making early starts and 'getting going' (we have no kids to burden ourselves with!) What we'd do if this is achievable, is monitor our progress taking into account we might chance upon delays, or want to stop earlier in the day than originally planned etc. And if we slipped behind, not worry too much about abandoning the plan to do the Montgomery and simply carry on back to Bunbury in good time.
Are we being simply too ambitious? Or is it achievable? And if so, only if we 'rush' and this might spoil the holiday a bit. I'd love to return at a later date to do another holiday on the Montgomery but of course, these things cost quite a lot! (and I pay 'twice', because if I take time off work for holidays, I don't get paid, being self-employed). We reckon a short break type holiday in Whit would be around £800 for 5 days. I appreciate its Easter weekend and we'd need to also get through Grindley Brook too, which may delay us greatly, but then we did visit this weekend and the locks are reasonably smooth and speedy to operate - and of course, the lock keeper should be working there too.
Any help/experiences/suggestions are appreciated.
THE WATERWAYS INFRASTRUCTURE TRUST - who is on that?
in General Boating
Posted
As a 'member of the public', I might be able to clarify things and provide a reasonable view:
The 'public' is only interested if some kind of wrongdoing occurs, or somebody uses the conversion from public body to charity for their own personal gain. The normal day-to-day events and occurrences associated with the conversion process are not interesting. What appears to be happening is that NBW don't know what the normal process is, so they're reporting every detail as "We didn't know that was going to happen!" and assuming its some kind of trick to con the public, until its pointed out by others that its not. Unfortunately the effect of "crying wolf" will be (already is) that if anything did occur, NBW's voice has become irrelivent, its credibility is lost and is now largely ignored by those in the know.
NBW is potentially a good idea and a valuable resource to those interested in canals but the large volume of poor journalism that exists on the news stories diminishes this.