Tony Dunkley

This is not a problem, . . . . the 4 x smaller [8 mm banjos] connect the leak-off rail to the top of each of the 4 x injector cap-nuts, but the problem you have got is that the larger [brass] banjo on the end of the leak-off rail isn't commonned into the top of the filter head with the banjo on the end of the pipe that should return to the top of the tank, but which at present goes [incorrectly] back to a primary [sediment trap] filter.

That is a bleed screw/blanking plug shown in the photo, but the threads on it are too flat on the crests and look not to have been properly formed, . . . . which won't have done the thread in the filter head any good, and is probably why it now appears to be a bigger and finer. The brass banjo on the end of the leak-off rail goes onto that boss [with the now knackered thread] on top of the filter head, underneath [and hence commonned with] the banjo on the engine end of the tank return pipe. The ID of the banjos that connect the leak-off rail to the four x injector cap-nuts isn't relevant to any of this.

This particular tug would not interest the MCA, but solely because it's clearly no longer being operated as a commercial vessel, . . . . the 'size' of a tug, whatever you actually mean by that, is of no consequence at all. Commercial tugs are rated in terms of horsepower and bollard pull, not overall length or displacement.

There isn't a banjo bolt shown in that photo, . . . do you mean the bleed screw / blanking plug in the boss on the top of the filter head ? The filter head you've got is the standard, correct CAV type for that engine.

No, not since July 2013 when the traffic was ended with minimal notice after Lafarge, who operated the new Besthorpe Quarry, merged with Tarmac and the new management made the decision to supply the concrete plant at Whitwood [near Wakefield] by road from a Tarmac quarry at Nosterfield, a few miles North of Ripon.

Due to the scoring and damage that's been done to the propeller boss taper during the time the prop has been loose, you won't be able to do a decent and reliable job by messing about underwater through the weedhatch, and guessing at where to drill another hole through the nut. If you don't get both of the tapers cleaned up and mating snugly, and an accurately sized key along with a fully tightenable nut and pin made and fitted, there's a high probability that the prop will work loose again, and the time it will be most likely to fail and lose drive again will be just when you need full astern power in an emergency.

You can set off any at any time you wish for the journey back upriver from Torksey to Cromwell, but to get the most help possible from the tide it's best to set off 10 - 15 minutes before Flood at Torksey. That will get you as near to Cromwell as possible before the tide fizzles out and you start feeling the effect of the [downstream] river current slowing you down. You'll get most assistance and push for furthest upriver from the bigger [spring] tides with very little or no 'fresh' coming down, but if your journey back up to Cromwell coincides with small [Neap] tides and a good bit of 'fresh' as well, then you could find yourself under Ebb before you're even halfway there.

You wouldn't say that if you had ever been on the Ouse on a really big Spring tide, . . . . such as those that come at the times of the Spring and Autumn Equinox. The in-coming [Flood] tide can attain around 6 knots to above Selby, with an accompanying rise in river levels of as much as 15 feet, or more, in just about 3 hours at Barmby. There is no way that such an amount of river/run-off water could arrive in the Ouse around Barmby and Drax in the space of three hours, without most of North Yorkshire being under several feet of water already.

You could think about the fact that making sense out of using the terms left and right depends on specifying the direction you're travelling or looking in.

No, . . . the question you responded to was ~ " Where is the source of the incoming tidal stream at Barmby ? ". I'm not sure why you think the salinity levels in the Ouse at Barmby are at all relevant, but the direction and origin, or source, of the incoming Flood tide certainly is, . . . . . it's origins are in the North Sea, and it runs upriver as a tidal stream. For the avoidance of ambiguity or confusion in nominating the direction of the stream in a tidal river, it is preferable to use the terms 'upriver' for the Flood and 'downriver' for the Ebb, leaving the terms 'upstream' and 'downstream' confined to the non-tidal reaches.

I'm sorry to hear that Elvington lock has fallen back into disuse. Do you know what's happened, and why ?

If you don't want to 'play', then why the petulant and silly response ? Where is the source of the incoming tidal stream at Barmby ?

. . . . only on the Ebb.

There isn't really much that needs adding to what Alan and Nick have already said, except that for those unfamiliar with the river and who don't know just exactly where the deepest water is, there can be some potential benefit to leaving Cromwell about half an hour before HW at Hull if they're only going as far as Torksey. Leaving Cromwell at this sort of time will mean that it will be easier to judge where the deepest water is relative to either bank/shore due to the shallows drying and baring out, and it will see most boats meeting the Flood just short of Torksey, provided they haven't grounded at [Laneham] Maltkilns where there's a big shoal extending a long way across the river to where the deeper water would normally be expected, from a stream that runs in there. There are two distinct advantages to this, firstly with the river having already run down to about as low as it's going to get on that tide, some of the shoal will be starting to bare out and be visible extending out from the Western shore making it easier to avoid, and secondly if the boat is unlucky enough to ground here or anywhere else, then it won't have long to wait before the Flood floats it off. Leaving Cromwell at around local HW [ Hull HW plus approx. 5 hours] does take a few minutes off the journey time, and save a drop or two of fuel, but with a bit over 10 hours of Ebb and barely 2 hours of Flood this far up the river [Torksey], it does leave the possibility of grounding early on the Ebb with the resulting long wait for the next tide to get you going again.

By way of keeping everyone up to date re. the progress, or lack of it, of C&RT's latest pointless and idiotic attempt to have me abolished, here is the [my] Witness Statement, ordered to be filed prior to the Directions Hearing, which, according to what the Listings Office in Nottingham told me today, will probably be sometime in early September. ____________________________________ Witness Statement of Anthony K. Dunkley Para. 4, from Line 2 : The river bank to which 'Halcyon Daze' Index No.52721[ 'the boat' ] is moored is private property and is not under the management or control of Canal and River Trust [ C&RT ]. From line 6 : It is true that the boat is moored at the stated location without a C&RT boat Licence, but the river Trent at Barton-in-Fabis where the boat is moored is a River Navigation listed in Schedule 1 of the British Waterways Act 1971 [as amended - BW Act 1974] upon which there is a Common Law Public Right of Navigation and vessels thereon do not require a boat Licence issued by the Navigation Authority. Any vessel kept or used within the main navigable channel [MNC] of a Scheduled River Navigation is required under Section 5(1) of the 1971 BW Act to be registered by means of a Pleasure Boat Certificate [PBC] issued by the Navigation Authority. The penalty for keeping or using a vessel within the MNC without such a Certificate in force is prescribed in S.5(2) of the same Act. Extracts from the British Waterways Act 1971 are exhibited by the Claimant, but the page bearing the above mentioned Section 5 has been omitted entirely from the exhibit. The river Trent at Barton-in-Fabis is approximately 150 feet wide and the MNC [as defined in C&RT dredging and maintenance documentation] is less than 40 feet wide on this section of the river. My boat has been moored against the privately owned riverbank at this location since the last PBC expired on 31 August 2015 and is therefore well outside of the MNC. Whilst it remains so, it is exempted from the requirement for a PBC under Section 4(1) of the 1971 Act. Having now fully recovered from a lengthy and debilitating illness, I am presently undertaking repair and refitting work on my boat. On completion of this work it is, as C&RT have been made aware, my intention to apply for a new PBC prior to resuming use of the vessel on the river Trent and other adjoining waterways for which no boat Licence is required. From line 10 : C&RT is not entitled to remove my boat from 'the Property', or the waterway, under Section 8 of the 1983 British Waterways Act as is stated. The statutory powers under the 1983 Act entitle C&RT to remove vessels 'sunk, stranded or abandoned' in any waterway, or to remove any vessel left or moored without 'lawful authority', in a waterway owned or controlled by them. My boat is not 'sunk, stranded or abandoned', and the Common Law PRN applicable on the entire navigable length of the river Trent is the 'lawful authority' for my boat to be on the river Trent, with or without a current PBC. Para.5 : It is stated that my boat is moored on C&RT's 'Property'. This is untrue. The river bank to which the boat is moored is privately owned, and ownership extends to the centre of the river. Para.6 : In as far as this has any relevance to this Claim, this paragraph is a concoction of both distorted and misrepresented truths, half truths and untruths. In January 2014 C&RT informed me that they had 'revoked' my boat Licence. This action was solely in order to facilitate a Claim, identical to the present one, to remove my boat from their waters. At that time my boat, which was not Licensed, and did not need to be, but was registered by means of a current PBC, valid until 30 June 2014, was in constant, almost daily use, on the river Trent mainly between Barton-in Fabis and Holme Pierrepont, downriver from Nottingham, and was frequently and regularly moored overnight near to Holme Lock. The grounds for revoking what C&RT incorrectly referred to as a Licence were variously stated as contraventions of Licence Terms and Conditions by either ''mooring too frequently and for too long whilst cruising'' or "not cruising sufficiently whilst mooring away from the boat's 'home' mooring'', or ''not complying with the C&RT Cruising Guidelines for boats without a 'home' mooring'', none of which makes any kind of sense, or are lawful grounds under Section 17(4) of the 1995 BW Act to terminate either a boat Licence or a PBC. C&RT issued a Claim [No.A00NG769] in June 2014 for the removal of my boat from their waters, a Defence was filed, and I applied to renew my boat's PBC just prior to the normal annual renewal date on 1 July 2014, but C&RT refused the renewal of the PBC on the grounds that, despite having issued the two preceding annual PBC's on the basis of my having a 'home' mooring, a mooring where the boat could be lawfully kept when not in use, at Barton-in-Fabis, they now chose to believe that the mooring didn't really exist. Para.7 : After a further interval and confirmation from the landowner that my mooring really did exist C&RT issued, not a new Licence, but a new PBC for my boat, and Discontinued the Claim, whilst complaining that my use of the mooring that they had questioned the existence of, and my ongoing compliance with the statutory conditions for holding a PBC had rendered their Claim "worthless and academic". Para.9, from lines 2 to 25. C&RT's erroneous beliefs as to the extent of the main navigable channel [MNC] of a river navigation, and the unsupportable assertion that it extends over the full width of the river from bank to bank are shown to be incorrect in the wording of their own General Canal Byelaws. Byelaw 19(1) states :~ Navigation of Pleasure boats: 19. (1) A pleasure boat when meeting, overtaking or being overtaken by a power-driven vessel other than a pleasure boat shall as far as possible keep out of the main navigable channel. If, as C&RT claim, the MNC did extend for the full width of the navigation, then it would not be possible for any conventional vessel to comply with this Byelaw, and the only type of craft capable of compliance when confronted by either an oncoming or overtaking commercial vessel would be an amphibious vessel able to remove itself onto dry land under it's own power, or a canoe or similar craft which could be manhandled out of the water. As either type of craft is in a very small minority of the vessels that customarily use, or have used, C&RT's navigable waterways, it is not conceivable that this Byelaw was drafted with such vessels in mind. Para.19. In making this specious Claim, C&RT are well aware that in the event of my compliance, at any time prior to trial, with their unlawful demands that I obtain that which they misleadingly and wrongly describe as a 'Rivers only Licence' for my boat whilst it is confined to use on a Scheduled, PRN River Navigation, they would be obliged to Discontinue, as they were, in similar circumstances, in July 2014. I believe that, far from being necessary to (quote) - "enable C&RT to comply with it's statutory duty to ensure that the inland waterways controlled by C&RT are safe, well managed and properly conserved", this Claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief is both contemptuous of Statute, in that it disregards the distinction made between a boat Licence and a Pleasure Boat Certificate made in Section 5(1) of the 1971 BW Act and Section 17(1) of the 1995 BW Act, and amounts to an attempt to prevent an individual from exercising a Common Law Public Right, and that as such it is asking the Court to act beyond it's powers and jurisdiction. I respectfully ask that the Claim be struck out. Statement of Truth. I believe that the facts stated in this Statement are true. Dated day of 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anthony Kenneth Dunkley Defendant

No, . . . there MUST be a tank return/bleed-off connection from the top of the filter head in order to ensure that the system is being constantly purged of any air that may have got in, before it reaches the injector pump. As long as there is a route for a fuel/air return from the top of the filter to the top of the fuel tank, it matters not whether it goes there direct or joins up, at some point, or any point, with the injector leak-off.

That's one way of doing it, and is in fact, how some 1.8's and, as far as I know, all, or most, 1.5's were piped up from the factory. There is, however, the alternative of running the return pipe across the front of the engine, and back to the tank in tandem with the lift pump feed pipe, from either a double or a two way banjo on the leak-off connection of No.1 injector. Your engine may be piped up like this already, but without a photo showing No.1 injector [timing case end], we can only guess. The flexible pipe connections in the photo's are distinctly 'iffy' and need improving. It looks as though the flexible is just pushed over a plain pipe stub, . . . they need changing to a nozzle fitting plus clip. * The term 'spill rail' is now frequently, and wrongly, used when referring to injector leak-off piping or rails. In the context of diesel Fuel Injection, 'spill' is something entirely different, and 'spill cut-off ' is a method for setting injection timing on engines equipped with single or multi-element jerk pumps instead of the DPA type of injector pump, such as fitted to your engine.