magnetman
-
Posts
25,196 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
40
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by magnetman
-
-
It's odd they chose to use images of the Thames. I suppose it's just library pictures of water and Boats.
Newbridge
Lechlade
-
1 hour ago, IanD said:
All of those sound like a better solution than just reinstating what was there before in a place where a severe breach has occurred -- or building an aqueduct... 🙂
You will of course have noticed that my suggestion of building an aqueduct resulted in a discussion from knowledgeable people about what is likely to be done.
-
15 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:
I was thinking about that, did they leave all the boats on the bottom for weeks, or put in a dam and refloat them.
I think it 2 only one small springer actually close to the hole. This was lifted later by a rigid Hiab truck once the canal bed had been made into a road.
-
It's interesting calling it impermeable.
If it's flexible someone might stick a boathook through it.
It's an interesting area because of the lift bridge. Lots of coming and going plus I'm sure the occasional use of a pole.
I suppose if it's thick enough it's not realistically going to get a hole in it.
Also a lot of prop wash from vessels starting and stopping.
-
One thing I wondered about was the potential for putting an aqueduct instead of our as well as an embankment.
One imagines that back in the day it would have been cheaper (man power) to build an embankment and culverts but maybe the cost position has now changed.
Just for the part where the culverts are. Facilitate the passage of water beneath.
I suppose a canal over a culvert sort of is an aqueduct but not in the normal sense.
It would be good to get some suggestions about how this will end up being completed.
The CRT talk about impermeable linings. Is that basically concrete?
On 22/12/2025 at 13:09, Francis Herne said:The culvert is intact at the downstream end at least. Flowing strongly for obvious reasons. My video.
The breach is about 100 yards north of Whitchurch lift bridge.
Water has escaped to the uphill, offside side.
There's one of those water-filled bag dams in the bridge narrows which seems to have almost completely sealed it. The channel is dry to the top of Grindley Brook staircase and now back at a reasonable level on the Whitchurch arm and above.
-
1
-
-
It's a good photo..
-
1
-
-
That is an impressive number of children if they all live in the Boats.
-
Not had a squirrel but did have problems with other fires.
So when I got a welder to help me make the current fire I opted to have the flue dropped in to a rear outlet. All stainless. It means the 70mm dia flue can just be lifted out. At the top end it is spaced to the 4 inch collar with an aluminium "washer" and a silicone cooking pot mat as an external seal. Been fine for 3 years.
It's nice to be able to take the flue outside and clean it out now and then.
Elbow is 76mm 316 mandrel bend tig welded to the stove body.
But generally off course fires installed in Boats were originally designed to go in buildings so they are universally made to have fixed heavy flue systems.
We also made the top plate so that the front part of it lifts off which gives direct access to the baffle plate and allows loading vertically with 4"X4" standard pieces of timber like fence post sections.
That's as well as the front porthole loading door.
-
Also interesting what fish they are burning.
Some smell worse than others.
For example Excel (which I avoid like the plague and clichés) is awful. Significant amount of pet coke (oil based) so it stinks like someone burning sanitary products. Unless my previous neighbour actually was burning sanitary products...
It is possible that if they changed to a different coal or as Blackrose suggested it's coming from someone else the smell would be more noticeable.
-
I think it likely they mean CO.
It seems to be part of the BS scheme these days so likely to be found in most Boats.
-
15 hours ago, IanD said:
Which is better -- 92% of the money donated (3% commission, 5% fraud) getting to the cause very quickly, or 70% getting there much more slowly? Bearing in mind that platforms like GFM are *much* better at pulling in money quickly when something like this happens, and probably pull in more.
It's two completely different models of how to get people to donate money to what they consider worthy causes, and TBH it starts to look like the GFM model is more efficient and effective then the traditional one... 😉
I am not wishing to continue the argument and this genuinely will be my last comment on GFM but I have realised why we could never agree. You have put it down in writing.
You think fraud is acceptable if the outcome is better efficiency.
I think fraud is not acceptable under any circumstances.
That's it. Very basic difference.
Back to the Boats !!
-
1
-
-
Interesting that the CO alarm is not going off.
I think as suggested by @Rob-M there is a fair chance it is coming in through a mushroom vent or even through an open window hopper.
That would explain the occasional nature of the problem and the lack of an alarm state.
It's worth having a CO alarm with the digital readout as it will show up a reading without the alarm going off so you can discover if a flue is gradually blocking up without needing to wait until it gets to a danger threshold which would trigger the alarm.
-
That range is nice 😍
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:
Can't you just go into the virtual pub and start a gofundme thread out of the way
I was the one who made attempts to get this all back on track by raising the subject of the repair at Middlewich but it wandered off again.
Maybe if more people were to add to the content it would work better.
Navigating non verbal communication is like walking through a minefield.
Also there is a software story. I use other forums and facebook where the facility exists to wipe every single comment and the profile from the site. Something I do regularly. Because there is too much 'stream of consciousness' rubbish.
Sadly this IPS software does not have the facility so all the junk stays there.
-
1 hour ago, David Mack said:
And use shorter bolts so they dont stick out so much. Or use socket head grub screws for a much neater finish.
Yes.
Using horizontal bolts like that is a bit of a bodge way to do it. Bit of a risk of it rotating unless there is a corresponding hole or a flat on he rudder stock. Maybe there is but they might just be bearing against the side. If they were and the parts are forcibly separated it might be a bit awkward when reassembling to get the correct tightness.
I guess it's just corrosion but that area there looks a bit suspicious. Almost as if someone has done something to try to stop it tending to rotate. It looks a bit like two drilled holes.
-
6 minutes ago, IanD said:
If someone says "I've always wanted the holiday of a lifetime doing a round-the-world trip in 80 days like Phineas Fogg, please fund me via GFM" and people are silly enough to donate, there's nothing stopping them, it's their money.
Are you in all seriousness suggesting that
"I want a holiday - give me money"
Is the same as
"These people have lost their homes, their clothes and their belongings - give them money"
That is an entirely ridiculous comparison. One of those is available mid giggle the other is really seriously bad shit if true. But it isn't true.
I do appreciate you correcting me about the regulator earlier by the way and hopefully at some stage this can go back to the actual topic.
I just think it's too dodgy but never mind such is life these things will always happen in murky legal areas.
I really will make an effort now to never mention it again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Got it.
- Voluntary Adherence: GoFundMe voluntarily registers with the Fundraising Regulator and commits to following the Code of Fundraising Practice, including specific guidance for online platforms.
So they are not regulated but pretend to be following the Code.
My misunderstanding and thank you for clarifying this.
-
1
-
1
-
There may well be people, some of whom are experiencing bad times themselves, who genuinely think that if you take the water out of a canal the Boats are damaged beyond repair by definition. Obviously to anyone who knows about it that is clearly nonsense but why should the lay person be expected to understand that when a steel narrowboat goes onto the canal bed nothing happens to it other than possible rudder damage and some internal breakages? There is no reason for them to know that.
I think part of this was the timing. Just before Christmas.
It's basically just poorly handled but under the regulator's Code that is not in fact an excuse. It doesn't matter what someone thought in the heat of the moment. The regulator is very concerned about the potential for trust erosion as this is viewed as a societal harm.
It's not about looking for a scapegoat or demonising anyone. A topic as serious as this goes way above and beyond any personal aspects because it is potentially harmful. This is precisely why the Code has been updated. The regulator do know what they are doing.
.
This is dangerous.
It's actually a serious responsibility taking charitable money from people. It's not a game.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, matty40s said:
The other way to do this without lifting tiller out of cup is to measure the distance between top of tiller and bottom of counter ...
Top of the rudder blade.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, tcp13 said:
This is starting to sound like it's not a DIY job! Many thanks for the ideas - I'll keep trying at it.
Yes, the photo is of my boat. The "something like this" is a link to the nylon bush part I think I need.
That's a very kind offer, Alec!! I'm at Barton Maria currently. If that's feasible, send me a direct message here (I'm not allowed to initiate since I'm too new on the forum) and I'll give you my mobile number to coordinate?
I think it's 5:posts so you can just add two or three more short ones and that should open the message option.
When you said the bolts were difficult presumably they came out without breaking off.
18 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:Well, "I'm picturing something like this" seems rather less than definitive, as Brian suggest with his question, so I thought it best to post a warning that a puller MIGHT not be usable.
That was about the bearing.
-
1 minute ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:
Well there’s only one boat that is sellable. The one with the least damage.😂
I know of a GFM which raised money for someone with a Boat which sunk. I also know from speaking with someone else who knows the person (not socially but on the River) that there is a little bit of an undertow of the question of whether the beneficiary 'deserved it'.
From a logical point of view it makes no difference and is technically irrelevant but some people will still think this and in a relatively enclosed community bordered by a strip of water and a hedge row this could be a slightly awkward situation.
You can't change, and do not necessarily know, what other people are thinking.
https://www.fundraisingregulator.org.uk/code
November 1st 2025
-
It's almost like using someone else's misfortune as part of a game show.
-
15 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:
There was a comment by one of the drone Vloggers that the boats will be famous on the canals from now on.
I think more so by the general public than boaters. A bit like the Vloggers who sold “the most famous boat on the canals” bothered.Yes. I recall a reference to a comment by of the beneficiaries suggesting they were going to be selling the Boat. I imagine this was read by others as a reaction to a traumatic event but it might not be...
It might be because he figured out how this could go.
It's a bit of a naughty situation in some ways. If someone tried to raise money for me out of sympathy for a terrible event I would be very tempted to get it taken down as soon as possible. It's not worth the potential agro later.
Anyway we are supposed to be talking about the Boats and the canal not psychology.
15 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:There was a comment by one of the drone Vloggers that the boats will be famous on the canals from now on.
I think more so by the general public than boaters. A bit like the Vloggers who sold “the most famous boat on the canals” bothered.There goes the nice quiet life on a Boat.
It is all very well that people are kind and make donations but if in the process you sell your privacy is that really a wise thing to be doing? The exchange here is interesting because it is not just an anonymous good will donation to a cause. There is an element of entertainment which is a little bit disturbing.
-
17 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:
.
Will the owners be prepared to do so?
The involuntary celebrity conundrum. Hmmm.
I wouldn't.
My Boat is private. Very few others are permitted to see inside it.
The interest is understandable but it is a private space.
-
1
-
Major breach at Whitchurch on Llangollen
in General Boating
Posted
I wondered if that was as high up. Can't remember for sure as it was 1999: and 2000 when I was up there for the winter. Not been since then.
I think it was a contour not an embankment.
Not sure if Ms Sharman used the words 'impermeable membrane' or 'impermeable layer'.
From a non civil engineering background I would think this will be the 30ft Larssen piles with concrete caps because of the height but I don't know what they do about the actual channel.
Maybe if the piles are long enough the channel shape is not as important.
It's definitely not going to be an earth bank with 8ft Mickey mouse piling hammered in on top 😁
Maybe it's just the same as the Middlewich repair.