Richard Fairhurst

Ah, right. So when you also say ...then I can only guess you've spoken to the cyclist in question and found out that's how he justifies it (because it's certainly not an argument that all cyclists subscribe to). Perhaps next time you speak to him, you could pass on some of the other comments from this thread!

When you say "the cyclist", do you mean this case or cyclists in general?

Mike Palmer from WRG attended one meeting as an observer, as far as I can tell. The IWA's representative is the chairman of their Navigation committee. And are either "bona fide waterway restoration societies"? In their own way yes, but certainly not in the sense of CCT, Wilts & Berks CT, Chesterfield CT, GCRS (and so on for several pages). The latter are simply not represented on BWAF in any way, shape or form. ...set up by BW, with a BW secretariat, which meets on BW premises, and which BW boasts about in its Annual Report et al. But apart from that...

In some places (e.g. the Grand Union) where the National Cycle Network follows towpaths, a 10mph speed limit is requested. It wouldn't hurt to have this on the K&A - and, for once, I'd actually like to see more signs promoting this. For a cyclist who's been following (say) the Bristol-Bath railway path, it may be helpful to see reminders that the towpath, despite also being an off-road route, operates under very different rules. The London scheme is a good example to follow. Richard (incidentally a volunteer Sustrans ranger, though obviously speaking in a personal capacity)

You're right as BWAF is currently constituted.... that's kind of the point. The group was set up by BW, with an initial membership list derived from the National User Group meetings, and with a constitution which includes the requirement that such a group's "objects or activities are of national scope within England and Wales or the whole of Great Britain". This is just one of several things that make me believe that the constitution and working arrangements of BWAF are seriously flawed. Here's another: the meetings are held behind closed doors. This is directly against DEFRA guidance and indeed best practice as followed by many other bodies (e.g. EA REFERACs). Slightly ironic considering that BWAF is nominally part of the "openness and accountability" programme...

Oh, absolutely. But it's a serious point too. BW has several times asked BWAF for serious input on "how should we treat restoration?" - see the minutes on BW's BWAF webpage (e.g. October 2005 meeting). Yet not one single restoration group is represented at the meetings. The only group there with a definite connection to restoration is the IWA - and even then, their representative is the chairman of its Navigation Committee (who I have a lot of time for), not of its Restoration Committee. Is that really likely to produce a useful, balanced view? But, hey, BWAF does appear to have a representative from the "International Mountain Bike Association (UK)". Give me strength.

I'm generally of the mindset that "if you want something doing round here, do it yourself", which would echo the comments about getting involved - or, even, starting your own organisation. But BW needs to recognise that user groups are not, and should not be, the be-all and end-all of consultation. A lot of waterway people aren't "joiners", for one reason or another, and will simply not join an association. Yet they have the right to be heard and respected - just as workers shouldn't be treated like dogdirt simply because they're not part of a trade union. And it's not actually that difficult to hear them. There's forums like this, there's WW's letters pages (and those in the other magazines), there's NBW - hell, if BW staff were as engaged in the waterways as they should be, there's actually going out there and talking to people on the lockside! BWAF is a move in the wrong direction, because it reinforces this idea that consultation just means talking to user groups. In fact, it's not even that broad: it's a particular subset of national user groups. Why was (for example) Cotswold Canals Trust not invited to join BWAF to represent the restoration movement? CCT has, I believe, more members than any national user group except NABO.

Huawei drivers are pretty terrible at the best of times and this is, I believe, a known issue. Think yourself lucky, though, Huawei drivers for the Mac are even worse.

MNB = Middlewich Narrow Boats.

Alrewas section is closed now too, I believe.

The 01384 number is the non-geographic version of 0800 47 999 47 - what used to be Freephone Canals - so yes, it's a central number.

And a lovely restored aqueduct!

The original criterion was "any other canals in England they have abandoned, or are still abandoned, but still filled with water, that BW haven't even touched". Think that excludes most of your list, Carl - AFAIK the Aberdare's entirely infilled; same for the Adelphi; the Adur's a river, not a canal; small bit of the Andover in water, so you can have that; not sure about the Ashburnham; Bedale Beck is a river; Bishop Monkton - hm, maybe, not sure it necessarily merits the full "canal" title; Bond End Canal - well I moor on the bit that's still in water so that doesn't count as entirely abandoned; and so on...

Indeed. A short stretch of the Oakham near Ashwell would theoretically be navigable by canoes - not sure the fishermen who maintain it (very well) would be too chuffed, though! The Melton Mowbray Navigation's an absolutely gorgeous river, though - it'll be delightful when it's restored. The first step gets underway next year, I believe: Sustrans are rebuilding the entrance bridge at Syston (currently a low walkway) to give navigable headroom. Elsewhere, there's a few isolated bits of the Wyrley & Essington that are still in water but unnavigable.

Can I really emphasise the above? NBW is talking about BWAF proposals - at that stage nothing more, and with a 2010-2012 target date. But this afternoon - i.e. after the NBW report - BW announced it's actually planning to adopt some of them next year - that is, the continuous cruising and wide-beam surcharges. http://www.waterwaysworld.com/latest.cgi#784

BW press office, I think.

It's usually far too tempting to make some sort of noise. About 10-12 years ago we (about 10 of us, I think) were going through Chirk Tunnel on a knackered old ********** hireboat and launched into a rendition of Jerusalem. One of our party was claustrophobic and so walked over the top. She said she could hear it all the way across and it was one of the eeriest sounds she'd ever heard... I sometimes have a quick blast on the accordion. But I'm very very tempted to fit an inverter for the sole purpose of being able to play that Bach Toccata & Fugue in D minor (BWV 565) on the organ in tunnels. Oh yes - have seen people doing that a couple of times. I managed about 200m on my bike the other month before deciding it was far too freaky and turning back... The towpath gates on the 'north-western' side are meant to be locked (with a BW key), I believe, and just used for emergency access. But in reality they seem to be left open most of the time. The towpath on that side is reputedly in much worse nick, though, so the south-eastern side is the one to walk along.

We spent a couple of overnights the other week in the Winson Green and West Bromwich areas of the New Main Line, popping out to local pubs in each case - no problems at either location. I guess most of the nutters in Winson Green are safely behind bars...

Are you sure? Section 32, as I read it, says something like "where this act talks about 'arbitration', this is what arbitration means". But the "bona fide navigation" bit doesn't mention arbitration so this doesn't apply. But I'm definitely not a lawyer and may be very wrong.

If you like walking, the walk over Standedge is really, really enjoyable.

Out of interest, how's Taplow been motorised? On the subject of what goes where - blatant plug for map showing where different narrowboat lengths can go on the WW website.

There is - and has been for the 10 or so years I've been working on waterway magazines - a desperate shortage of people willing and able to write (and photograph) cogently about practical boating matters for the inland market. I would be absolutely delighted to hear from anyone who thinks they might be able to do it.

I think Stoulton was one of the boats that went down to the Basingstoke as a house-boat. Certainly it was a very likely candidate for the identity of our boat, which is an ex-Basingstoke house-boat, before we decided that it was (probably) Hagley.