Leo1973

Hi no it does not start easey from cold needs lots of throttle, glow plugs (had news ones) and never first time only when hot. Water and smoke comes out of the same hole. Hi Just called ASAP they said add Seaflow Brass Round Intake Strainer Grate to outside of boat? Not sure about drilling hold in hull? or a water Water Intake Scoop ?

The water inlet from the canal that cools the engine seem to be getting blocked up all the time. Can some thing be add to the outside of the boat wihout taking it out of the water?

It's grey white smoke, South Cern Engineering advised on thinker gasket set. Maybe a bloked injector? or diesel timing out?

Just bought a boat with a BMC engine 1.5 which was rebuild about 3 months ago, know the person who rebuild it and was running great. After rebuilding the engine travelled about 8 miles with too much oil in (about 5 litters too much) person was very drunk and add more oil… “Better be safe than sorry, was his words! “ The engineer took an extra 5 litters out of oil out and it still smoking, head has been taken away and check (some work done), new gasket set , got a thinker one. Exhaust has been check for oil (not cleaned). Now thinking, it the glazing on the bores? Does anyone know of an additive I can add to clear them? I have diesel central heating so worried about adding stuff to the diesel as same tank.

I have a 59ft stern cruiser narrowboat and at the front is the water tank and at the very back in the kitchen is a MORCO D61 Gas Water Heater (bulk head), gas bottle on back desk. Water pipes run from front to back all in plastic. I have got flow in the kitchen hot and cold water, (not long had boat so not used bathroom and refitted it) Kitchen tap all work fine (hot and cold), I light the boiler and run the hot tap in the bathroom shower and the boiler pilot light goes out so no hot water in the bathroom shower the water flow is good (tap not fitted on bathroom sink yet) (bathroom: middle front end of boat). Maybe flow to fast through boiler? (but kitchen is fine) Any ideas?

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ka_mooring_and_mooring_strategy

I think that we can all be agreed that there are examples of boaters who flagrantly flout the continuous cruising rules and are due appropriate measures being raised against them. My only concern is that these rules are applied with a suitable level of pragmatism (eg. enforcing a boater to move when there are several inches of ice on the canal). How many people are breaking B W rules for living on leisure mooring? Next B W will be charging people with mooring £20K! His could be a good argument for continues cruisers when they all need moorings.

National Bargee Traveller Association, have got people to put in request to B W under the Freedom of Information Act and that what they have found.

I do have a paid for mooring and a gold licence.Thanks

If you have a paid mooring (like me) it looking like you can stay over 14 days without any problems, but if you are a continuous cruiser you can not. Is this B W just want everyone to have a home mooring for extra cash? to pay the director big bonus?

Just to let people know I do have a mooring, which I pay for. This was in a news letter from National Bargee Traveller Association http://www.bargee-traveller.org.uk/ The news letter before said: The article below and other information that you may find useful has recently been posted on http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk BW's internal Licensing and Enforcement management reports between June 2011 and March 2012 show that BW has set a target for "all boats not moving at least 30km during their contract period to be within enforcement process ". The reports were obtained by a Freedom of Information request. This target was set before British Waterways revised the Mooring Guidance for Continuous Cruisers as a result of the Davies case and it remained a target after the revision was completed and the Guidance for Boaters Without a Home Mooring was published in October 2011. The policy of taking enforcement action against "all boats not moving at least 30km during their contract period" is at odds with the evidence given to the House of Commons Select Committee on the British Waterways Bill 1993-94. On 1 July 1993. the following exchanges took place between the Chair of the Committee George Mudie MP and British Waterways Marketing and Communications Manager Ken Dodd: "Mr George Mudie MP: I would have said from the user's point of view 28 days would have given more flexibility for the user ... What is of interest is, you tell us from an operational point of view why 28 days would be disastrous compared to 14? Mr Dodd: I would be happy to have no period mentioned at all and rely upon the expression "bona fide used for navigation". This is an attempt to clarify in the interests of boaters just what we reasonably mean by "bona fide used for navigation", what are the parameters, that it appears to be eitherr necessary or helpful to put some indication of what genuinely "on the move" means. I think that to extend leaving a boat in one place as long as a month as, as it were, a test or an explanation as to what is acceptable for bona fide navigation, it would seem to me that as long a period as a month in any one place is not really a true reflection of "bona fide used for navigation". Mr George Mudie MP: If I were being fair to you I would leave it there because I have not got from you any severe operational reasons that suggest 14 is absolutely necessary as opposed to 28... Mr Dodd: With respect to the period, we were trying to respond to the test for "bona fide navigation" to give some measure of protection to a boater in those circumstances, so that he or she would be clear in their mind as to the point at which he would begin not to be regarded by British Waterways as using the boat bona fide for navigation. " In other words, the test for compliance with Section 17 3 c ii is simply whether the boat has been in one place for longer than 14 days without a good reason, not whether it has travelled a specific distance. The policy of taking enforcement action against "all boats not moving at least 30km during their contract period" is also at odds with British Waterways v Davies, where the judgement stated that a distance of 10 miles (16.09km) was not sufficient to constitute using the boat bona fide for navigation. The distance between Bath and Devizes is just over 30km (18.6 miles). Furthermore, the policy of taking enforcement action against "all boats not moving at least 30km during their contract period" has remained secret. It was not disclosed to the User Groups who met with British Waterways Legal Director Nigel Johnson and other officers including the Head of Enforcement Denise Yelland, the author of the Licensing and Enforcement management reports, on 23 June 2011 to discuss the revision of the Mooring Guidance for Continuous Cruisers. The policy and the secrecy with which it is being pursued appears to reveal British Waterways' objective of removing itinerant boat dwellers from its waterways. Since 1995 boaters have pressed British Waterways to indicate the distance of travel required to comply with s.17 3 c ii of the 1995 British Waterways Act. British Waterways has never responded with a set distance; partly because there is no minimum distance stated in the Act and to set one would be unlawful, and secondly because it prefers to hold a threat over the heads of itinerant boat dwellers with the intention of pressurising them to move off the waterways altogether, rather than giving them information that would enable them to know how to avoid enforcement action. In addition, British Waterways reported in its Boating Projects report for May 2011 that it has plans to introduce "longer term towpath [mooring] permits" in certain areas such as the Kennet and Avon canal which boaters without a home mooring must pay for to "allow" them to travel in a way that s.17 3 c ii already entitles them to do. To introduce such permits would be unlawful, but to introduce them without informing boaters of the policy of taking enforcement action against "all boats not moving at least 30km during their contract period" amounts to extortion in addition. Now that this information is in the public domain, at least boaters without home moorings on BW navigations will know what they need to do to avoid enforcement action: make sure your cruising range is at least 30km over your licence period. Most people licence their boats for 12 months; if you pay in instalments over the year you still have a 12-month licence. This assumes that BW stick with this target; as we know to our cost, they are habitual movers of goalposts. The reports do not make it clear whether BW is applying this target to boats with moorings. You can download all the Licensing and Enforcement reports and Boating Projects reports that were provided in response to this FOI here: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/boating_management_and_consultat#incoming-281372 The Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committees that drafted the 1995 British Waterways Act are available for the public to read and copy in the Parliamentary Archives, contact archives@parliament.uk.

14 days but in a very restricted area (30 KM) so people living on board can not go to work and children to school

The House of Lords will debate the Draft British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012 in the Grand Committee on Monday 25th June. Please write to as many Lords as you can before Monday asking them to vote against the Order. The Grand Committee debate will be followed by a vote in the House of Lords itself. The Committee does not vote as part of its procedure; any amendments to the Transfer Order have to be agreed unanimously in the Grand Committee. This means that the government can defeat amendments it does not support because it has a majority. However, it is still worth writing to individual Lords to ask them to vote against the Transfer Order. Lords don't have geographic constituencies so you can write to any of them. Lord Avebury has campaigned for many years on human rights and minority rights including travellers, so it is worth writing to him. As time is short it's best to email your letter. A list of Lords and their email addresses is on the Parliament web site here http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/ Not all Lords have email addresses. You can post letters to the House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW. You can contact some Lords through www.writetothem.com You don't need to be registered to vote to contact an MP or Lord. You may need a postcode; if you don't have one, just use the postcode of the nearest post office or pub. Here is an example letter: Subject heading, especially if emailing: GRAND COMMITTEE DEBATE ON 25th JUNE: DRAFT BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS) ORDER 2012. "Dear Lord / Lady / Duke / Archbishop / Lord Bishop” (you may need to look this up on the list of Lords) I am writing to you to express my concerns about the Draft Statutory Instrument, the British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012. Please ensure that this order does not become law. I am concerned that the transfer of British Waterways to charity status will result in boat dwellers like me and my family being made homeless by the Canal and River Trust. The transfer order should not be passed until the Government introduces specific statutory protection for boat dwellers from harassment and unlawful eviction, applicable to those both with and without permanent moorings, equal to that enjoyed by the tenants of houses. I already have evidence (in the Trustees' document TT06 available here http://www.canalrivertrust.org.uk/board-papers.html) that the Canal and River Trust will continue British Waterways policy of harassment and unlawful eviction of boat dwellers without permanent moorings. Please vote against the transfer after the debate in the Grand Committee on 25th June 2012. The issue of British Waterways was not discussed at all in the Commons Committee stage of the Public Bodies Act. Therefore the extremely serious issues raised and submitted to the Committee by many boat dwellers regarding the risk of homelessness and the violation of our Article 8 rights resulting from the transfer were not considered before the Act became law. Please rectify that omission by considering these issues now. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed concern in 2011 about the appropriateness of transferring the existing powers of British Waterways to make subordinate legislation; powers of forcible entry, search or seizure; powers to compel the giving of evidence and powers whose exercise will necessarily affect the liberty of an individual, to a private sector body that does not otherwise exercise any public functions. Boat dwellers have no legal recognition or protection for their homes. The transfer of British Waterways to a charity will remove the minimal protection we have for our homes that derives from British Waterways status as a public body, namely the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, in part the Freedom of Information Act, and the Government's Code of Practice on Consultations. This must not be allowed to happen. I look forward to your reply. Yours sincerely Harassed Boater

Hi I got my new starter from CAV Automotive Ltd of Preston, it was for my Lister SR3 and it had 13 teeth anti-clockwise cog. The company I used make them to order, so you could get it off them. http://www.startermotorsalternators.com This company specialises in CAV starters typically used on Listers. You do have to be careful with some of the case numbers as most starters will have been reconditioned and the case may reflect the original construction not the reconditioned one. I took a photo and they made my starter to order and posted the next day. It was around £200 and that included them rewinding it for my 24v system.

Hi Thanks, I tried that and it did not work, one of the injectors has a problem and now got a new problem think one of the piston rings had gone :-( Look like it going to be expensive.