IanD

Perhaps before accusing somebody else of spoiling for an argument, you should re-read the first and last paragraphs of what you just posted? 🙂 They read as if they were written to deliberately cause offence and provoke an argument, and then blame somebody else for it -- but I'm sure you'd never do that... 😉

Without joking or being provocative, I wonder what kind of stern setup the boat had, and whether this contributed to the accident? There have been several discussions about the risks of things like seats and trip hazards and different types of stern...

So as I speculated, highly experienced with (centre?) wheel steering in open waters and presumably when mooring. Whether this experience makes up for the disadvantages of such a setup on narrow canals is an interesting question; maybe they're good enough helmsmen to get away with it. It does mean that it might be difficult to find a buyer similarly skilled if they ever want to sell it...

That's one possibility but right now only speculation, as is "probably avoidable" -- most accidents are avoidable if you have a crystal ball or with the benefit of hindsight, but they still happen...

I hope the casualty is OK, incidents like this can cause horrible injuries. I wonder if it will be made public what caused the accident, assuming this can be established? Not because of any ghoulish curiosity, but it might help prevent a similar incident in future. Before anyone says "well that's not very likely", the report on CWDF of the sinking in the lock on the HNC a few years ago saved us from the same fate a couple of weeks later -- forewarned is forearmed, when we got stuck I knew what had happened and what to do -- not obvious! -- to avoid sinking.

Clue : four letters, rhymes with cat...

Not missed in the slightest, the distance needed for an overtake -- much more than an opposite-direction pass -- was pointed out ages ago, during the discussion about when/where it was safe to overtake.

You're the one who seems to hate modern technology so much that you refuse to use it and look down on those who do as somehow inferior, even when there's no reason not to and it might actually be helpful or informative... 😉 I've probably got lots of things you don't have, as have many other people, including a sense of humour. What's your point?

Yes there are, where you need *much* more power going upstream... I deliberately didn't mention that, because it makes the numbers look even worse... Water heating can easily be done by having the generator connected to a calorifier heating coil -- if you have a high-yield coil (which is not standard, but is what I'm doing) then that 1 hour per day of generator running will also give all the hot water needed. Or if you're not moving there should be enough spare solar power to provide this via an immersion heater. If you need boat heating -- not in summer, obviously -- and you haven't got spare solar power then you also need a heating system, and a diesel boiler is the usual way of doing this since you already need a diesel tank for the generator. Definitely not solar either... 😉 The numbers for "solar-only" just don't add up, except for the case of not much cruising, slowly, in summer. For anything else -- longer cruising days, several days in a row, "normal" speed cruising, rivers, autumn/winter -- there just isn't enough energy available from solar, and a generator is needed -- plus some other heating method when it gets colder. And in winter solar won't provide enough power even if you never move at all on an "all-electric" boat.

Well if you don't want to visit a YouTube webpage, what makes you think any webpage is safe? Including this one, or anything else you look at? If you're wearing a tinfoil hat then you obviously can't see *any* videos... 😉

You do know you can just go to YouTube on the web, you don't have to sign up and it won't infect you with any nasty spyware?

I think I can guess which stall that was, and if so their numbers don't add up, just like they didn't when one of their guys left the forum in a huff when challenged about them a couple of years ago... A realistic power audit for an electric narrowboat for a typical day of normal-speed cruising (including moored boats and locks) comes out around 14kWh for propulsion -- this is not just calculation but is backed up by real tests on multiple boats (e.g. the Ortomarine trial and others). The biggest solar array you can get on a narrowboat will yield about 7kWh/day on average in summer, which is half a day's cruising -- to fill in the gap you need to run a generator for about an hour a day on average (or two hours every other day, or three hours every 3 days if you have a big enough battery bank). Note that this ignores domestic use, like induction hob/electric oven/toaster/microwave/fridge/freezer/washer, which such boats are inevitably fitted with, which is typically another couple of kWh/day. And then the typical static power drain for the inverter and things like MPPTs/router is another couple of kWh/day -- so now we're up to maybe 18kWh/day. Yes I've looked into this in detail, while not wearing rose-tinted glasses... 😉 Of course if you go slower than most diesel boats then you use less power because this goes up as the cube of speed, but most people (except "dawdlers" -- see other thread) don't want to travel at "passing moored boats" speed on the open canal. Or if you only travel a few hours per day -- or all day every few days -- then solar alone might keep up in summer (but don't forget the domestic power). But pretending that you can use an electric narrowboat and cruise like you can on a diesel boat and only need solar in summer is being economical with the truth, to say the least... 😞

Popcorn time... 🙂