Tony1

To be fair, the breakfast food in Tattenhall marina cafe was really nice as well (and the staff were lovely). I popped in there a few times while moored next to the place last year. But the season of mud is approaching, and I suspect pretty much any excursion from the boat involving more than 100 yards of that towpath will require wellies. But he may be able to moor very close to the bridge, so you never know. If its after 31 Oct, the 2 day moorings there become 2 weeks, so that could be helpful. It sounds as if the OP has business in Chester, and if he is looking for ways to remain within reach of the town for a bit longer, Tattenhall is a very good option- it just means a 35 minute bus ride to get there. In extremis, for more time in the area he could go further north from Chester and stay at Stoak for a bit (close to Cheshire Oaks), or even Ellesmere Port, which is a bit drab (sorry Mr Biscuits!) but has half decent bus services to Chester. The best spot is the Boat Museum Basin moorings but they were charging £70 per week last time I was there.

Winter is coming, as so many people are fond of saying with a Winterfell accent (which it turns out is identical to the modern Sheffield accent). Anyhoo, bags of coal will soon start appearing on the roofs of boats all over the place, and so the question has arisen (in my mind anyway) of how many bags it is safe to store up there. In a heated debate with another boater, I decided to plump for 10 x 25kg bags as my own estimated safe-ish limit, but this reckless fool was insistent that he would be fine with 25 bags on his roof, adding that he will not be cruising through any locks or busy locations this winter. The discussion was tragically cut short by a lack of beer, but I feel it may be taken up again before too long. But before I can tell him he is a blithering idiot (as he richly deserves) I need some scientific data from the experts here, ideally with clever sounding phrases like 'righting moment'- that sort of thing. A few horror stories of boats capsizing because of weight on the roof would be the icing on the cake. So over to our experts- how much coal is too much?

If I needed to be in the Chester area for about 4-6 weeks, my plan would be to stop at Christleton for 2 weeks (park and ride is not too far), then move to somewhere above the staircase locks for a week (although it can get a bit lively at times if close to a pub), and then I would aim for a week or so in the basin, next to the student apartments. If those are full (and they often are), you've got the option to moor on the towpath a few hundred yards north, or maybe cruise on a couple of miles and moor where the A41 crosses the canal. If you really needed to, you could maybe get another two weeks by moving to Chester Zoo, but I suspect by then CRT might have their eye on you, and your next move would have to be back to Christleton and onward. There is a bus stop near Tattenhall but the ride into Chester is a good half hour if I remember correctly, and there's not much else near Tattenhall except a very muddy towpath.

I meant to get something like this when the original poster showed it ages ago, but as usual I forgot within five minutes. I imagine that a slightly more hooked end would be better for catching hold of the ring on the mooring chain, but that fix would be doable.

The witch has confessed

Using goat chains was the main reason I started wearing builder's trousers whenever I cruise. When I started life as a canal sailor, I used to dress in the finest beige chinos. But if it got even slightly muddy, the knees of my best britches would be smeared with damp earth (or just mud), as soon as I kneeled to get the goat chain under and around the piling/armco. I'm sure I remember that one of the members here manufactured a cunning hook-like device that allows a goat chain to be passed under the piling whilst the operator remained in a standing position. He hasn't yet been burned as a witch, but I believe the Inquisition are looking at the matter very strongly.

Tbh I last updated my DVLA address to my parents house three years ago, so I can't remember what they ask about addresses. But whatever the wording of the question, they will be referring to the address that is shown on your license- i.e. the address that Expost/Boatmail would supply you..

On a sort of related note, I read a very recent comment (elsewhere) that DVLA had refused to accept an address that was given to them by a boater, because the address was derived from a mail handling company (boatmail, expost etc). Does anyone else have any recent info on whether DVLA have changed stance on this? I have read a comment here a few months back that DVLA queried a mail handling address, but eventually accepted it. My long term plan is to use Expost, so its going to be a blow if the DVLA won't accept their addresses.

Aah, the perennial "too fast" debate... I still can't make up my mind on this one. For boaters who cruise between say May and Oct, or who have just a couple of weeks at a time on their boats- or indeed hire boaters with a lot of miles to cover- I can see how those folks would get frustrated by being expected to slow down when passing a line of boats that is half a mile, or a mile long, like the golden mile near Tattenhall. Or when you get moored boats spaced several hundred yards apart- and that can go on for a mile or more in some places. I do wonder if it's time to reassess the expectation that boats should slow down to say 2mph when passing, because the truth is there are so many moored boats in the warmer months that it would really slow down the moving boats. Personally, I think I will always slow to 2mph when possible, it just seems the polite and considerate thing to do, and I prioritise politeness highly. But then I have the whole year to cruise around, so I seldom feel in a rush to get anywhere, and maybe politeness is a luxury you can't afford when you have to get a hire boat back to base by the next morning? What does still irritate me (a bit) is those who cruise at say 4 or 5mph, and don't even slow down by a fraction, even though mine is the only boat for half a mile in either direction. But maybe I'm being unfair in my expectations? The dayboat out of Whitchurch used to frequently race past moored boats at what must have been 6 mph, if not more, and that certainly got the moored boats bouncing around. I passed one woman on the Llan whose mooring chain had just been snapped because of a passing boat, and that can't be excused.

This is a very broad impression, but I got a feeling there were more younger folks on boats in the southern half of the country. From what I've seen so far, I'd guess its more like 75% of boaters that are aged over 55 in the northwest. The rivers seem to attract more of those magnificent men in their GRP machines, and there seem to be more younger folks in those things. The Bridgewater also attracts a fair few GRPers, some of whom get their craft up to a giddy 7 or 8mph at times. In fact, one pair of rogue youngsters passed me doing at least 15-20mph near Altrincham, and the mooring pins needed regular checking. Exciting times.

Well I must admit life was definitely more straightforward with just two of us, and I knew it would be a huge risk introducing others. But after the initial rush of energy things did become more stable. But I can't be the only one to confess. I'm sure most people who got lithium batteries will have gone through similar feelings.

That is an interesting point to consider, and I agree that labels for people can give rise to discrimination. But the fact that the LGBTQQIAAP list (acronym?) even exists does seem to indicate that there is a need, occasionally, to describe someone's gender identity/sexuality. I've seen it used on forms, and/or in official contexts, and sometimes in conversation. So my impression is that there does seem to be a need (at least right now) for it to be recognised that a given person is not a 'standard' heterosexual. Maybe in future it wont be needed, or given great importance- but at the moment there does seem to be that need for some sort of descriptive label- and I just feel that as long as we need a label, it could do with being a bit snappier

Yes, that was my thinking when I suggested something like 'alternative sexuality' as a collective label. Maybe 'alternative gender' would be better, and that doesnt use the word "non-". And AG is pretty snappy. But either way, it's entirely up to LGBTQQIAAP people what acronym they wish to be recognised by. I'm sort of of adopting the role of gay PR advisor, which is rather cheeky of me.

Come on Tony, you're a reasonable man. Surely you must know that there would be no confusion at all in that regard. When we speak about a person's gender identity, the context of the conversation tells us that we are not referring to their forename, or surname, or any contracted versions of their name. That said, I do think you have a valid point in a broader sense- any collective label for LGBTQQIAAP people would have to be carefully chosen to avoid confusion.

Thanks again, and I promise I'm not being picky about this, but: I agree that the use of numerous different acronyms as you say is commendable in that it demonstrates a respect for the groups involved, and it doesn't matter whether the latest version of the acronym is used. The downside I can see of people using lots of different versions of the full acronym that it might perpetuate the idea that these groups are unable to find a collective label they can agree on for more than a few months. That's why I personally think that a much shorter and snappier (and permanent) label would be really helpful when identifying LGBTQQIAAP people. It might gradually find its way into the public consciousness and become the new and permanent word to replace LGBTQQIAAP, and it would have the effect of defusing the jokes and criticisms one hears about this ever-changing long string of letters. Maybe part of the LGBTQQIAAP folks efforts in gaining full acceptance should be to promote the use of a more convenient, snappier and permanent name?

Thanks, its good to know the full list, for future reference etc. But of course, a reference list is one thing- is there a shorter, snappier overarching acronym that one can use for convenience (in conversation, for example), that is based on the assumption that all of those groups are included? For example, something like NH, i.e. 'non-heterosexual', or AS for 'alternative sexuality'? Or were you saying that 'Ally' is already established as a shorthand for a person who is LGBTQQIAAP?

I made a very lame joke a page or two earlier about the letters having started with 'LBB' (lithium battery bores), and I do wonder if that came across in a derisory way. By way of explanation, I just wanted to add that I was taking the mick more out of the people who complain about the list of letters frequently changing. But I do have a more serious thought about it: Let's be clear to start with that the various communities and groups are free to use however many letters they want- and to change them when they want. But with that said, I do wonder if making frequent changes to the list of letters is somewhat playing into the hands of the detractors, who are inclined to sentiments such as: "They can't even make up their minds who they are, or what they are called, or who is included in the list"- that sort of thing. I totally understand that society's attitudes are evolving all the time on these issues, and it seems that trans people have more recently been going through some of the struggles for acceptance that gay folks did 30 years ago. It is a very moveable feast, and perhaps that is reflected in the changing list of letters. But has it now settled permanently on LGBTQ+, or is it LGBT+? Will any further inclusions be assumed to be described by the '+'? I feel that the message will be stronger if the descriptive words and acronyms are more consistent. I consider myself to be pretty progressive, but part of my job was adapting software to include this list of letters, and even I fell into the trap (about a decade ago) of complaining that the list of letters never seemed to stay still for more than a year.

I know more than most that its not always easy to do, but I hope people can keep their tempers in check on this thread. So far it has been conducted, at least mostly, in a roughly civilised way. There have been disagreements, but people have at least been able to express their differing views in a relatively calm atmosphere. I am able to read the viewpoint of people like Tony B, and although I disagree, I know he's a decent guy, and I can begin to see that the views I disagree upon do not come from a bad place, but are maybe more of a generational thing? But either way, we can engage in a positive dialogue, and who knows, maybe some minds can be changed? If it all gets too nasty it may get closed, and I think that would be a shame.

To be honest I think the whole LGB thing has gotten out of hand, there are far too many letters these days. It started out as just LBB (Lithium Battery Bores). But they've been letting in lots of those chaps with frilly shirts and leather trousers. I don't think most of the new crowd are even interested in lithiums. Shocking state of affairs. Iain, please, we'll have none of that sort of licentious talk. Dammit man, this is a decent forum. Why I very nearly spilled my whisky reading that salacious filth. Nurse will have to give me an extra bromide tablet this evening. No good can come of it sir.

I'm not sure I understand your question, tbh. Are you asking whether it is ok for a person to dress in such a way that their likely sexuality is discernible from their clothing and appearance? But whatever that question is asking, I think my feeling on it would be: why does it matter how someone wishes to present themselves in public? Surely it is their business, and no-one else's? It may be that for some folks, they express their sexuality partly through their appearance- it is important them personally. That said, I imagine there should be some common sense limits- for both heterosexual and gay folks. E.g. maybe its not ok to walk down the high street naked, or clad in a way that is likely to cause a breach of peace- that kind of thing. But within some very broad limits, I don't know why any of us would be too concerned about whether a passing man is gay or not, or how he/she is dressed, or whether their appearance indicates their likely sexuality.

I think its easy for us heterosexual folks to be blase about gay rights, as we are not the ones in the firing line. Remember that gay marriage was only fully legalised a decade ago- so this is not some kind of historical issue. Throughout the decades it has been all too easy for heterosexual citizens to think: "Oh well, at least we don't just kill them any more, right? They should be grateful." Then it was: "Well at least we don't jail them any more, right? What are they moaning about?" Then: "Well they can legally marry now, right? What more do they want?" But our society is still one where an overtly gay man is at risk of verbal abuse (if not assault) whilst walking the streets. Anti-gay feeling and abuse is not an issue that can now be set aside, or considered to be 'finished'. If we want to be a truly fair and equal society, we have to accept that there is more work to do. I understand that it can feel to older folks as if gay rights and trans rights are being force fed to society, but I don't think older people are the target audience anyway. I suspect there are many older folks who feel that dear old Blighty reached its cultural peak some time in 1953, and that almost every change since has been for the worse. But on the plus side, the younger generation- who (generally speaking) seem to be much wiser and more tolerant than many of their parents, and especially their grandparents- do seem to be evolving in a positive direction.

In the 80s I was a keen cyclist and used a racing bike frame made from Reynolds 531 tubing, which was highly regarded at the time, and highly prized by bike thieves. Once or twice a week I left the bike chained outside a city centre pub for a few hours (whilst I attended Bible studies nearby)- and to reduce the ridiculously high risk of theft or vandalism, I did a crappy black spray paint job on the frame, and I painted over some of the names on the components (Shimano Deore XT etc). The bike looked like a cheap crappy runabout that was not worth nicking, but it was actually a super light and very nippy machine- and there was not a single theft attempt in 5 years of parking it in the city centre at all hours of the night (sometimes the Bible studies ran late). With that in mind, I'm thinking f I ever do buy a genny, I'll make its casing look 10 years old (and knackered) as soon as I get it. There are some possessions that are better off looking like s**t.

People rate the Honda Eu20i very very highly, in all aspects- fuel consumption, noise, lifespan, and resale value. But at £1300 ish, I don't know if I could splash that sort of cash when there's a £500 genny on offer, that will do the same job. Being realistic, the Atom will use more fuel than the Honda, and it will be louder, and it will not last for half as long as the Honda. But who cares, as long as it does the job you need for a price you are ok with paying? Also, bear in mind there are some places (e.g. London) where having a Honda running next to the boat is almost a guarantee of an attempted burglary soon afterwards- if you believe all the accounts. So an affordable, anonymous genny might be just the thing to go for.

That Mighty Atom looks pretty good, but I cant find the figure for its fuel consumption? Also, don't trust the claimed 58db noise level- that sounds quieter than a Honda, and it cant be that quiet for £500. At 18kgs it will be feasible to lift it onto the bank in lots of places you moor, so that's ok. Certainly I can nearly always get my 23kg ebike onto the bank with a hand free to steady myself- although sometimes it doesn't feel like the safest thing ever. On a river or somewhere without a neatly defined bank it might get a bit sketchy getting it ashore along a plank, but on those occasions there is the option of using the engine to charge. The 1000 watt Kipor will be much easier to get on and off the bank, but it will probably only charge the batteries about half as fast as the Atom, so it might be running for 2 to 3 hours each day in winter.

On a related note, is there a lithium community in the North west? I find people are judging me every time I rattle on for four hours about lithium batteries, and I think it would be great to find a group of people who are ok with talking in public about lithiums. Its nothing sexual, of course. Well not for the others.