magnetman

I think it is a diaphragm pump for fuel system priming. I would not want that close to where people are encouraged to put their feet. On the Beta marine unit I had a similar item was fitted above the fuel filter housing.

It is interesting to consider the impact of the Ward case in two different ways. Firstly there were people out having a Good Time on a day Boat which supposedly 'sunk' his wooden narrow. The basic fact is it was a sinker already and needed no help. So we get a situation where a belligerent not contributing is causing a negative outcome for a hire company. Exclusion not inclusion.. Additionally there was the insistence on exclusive use of canalside land. This is a significant negative working against inclusive use of the inland waterways. The aim must be inclusive not exclusive. People with an exclusive attitude need to do something else. Private benefit, which is a term used by @DandV above, is a very important point . Is it in any way appropriate for a public leisure resource such as an inland waterways network operated by a quasi-charity to provide a private benefit for individuals? If so why ?

Just make it so that any licence holder is obliged to untie and move every 48hrs. This is what needs to happen if the canals are to be a genuine inclusive leisure resource.

Yes but what is the sliver disc thing with pipes leading to it? I can see the tread plate is a step but if that is fuel system components they are at risk. Maybe they are not fuel lines. They look like fuel lines.

It is important not to consider individual circumstances. If a problem has been identified then a solution presumably needs to be found. It is unlikely to cater for individuals. Far more likely to be a blanket of some sort I think. To be blunt. Question: Is it part of the function of a navigation authority to allow people to have a 'normal life' ?

Damaged lift pump could cause this. A small crack in one of the pipes could open and close according to engine temperature and introduce air. Also what is this and did someone step on it? It looks a bit like a fuel system primer. Maybe something else. If it is fuel related its a dodgy design to put that tread plate there. The last thing you want is people putting their feet close to fuel system components.

That will be a dangerous game for the CRT to play because they will get even more belligerent behaviour around land use. I think they need to be a lot harder on it and cause more regular movement to be mandatory. If the law said unambiguously that you have to untie and move the Boat every 48 hours it would be a completely different story to 14 days. This would look after the genuine ccer deities while putting the CMers and pisstakers in a position where they are breaking the law. That will be a better deterrent than a financial penalty. If something becomes illegal the vast majority of people stop doing it.

I know it comes from the navigation authority. That should not happen. Services should be provided by private operators. Times have changed. The RSW services were first put in when more or less everyone was going out for a cruise, shitting in a bucket for a few days then going home. Need somewhere to empty the bucket. This is the past.

User pays is a fairly basic setup. If you want to keep your Boat in the marina all the time why pay for something you do not use? There would need to be a basic 'keep the water at the right level' licence fee but obvious to add extra charges according to how the Boat is actually used on the canal system itself.

i don't really understand why people think that access to services is what is being paid for. Surely the licence is allowing navigation upon the water. The logical thing to do would be to charge by the number of hours a vessel occupies a certain area. Moving or not moving. Tolls. Thats how canals were originally operated. Pay as you go. It makes a lot of sense as it allows regional price banding.

There does need to be clarification of the official banding of Boater type. From the bottom up. Worthless slubbderdegullions Unlincensed Pisstakers NBTA Dumpers CMers NABO CCers Genuine CCers RBOA Home moorers Shiny Boaters IWA Jesus I know which I am !

I don't see how making a mooring obligatory can work. Too many Boats . Tweaking of the way the licensing process works via legal changes seems to be the only way. it has already been established that this is not about charging more money so it seems reasonable to assume that any changes will home in on the rather wooly wording in 17(c)ii of the 1995 Act. That is what its all about. Byelaws can't sort it out and there will be a reason they are not used. What is needed is a fundamental change to statute. That way things change. Not for the better but it is in nobody's interest for statute to be vague.

I was going to use a stainless steel dog bowl and want to cut a hole in the bottom of it.

Causing Boats to be in a different location is quite an interesting tactic which is also authorised in law. If one could have monthly renewable licences it would speed things up. Customer follows the requirements the licence is renewed. Customer does not follow the requirements the licence is not renewed. 14 days to sort it out or Boat is removed to a different location. The theme of lifting and transporting S8 Boats is interesting but it also raises the costs and the conflict level significantly. As someone else pointed out above removal to an on-water location might be more effective and certainly cheaper. It is definitely what was intended when the S8 was originally drafted.

Lighter.

I am considering fitting a small sink in one of the launches. It will be a stainless steel bowl so I am wondering what is the best tool to cut the hole for the waste. One inch hole wanted. Holesaws seem to snatch a bit.

Years ago I went to the Sony warehouse near Staines on Thames as a friend was getting a warranty on a CD player. Outside there was a great big skip full of all kids of consumer electronics. All deliberately broken. I took a nice little compact walkman which had the cover torn off. Got home and made a card cover then put batteries in and a tape and it worked fine. However the fast forward was faulty. QC at work I think. They did not want someone selling the products on with faults. The skip was full of these things.

Monthly renewable licences would be an interesting strategy.

A Norman 20 is much too small to live on. Someone who only has this (and renting) as housing should be looked after the local authority or housing charities. Not the navigation authority. The CRT seriously need to lose this problem. Its expensive, will get worse and puts the future of the canals at risk. Its outrageous and ridiculous for money to be spent on individual inadequate housing problems when it should be spent on maintaining fragile and failing infrastructure.

There are lots of scammers around with these batteries. Reputable battery makers will have physical markings as well as stickers. If its just a sticker then its a generic product.

I think this one is serious but the wording did make me chuckle. Don't chuck dead bodies in there. Also this one is funny but again it may be an official notice.

I have Lithium Titanium Oxide (LTO) batteries. The type used in the Damen plug-in electric ship handling tugs. Good batteries.

Industry narrowboats on the Shroppie made at least one of them as a replica from plans. Lovely Boat. Some of the old ones were big dinghies fitted with cabins and one lunger Diesel engines.

I find it interesting to consider how the nan on the Clapham omnibus may view those who live for virtually nothing on public land. Will she like this or dislike it. That seems to be the question. Maybe she will view it as all rather spiffing and a jolly good show or she may take an alternative view. All intriguing.

Workmate benches are very adaptable. The clue is that the bit of ply they supply is not the only thing you can fix to the frame.