Richard Fairhurst

Presumably the pontoon in question was the visitor moorings rather than the lock landing?

This guide by the IWA is good: http://www.gloucesterharbourtrustees.org.uk/pdf/Boaters_Guide_(1).pdf Of the listed moorings, though, I think you can effectively discount the Coalhouse and the White Horse, and Ashleworth has been underwater the past few times we've seen it, which leaves just Upper Lode, Lower Lode, the Yew Tree and Haw Bridge. Obviously, keep an eye on the river levels and talk to the lock-keepers. Lifejackets are certainly worth wearing on this section, and make sure you're confident in your engine and your fuel.

And on Twitter just now: "10/04 HWFireWorcs, @HWFireDroitwich & @HWFireMalvern attended a boat stranded at weir, Diglis lock, Worcs, 1 elderly man rescued by Crews"

I'm not sure that's an announcement of money, is it? "A plan has now been agreed for the work, which is set to cost £30 million" doesn't necessarily mean they've got the £30m... sadly!

It was reopened in the 1990s, together with a bunch of stations in the Soar Valley, to form part of the new 'Ivanhoe Line' from Loughborough to Leicester, Coalville, Ashby, Burton and Derby. The Ivanhoe stickers were still there at the station last time I went through. Unfortunately, they never got round to reopening the middle bit (Leicester to Burton) and so it's rather marooned out on a limb, and at the mercy of CrossCountry, who are a bit ambivalent about stopping trains.

We came up-river on Tuesday and Wednesday, from Gloucester to Diglis, overnighting at Lower Lode. It was very slow going. We actually made good progress up the narrow east channel out of Gloucester - 2 to 2.5mph over land, which is better than we've done in the past - but counterintuitively, slowed right down as soon as we got to the parting by Maisemore. Upper Lode wasn't too far off making a level, with the weir visible more as a modest burbling than a raging waterfall. From Upton to Worcester was the slowest of all: we were down to 1.3mph by the bypass bridge with the engine at near to full power, and similarly by the confluence with the Teme. The Gloucester lockie advised us when to leave to avoid the tide itself, but you're right, it has been holding up a lot of fresh. What amused me most on Wednesday was that, for the first time ever in a day's boating, we saw more commercial craft on the move on Wednesday than pleasure craft: two Thompsons gravel barges (Elver and Perch), the Pride of the Midlands and Earl passenger boats, and a CRT launch, vs just one Anglo-Welsh pleasure boat heading downstream. While you're in Gloucester, the new Tank brewery tap by Llanthony Bridge is very good, and we always enjoy Café René (a pub, not a cafe) on Southgate.

"Quiet" and "small town" don't have to go together. We find Diglis Basin (where we are now) to be very pleasantly quiet, even though it's in a city - pretty much the only city noise we hear is the chimes of the cathedral.

Around 2004/2005 there were discussions about BW taking over the Bridgewater Canal, probably on a management agreement rather than actually acquiring the freehold. I don't remember the exact reason they foundered but I think it had something to do with the Coal Authority clean-up costs at Worsley. One wonders whether CRT might be interested in rekindling the idea...

We really like the Green Man at Swindon - an "honest boozer", very welcoming, simple but good food.

The hoohah about cuts has mostly focused on Oxfordshire County Council, not the city.

Indeed - if you're just posting to a canal forum, you're not really "advocating" to any effect at all, because this isn't where the decisions are made. If you want mooring rings to be put in on a towpath resurfacing project - and that's not a bad thing - then you need to be "advocating" somewhere where people actually listen. You could join a national user group and provide input to CRT's national policies that way. You could look for planning applications when they come up on your local council website, and make representations there. Or you could form a local group that advocates for boaters' facilities in your local area. Up to you. Complaining about CRT here may be therapeutic, but it doesn't actually change anything.

Yep. It's as much about familiarity with the location as anything else. Turning from a wide river, proceeding downstream, into a canal entrance isn't something that spooks me in principle - we moor at Diglis, after all. Needless to say, I ignore CRT's warning sign that tells people to continue down to the river lock, turn there, then approach from downstream. I'm familiar enough with the Severn, and with that turn, to turn in the main channel and come alongside to the pontoon in one manoeuvre. But the Erewash entrance I wasn't familiar with, and certainly wasn't expecting the strong wind to push us quite so close to the wall. No-one's fault but my own, of course; but given that we do have a short boat, and it's not a location I visit regularly, I'd choose to err on the side of caution next time if the wind's up. (Mind you, I'm not anticipating going up the Erewash again until either the Cromford or Derby is restored, so it's probably a bit academic...!)

I'd second this. Turning into the Erewash, coming downstream on the Trent, with a wind blowing counts as one of my least favourite boating experiences. I'd be tempted to continue into the Cranfleet Cut, find somewhere to turn round and approach it that way if doing it again.

Caldon every time. The Bridgewater has the historical cachet but I find it a pretty boring cruise until you reach Manchester; whereas the Caldon is full of interest - Leek, Cheddleton, Hazelhurst, Froghall, the Churnet river section, the steam railway, the urban bit through Stoke. The Bridgewater's worth doing as a transit route on the way to somewhere else, but I wouldn't choose it as a destination.

Until 2013, the situation on the Severn, at least, was that the river in such conditions would be deemed to be "in indemnity". A slightly jargonish phrase, but a good idea. If the lock could be worked, but the river was at a level that might cause navigation difficulties, the keeper would require the boat's skipper to sign a form indemnifying BW/CRT from any damages. Effectively, "we're advising you not to proceed - but if you insist, on your head be it, and sign here to say you understand the consequences". One would hope that might give even the most pig-headed boat-owner cause to reconsider. This system was quietly dropped in 2014 and I've never found out why. I thought it was a good idea and one that could usefully be extended to other river navigations.

I only finished drawing the map for it today! Off to the printers on Monday.

Waterways World aggregates a number of brokerage listings, search engine-style, at http://www.waterwaysworld.com/boatsearch/.

Beat me to it! There are a few open-source tools around to solve TSP problems, but the only digital, routable waterway database that I know of is Canalplan (there's also OSM, but the canal data is too patchy).

This is the crucial point. At the risk of trying to understand rather than condemn (heretical thinking, I know), it might be enlightening to consider why cyclists use the towpath. Is it: Because they like ducks? Because they want to wind up kris88? Or because they consider it a safer way of getting from A to B than the roads? 1 and 2 are both worthwhile reasons, but I'm pretty sure 3 is the reason for most people. The Regent's Canal is a case in point. Until the new East-West Cycle Superhighway is finished, the Regent's is the only traffic-free cross-town cycle route there is: and you only need to look at the number of fatal accidents involving cyclists and construction lorries to understand why people might be nervous about riding on London's roads. Hence the popularity of the towpath. Better signage, rumble strips etc. might have some effect, but only a very limited one. For most people, self-preservation trumps mild discomfort any time. The only way you're going to get cyclists off the towpaths, and back onto the roads, is by making the roads survivable, pleasant even. On all but the quietest roads, that means 'segregated' or 'protected' space, such that a cyclist is not pushed into close proximity with a tipper lorry or white van. It's eminently doable; it's how they do things in the Netherlands and Denmark, and an increasing number of cities around the world. It's starting to happen in London and a few other locations in the UK (e.g. Leicester). The East-West and North-South superhighways in London are segregated routes, currently under construction. But that's just two routes in one city. Most times you want to get from A to B by bike in Britain, you'll encounter some resolutely cycle-hostile roads. So if you want to get cyclists off the towpath, the best thing you can do is lobby your local authority for better cycling provision on the roads. Not the shared-use pavements and cursory painted on-road lanes that many councils like to put in, but real Dutch-style safe provision.

No, it isn't true. "A condition" is not the same as "a presumption against". Sustrans doesn't like barriers, and rightly so, but that isn't to say that a route would be entirely denied funding if the landowner (such as CRT or a local authority) requires barriers. That isn't true either. BW had been considering getting rid of permits for at least 10 years and only retained them in order to drive traffic to Waterscape: I well remember having a conversation with Eugene Baston in Willow Grange along exactly those lines.

Could you point to that £6m that "Sustrans gave CRT", please?

And this is actually one of the things that Richard Parry has got right. BW management under Robin Evans was constantly being reorganised - it was almost Marxist in its "permanent revolution" approach. Offices were merged and demerged, chains of command constantly shifted, bankside staff moved from pillar to post. It was absolutely the "management as profession" approach you describe, Arthur, and it was a disaster for BW. Commitment to the canals was no longer valued, and commitment to the organisation was impossible when that organisation would bite you in the ar*e at the next inevitable reorganisation. Every rejig was done in the name of "efficiency", but it was obvious to anyone watching and talking to BW that the staff were less dedicated and less efficient each time. Richard Parry has taken a much more gradual approach. No, CRT does not have the same exact layout as it had when he took over. But the changes have been gradual rather than a series of big bangs, and the approach appears to be pragmatic rather than textbook-led. It seems happier and more harmonious to me, and that makes for a better and more customer-responsive organisation.

For the potential number of boaters, I've become convinced that the no. 1 prospect is the eastern Wilts & Berks, the North Wilts and the eastern Thames & Severn. A week-long ring with a bit of everything (gentle river, narrow canal, broad canal), not too many locks, plenty en route (not least Oxford), lovely scenery, and in an area already established as popular boating territory. I think it'd give the Four Counties a run for its money. But as I'm sure you know better than me, getting the big grants isn't just about the number of boaters, and the regeneration argument in rural Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire is much less strong than in the Black Country. Still, W&BCT seem to be going great guns around Swindon these days...

Depends on the locks, I find. Iago (40ft) bobs very happily around on the Worcester & Birmingham without hitting either end. But on the northern Staffs & Worcs there's a ricochet effect from one end to the other. I'm sure there's a knack to avoiding the latter but I've not found it yet...

Ironically, there is actually a tug moored up in Worcester at present, though I doubt it's very serviceable - it's at Diglis, by the Anchor and about five berths along from our boat. I fear however that even the most skilled of pilots might have difficulty getting it under Worcester Bridge right now: