Pen n Ink

We don't have one yet, but we are definitely putting one into our new build. We live near them and have spent some time talking to their engineers; as a result they advised against the Uno unless you really only have room for it and not the Compact. The Compact is much more versatile and also much better value for money than the Uno. Good guys, who certainly know their stuff, and are interested enough to talk sensibly - for example we wanted to know whether you could have one Heritage range providing heat for radiators on two boats (butty) and they said - "yes - we actually have someone who has done that and we went right through and worked out the valves and pumps for him..."

The one we've booked hopefully does (Ruby Tuesday) - that's one of the main reasons for us booking with Claymoore for our experiment!

As far as I can see, nothing has been established at all to any greater degree of certainty than was expressed by the "gentlemen" in the video... And I'm afraid that TD saying that it is so doesn't completely convince me.

Just as a matter of interest since I can't see the answer on here anywhere... Just what paperwork DO CRT need to have with them when they remove a boat under S.8? One assumes they don't have to cart around a copy of every piece of correspondence in the case, but is there, in legal terms, any requirement for them to actually have ANY paperwork at the point of removal? I would venture to suggest, quite probably not.

Except that sadly it's only too believable in current society.

Sadly it's idiots like these that illustrate perfectly the problems faced by CRT when trying to manage the waterways for the rest of us. We may not always agree with the rules, but they're quite clear enough for the majority. Interesting that apparently we don't have to licence boats unless they're for commercial use though; perhaps these idiots have hit on something after all!

Thanks for the recommendations - we're torn between wanting a nice week to go boating and an 'orrible one so we have to hole up for a few days!

So - as a part of our research process we are taking a (deliberately chosen) potentially cold, wet and draughty week on a boat from Claymoore at Preston Brook at the end of March. The question is - bearing in mind that the idea is to learn about non-summer boating, and obviously depending on the actual weather, which way should we go to give us a choice of either cruising or mooring and battening down the hatches. Pubs essential!

Why can't we have a <groan> smiley?

Thanks everyone; and in particular it is interesting that jonesthenuke has a virtually identical setup to that which I was heading for. I think the general tone of the discussion has led me towards shaving just a couple of inches which will obviously help where it helps!

Yup! Which is why I asked the question!

I think we're getting a bit tangled up in a circle here. Just to clarify, the process has gone something like this. Boat is to be 57 ft narrowboat motor to be permanently paired with a 57ft butty. The engine needs to be suitable for this purpose in all inland waters, but will be used mainly on canals. Assuming a displacement of around 17 tons which has been arrived at by the builder as an average for his boats of this length, then the engine spec was derived. Having done this, Crowthers were consulted and in conjunction with the builder and the engine restorers a gearbox at 1.5:1 was specified. For the propeller they evaluated several options (including smaller diameter and 4 blade) and settled on 23x17 as the best alternative. Thus we had a theoretical boat with a theoretical engine, propeller and draft approximated for the propeller -ie sufficient for a 23" propeller. I am now looking at the more detailed design aspects, and hence the original question. Hopefully this explains where this has come from - and if you can see anything "odd" in that process then please explain to me what it is so that I can reconsider.

True - to some extent... The engine (3LW) is decided and Crowthers being the experts have specified the prop so that is our starting point.

So, as a general feeling then, if I changed the design draft to 28" rather than 30", and coupled this with a dropped skeg, thus allowing for a waterline depth of around 30" + skeg, then I should be able to go most places fairly easily?

Thank you. Perfect info! All other observations welcomed!

An interesting sideline discussion has arisen in our design. We are going to be using a 23" prop, and we are trying to work out the depth of hull from the counter to baseplate (which I in my naïve way am calling the draft). Talking to the builder, he has advised that this would require a minimum depth for this measurement of 26" thus giving a gap top and bottom of just 1 1/2". This seems a little tight to me, and with my amateur hat on I have come up with a draft of 30" instead. This has various benefits in the overall design by allowing a relative increase in gunnel height, but when allowing for the skeg (again, how deep?) this will make a boat which is relatively deep-drafted by modern standards. The question is, therefore, do people think that a draft of 2'6" (plus skeg) is going to cause significant problems over the waterways system as a whole given current dredging policies? Obviously I know that the older working boats have much more draft than this, but I also know that they spend half their lives struggling for water! As a secondary question, how far below the actual waterline do people tend to run the counter (given ideal ballasting!)?

Moorings is easy... Just not allowed the boat! Other facilities are a bit lacking as well. Nearest pump out is probably somewhere near Bath.

This has to be a record. 2 pages of discussion for a topic where the OP has been removed by the forum owner as spam!

Alan I freely admit that up to this point I haven't had any active involvement in this area; hence my original post that I don't normally put my head above the parapet in these discussions. Having been of the "holiday boater" sect for many years, I am now in the process of becoming something else; I am committing my family's entire future to the waterways, and as such I certainly wouldn't rule out active involvement in the future. Until such time as I have sufficient experience to be able to contribute usefully, I will therefore confine my activities. This wasn't my point in the original question though - I was seeking opinions from those who DO have sufficient experience to suggest alternatives to CRT management styles seeing as they are evidently so bad for the waterways. This lack of experience does not, however, preclude me from an ability to look at a situation as reported and form my own diagnosis. At the moment, that diagnosis is as stated above - It ain't completely broke so let's try to fix it. My current contribution is to abide by the rules which currently exist for good or ill.

So - what have I learned in the last 24 hours? 1. Apparently I simply Huff and Puff my own opinion by asking a question. Not quite sure what my opinion is since I haven't expressed one (other than that CRT have a thankless task), but clearly others know me better than I know myself. Hey Ho. 2. Anyone who has been involved with the waterways for a long time is entitled to Huff and Puff their opinion at will. Fair enough. As long as some of us are entitled to disagree. 3. The only "improvement" which anyone has been able to come up with and which has any element of costing attached to it is "Reduce the bosses salaries and bonuses, and reduce the number of managers". Please forgive me for saying this, but even if implemented that wouldn't actually take forward the cause of the waterways at all - certainly not without a number of other proposals to indicate how the system could be run in the absence of the managers. Don't get me wrong - I am no fan of heavy management structures or high salaries for desk-jockeys but history provides us with many examples of societies which have removed the heads (sometimes literally) of those in power only to later realise that the vacuum created tends to fill itself with even less suitable material. The current system, whereby there are a minority of people (some of whom have posted here) who are prepared to put themselves out and attempt constructive dialogue with CRT management in order to persuade them of a particular point of view, seems to be the best available. Vociferous squealing from others, without the concrete suggestions for change, is particularly counter-productive, and has resulted in CRT being more wary of open discussion than it might otherwise have been. Quelle Surprise! This having been said, there have been a number of suggestions put forward on here that could have the potential for development, however I'm not clear how that is likely to happen in the current hostile climate. Why does it have to be Us and Them? Please, for the sake of the future of our waterways can't we try to be constructive and work together rather than simply criticise?

Yes - I sympathise entirely - but how could this actually be done? I need to understand HOW you would achieve these things in practice. It seems obvious to me that the famous man on the ground knows his job and his patch better than the man behind the remote desk, but that doesn't explain HOW this could be remedied? It seems to me that even in this idyllic world, the lengthsman would still be responsible to someone who was paying his wages, and if there was a conflict over which task was a priority who wins? The lengthsman with his narrow focus on "his" patch couldn't be expected to have a national overview at heart when working. This is illustrating my point beautifully - we can all sit in armchairs coming up with ideas, but I've never yet seen anyone come up with a workable plan for implementation of any of them. Sadly, giving examples of where an idea has gone wrong doesn't actually help!

Thank you. This is exactly what I had in mind. So - to expand; for example your point 7. Who is being consulted? How is this being done? Who is the (independent) arbiter? How are the costs of both the consultation and the resulting legislation to be met? How are the interests of ALL users to be safeguarded in this process? I am certainly not against any of your proposals in principle, however it has always struck me that it is too easy to come up with pithy ideas which are then not followed through. If you can explain the above then I would be grateful.

In this context "our" means " all of us who currently use, or plan to use, the facilities which make up the UK Inland Waterways system" I include all from boaters to dog-walkers, and from live aboard boaters to visiting tourists. I do not include anyone who has never, will never, and has never shown any intention of having anything to do with the waterways at all. Very few I suspect. Bluster? It's a question. Hopefully it may engender some meaningful discussion. And just to clarify my position. I am not against any individual holding any opinion at all. What I am against is pointless circular schoolboy argument along the lines of " ...you're wrong because I said so."

Since, on another thread elsewhere, I have evidently completely misunderstood the fanatical dedication that Tony Dunkley, Alf Roberts and others of the "CRT are rubbish" school of thought have for the welfare of our waterways, I just wondered if they and their sympathisers could explain to me the answers to a simple question. If CRT management is such rubbish, and they don't have our interests at heart, could you please explain to me your manifesto for a better management so that I may consider it wisely. Naturally I wish to be able to understand any proposals in depth, including implications for all users of the waterways system and the associated costs and manpower requirements. Whilst I accept that there will always exist small narrow-focussed groups with a particular point to make, the management body of the waterways MUST consider the interests of ALL users and inevitably make hard decisions in areas of conflicting interests. If the proposals put forward are found to be sound then we should perhaps all consider lending our weight to a lobbying campaign for suitable change. If not, then we'd best stick with what we've got. This is a genuine question, since I am currently of the opinion that CRT have a thankless task which they generally perform to the best of their (constrained) abilities. I look forward to being proven wrong.

I very rarely get involved in these discussions since I believe that the vast majority of boaters have no problems in understanding what is meant by the rules and abiding by the spirit of them, but I have to say that Mr Dunkley's childish, petulant, repetitive, boring, pointless, blinkered, biased, naive, selfish, ill-informed, spiteful rantings have just got my goat. The waterways are there today as the result of the hard work and efforts of many thousands of unsung heroes over the years, from the navvies to the Rolts and beyond. Surely to goodness we, as the community (in the largest sense) who benefit from this work, should be supporting all efforts to keep the waterways open and available for use? Mr Dunkley's efforts to single-handedly prove that CRT have no authority to charge anyone anything would, if successful, only result in the bankruptcy of the system and the final closure of the canals. If that is your aim, then, Mr Dunkley, I applaud your efforts. If not then please grow up and belt up.