IanD
Patron
-
Posts
11,516 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
90
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by IanD
-
-
4 minutes ago, Rob-M said:
But when the data shows multiple numbers boats traveling through a narrow lock at the same time there may be suspicion raised and licenses revoked.
The tracker idea just adds cost and complexity and Big Brother concerns and another way to try and cheat the system, as well as arguments about whether real--CCers or fake-CMers should pay more -- it's a solution looking for a problem (and not finding one)... 😞
-
53 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
Tracker 'breaks' or is 'lost' then no rebate - licence costs you £5000.
There is a financial incentive not to damage the tracker.
It could certainly be made to work, and would mean CMers paid a lot more than today and possibly that "real CCers" who do a lot of miles pay less.
However there's the opposing argument (put forward by CART) that CCers account for most of the use of locks/facilities which puts a bigger strain on the system -- in which case "real CCers" should pay more and CMers pay less. Which at least would keep the NBTA happy, if anything ever could... 😉
Whichever way the fees are tilted there's bound be a lot of protest from whoever loses out. So probably the least contentious solution -- which also avoids the need to track boats -- is a percentage surcharge on the license fee paid by anyone without a home mooring, which is exactly what CART have adopted.
Like democracy it's the worst possible solution, except for all the others... 😉
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Midnight said:
"So the solution is to make the charge (e.g. £3/night) for every night including the first one. Then a boat without a home mooring would pay £3*365=£1100 per year, at the same time they pay their (similar) CART license fee. Still *much* cheaper than a typical home mooring"
??? 'cos it would be a lot cheaper.
But more expensive than it is today -- in other words, less incentive to move out than today.
5 hours ago, magpie patrick said:A lot of us keep our boats on long term moorings now even though the towpath is free, so why would we change that? I have to admit thar, on the Kennet & Avon, I'm very happy paying a premium to be on the Coal Canal arm at Dundas where the summer crowds pass me by!
I wasn't suggesting that this "charge-per-night" is a good idea, it's really a big "CC surcharge" in disguise but more regressive since everyone pays the same, and also harder to administer.
CART already know if a boat has a home mooring or is CC/CMing, and whether this status changes during the year. If they want to extract more money from CCers and discourage CMers, a bigger "CC surcharge" seems the best way to go about this.
-
38 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
I can’t argue that one,and I don’t expect there to be an all encompassing community
but there are small communities that are unified,
Except they are not unified even with each other, many of the small vociferous communities (e.g. NBTA) have interests which are opposed to those of many other boaters, and there is certainly no overarching "boaters community" that speaks for the "silent majority".
And the NBTA claiming to represent boaters in general is being "economical with the truth" to say the least. OK, it's a lie, plain and simple... 😞
-
56 minutes ago, Midnight said:
...but wouldn't many marina dwellers just leave and moor on the towpath where it's cheaper? Might make it difficult to find a mooring in popular places.
But marinas would cost the same and towpath moorings cost more than now, so why should anyone move *out* of a marina?
The whole point is to try and level out the massive cost difference, which is what is encouraging CMers.
44 minutes ago, Paul C said:It already is......
...because in these places the short-term visitor moorings (2-day, 7-day, 14-day) are perpetually bunged up with CM overstayers -- sometimes for weeks, or months, or even years... 😞
-
42 minutes ago, cuthound said:
Only by using technology such as GPS. However this would be difficult for CRT to implement unless having an onboard device was made mandatory with a penalty of having your licence revoked if the device was interfered with or removed.
So the solution is to make the charge (e.g. £3/night) for every night including the first one. Then a boat without a home mooring would pay £3*365=£1100 per year, at the same time they pay their (similar) CART license fee. Still *much* cheaper than a typical home mooring...
But then that's a flat fee which is regressive, so it would be fairer to have a percentage surcharge on the license fee. Which is where we came in... 😉
-
37 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
Having seen what I’ve seen crossing London over the weekend, I’d say boaters’ communities do exist.
Whether good or bad, positive or negative, like it or not, whatever.
In fact there’s probably quite a number of communities mingling together.
It’s a proper eye opener down there. In many ways I like it. In other ways I don’t.
Trouble with me and you Arthur we like our own space and wouldn’t dream of being in ‘the thick of it’ (for want of a better description) and neither would we (I think) want to be part of a community.
Hackney Wick looks interesting enough to stop over for a week or so on my return journey.
I think it was St Pancreas that looked interesting too.However the boater communities you're talking about are usually made up of a small subsection of the 35000 boaters on CRT waterways, with some interest in common (e.g. location, CMing...) which is not shared with most others or is even opposite to the majority view -- the NBTA being a perfect example.
And as usual, the noisy minorities like the NBTA get more attention than the quiet majority... 😞
-
3 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:
I don't expect that will become common until all boats are electrically powered and charging points are widely available
Indeed. Don't hold your breath waiting though... 😉
-
1 minute ago, GUMPY said:
I guess it's due to the fact that B42/48 and N78 are all in the same frequency band.
My Huawei says 5g only on the external ports but looks like in reality it means 3.5ghz band. Never seen it expressed as channels before.
Question is do the lower frequency 4g channels use the internal antennas when external antennas are connected?
Usually the answer is yes. However if you're inside a boat with no reception using the internal antennas and these are used for setting up the link (which is what happens with 5G) then you're scuppered... 😞
They make the routers this way because it's cheaper, on the assumption that external antennas will improve reception on the 3.5G bands which don't penetrate walls as well as the lower frequency bands.
-
1 hour ago, GUMPY said:
You generally only need 5kW to run a heat pump and heat a house so 3kW would be enough to run a heat pump to keep a boat warm.🤔
Heat pumps big enough for boats (e.g. Frigomar) only use about 1kW flat out and throttle down to about 200W at lower outputs.
-
1
-
-
On 13/04/2024 at 10:38, GUMPY said:
I found a fault!
Whilst is supports most bands on its internal antennas on external antennas only B42 and B48 on 4G and N78 on 5G are supported. So not much use on 4G if you need external antennas.
That's the well-hidden problem with external antenna connections on lots of routers...
-
7 hours ago, Midnight said:
I never claimed it would save £millions but it would prevent a few stoppages. Why would the government remove £10m from the grant? Therese Coffey said CRT's role is to maintain the waterways - never mentioned non essentials.
Because as has been said many times, the government sees the canals as a linear park for millions of people to use for outdoor activities, and to keep the government happy CART have to do all those things to make the canals more appealing to non-boaters -- it's all in the KPIs imposed on CART, and if CART don't meet them by prioritising 35000 boaters instead the likely result would be a cut in the grant. Why do you think none of the KPIs are related to navigation?
-
6 minutes ago, Midnight said:
Junior fishing courses on EA waters, two tone van livery, lock poetry, sponsored Facebook adverts ........(add your own here) and I promised not to mention blue signs again so I won't.
.... all would fix a paddle or two and prevent a stoppage.
...and would in reality make negligible difference -- unless the government decided to remove (for example) £10M from the grant because CART were no longer appealing to millions of non-boaters, in which case removing them would have a huge negative effect on the canals... 😞
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:
And you need to rest up a bit before or after doing that manual guillotine gate!
99 turns, and it's not that light ...
I thought it was closer to 150, but then I wasn't the one winding, I was in the brewery buying beer... 😉
-
52 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
But when C&RT (at the highest level) denied twice that they had been issued with a previous version, and, not only was it proven that they had been, but when they still denied it, a copy was shown.
(C&RT has had a whistleblower for some years).
That is (at the very least) telling lies, and supressing the truth.
All documents have "previous versions" including drafts; most people would say that if they're not officially released that's all they are, preliminary unreleased versions. Lots of documents I do go through many versions before the final one, modifications are made, things are added or removed, corrections are made -- it's how these things work, no conspiracy theories are needed...
If there was an official "V1" and this was superseded by an official "V2" and then they denied that "V1" ever existed then that would be lying, but I haven't seen any evidence that this is what actually happened here -- have you?
If not, I suggest you get down off your CRT-bashing high horse... 😉
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:
Yes I read it - non-story the Daily Mail of the canal world.
I'm also fed up with the CRT baiters in this forum. We're soon going to have a fight for the survival of the canal system and all some people want to do is pick holes whilst the whole edifice (the canals,not those running them) collapses.
There you go, battle line drawn.
Especially the CRT baiters who are not actually on the canals any more, and seem to actually want to see them deteriorate and close -- maybe because they think it would prove they were right to leave and that their predictions of doom proved correct... 😞
-
9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:
Move forward a couple of months and the ban on wood burning stoves (in new builds) is announced in Scotland:
The Scottish National Party has been accused of launching an attack on rural Scotland following a ban on wood-burning stoves in new homes.
Housebuilders cannot install "polluting heating systems, which include log burners, following the introduction of new regulations to tackle climate change.
Alasdair MacMillan, who runs an Argyll-based architecture and planning company, described the changes as "seismic".
Meanwhile Douglas Lumsden, an energy spokesman for the Scottish Tories, said: "It is vital that Scotland achieves net zero and cut emissions - but banning heating systems that people rely on is not the right way to go about it.
"Many people living in rural, off-grid areas rely on wood-burning stoves to heat their houses, especially in emergencies. This ban would leave them without any way to heat their homes.
"Yet again, the SNP-Green Government are showing their contempt for rural Scotland, ploughing ahead with rash ideas without considering the significant impact on individuals and their lives."
The move, which came into force at the start of this month, has raised concerns among pensioners and remote Highland communities relying on off-grid forms of heating.
The rest of the article :
SNP quietly bans popular item in green crackdown with pensioners in firing line (msn.com)
My Son (up in the highlands) actually burns peat, it seems every crofter has a 'right' to dig and burn peat) no doubt this will be banned in any new builds.
This policy -- as introduced in Scotland, if the reports are correct -- is also idiotic... 😞
The problem with wood-burning stoves is not climate change (CO2 emissions) but PM2.5 particulate emissions in densely-populated urban areas, where they are estimated to be responsible for something like 6000 deaths per year -- hence the (justifiable) moves to ban them *in urban areas*, especially since the vast majority there are lifestyle accessories not essential heating.
(unfortunately this will also hit boaters who moor in towns and cities, they'll have to switch from wood to smokeless fuel).
The situation is very different in sparsely-populated rural areas, where the wood is likely to be locally grown (and replanted, so it's renewable) *and PM2.5 pollution is not a problem*. There is no good reason to ban woodburners in such areas, whether in houses or on boats.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, Halkyon said:
Unfortunately I am still 31 years from retirement and work full time remote from a laptop!
When you've got the boat you can get this sorted easily in a couple of days, see my post above.
-
1
-
-
-
8 minutes ago, PeterScott said:
On this day in 2001
Scout Tunnel HNC. and Lock12W
Copperkins was the first boat to journey from Stalybridge since the restoration and the closure for the Foot-and-Mouth outbreak. Fred Carter and A Hemingway, are in BW's then jolly-green-giant workgear (it was not a popular set of work clothing iirc)
Compare 26May1979 9Apr2001 14May2001 (#2) 14Oct2008 4Apr2010 10Jun2013
and earlier at Stalybridge Lock No 6W, above lock 7W, lock 9W
Nice new paving in Stalybridge, not covered with goose sh*t... 😉
-
4 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:
And as that looks like a Vetus stern tube setup that uses a single rubber Cutless bearing at the back of the shaft then the shaft does have a degree of compliance within that bearing, so the engine can wave about A LITTLE without wearing the front bearing (because it does not have one) or banging the shaft onto the tube.
I think Vetus say use one of those hard plastic "flexible" couplings, but as you have the thrust block and the motor bearings to hold everything in perfect alignment I am not sure what it gives you, unless it is being used as a fancy shear pin in case of the prop jambing.
Don't know if it's Vetus but it's the standard setup Finesse use, I think the various couplings are also to allow easy dismantling/replacement of parts if needed in future as well as extra noise isolation which Ricky is really hot on, there's also an acoustically-lined fibreglass cover over the whole motor frame assembly which wasn't fitted in that photo.
If the prop jams then the motor (running in constant torque mode) just stops dead with no damage -- the motor inertia is lower than the propeller so no need for a shear pin, unlike a diesel where the engine inertia is many times higher especially with a stepdown gearbox.
-
51 minutes ago, johnmck said:
Thank you for that. I just thought that whilst the roof was being stripped, it was a good time to upgrade. I have gone for the 4x4 antenna as a bit of future proofing, ready for a 5g router when required. I will have a play with the connections when it all goes back together and forget the splitter.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/404865017361?_ul=GB&var=0
NR5103E for £120.
Don't get the newer V2 version, this only has 2 external antenna sockets.
Use some short (right-angle) TS9-SMA adaptor cables to connect the antenna and tape these to the case of the router to keep strain off the (fragile) TS9 connectors. I used these (you'll need 2 pairs):
https://www.amazon.co.uk/BOOBRIE-Coaxial-Antenna-Adapter-Broadband/dp/B09MLLB1FP/
-
14 minutes ago, bizzard said:
The drive line with universal flex like Aquadrives are not even fitted to most very expensive premium build mainlt cruiser stern narrow boats, your new boat probablt hasn't. In the past I've had to renew many badly worn stern tube bearings and shafts because of engine misalighnment, sinking engine mounts and even when the engine have been in alignment.
If I'd had a diesel or series hybrid boat built, I'd have specified that it had an Aquadrive or similar.
Mine doesn't really need one since it's electric, but it still has flexible couplings between both motor and thrust bearing (in the flexibly-mounted motor drive cage) and between thrust bearing and stern tube -- with cutless bearing and greaseless stern gland, so a bit more misalignment tolerance (and less vibration into the hull) than a greased bronze sleeve bearing.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, bizzard said:
The modern way of mounting engine and transmission in most narrowboats is horrid. Shoved right up the back as far as possible to give as much cabin space as possible, with no room for decent proper marine flexible universally jointed drive with thrust bearing to allow the engine to move at will and not be restrained by Poxy centaflex units and the like that don't do much.
I suspect it's not just the space though, Aquadrives and similar (and their super-flexible feet...) cost a lot more than simple flexible couplings...
4 minutes ago, cheesegas said:Of course. I was just saying it's more common on newer boats than older boats. Still pretty uncommon compared to the 'standard' shear mountings and flexible Centaflex etc coupling though.
Surprisingly, the best setups I've seen were on old oil rig lifeboats; hefty thrust bearing bolted to an aluminum stringer glassed in securely, then a good 1-2' drive shaft with CV joints at either end. The Pythondrive setups prioritise distance from gland to engine and have a tiny 3-4" drive shaft.
Nothing wrong with that if properly designed (large shaft diameter is really only needed to prevent torsional whipping on long shafts), and it means they can be fitted in a lot more boats. Still too expensive for a lot of boaters though...
More C&RT Dishonesty?
in General Boating
Posted · Edited by IanD
It will discourage CMers by making their cheap rule-bending parasitic lifestyle more expensive, so either some will change lifestyle as a result (get a home mooring/leave the canals) or fewer new people will be encouraged to become CMers to get a cheap home on the water which moves barely or not at all -- result, fewer CMers bending the rules and clogging up the canal system, and more money for CART (because the numbers who leave will be smaller than the money raised by the surcharge or switchers to HM).
It won't discourage CMers (who pay the extra surcharge) from staying in the same spot, that's an enforcement problem which is quite separate from funding.
But it does get more money for CART to try and close the funding gap.
It solves the problem of "real CCers" who do a lot of miles paying more, so they're all in favour of it.
But this goes against one of CART's stated reasons for the CC surcharge which is that 20% of boaters (CCers) are responsible for 75% of boat movements, which adds to wear on the infrastructure.