Tony Dunkley

The important words are "look at what preceded it" (on Post 682) . . . ie. other Posts . . . they're what you need to look at, and understand first.

It doesn't matter if it rides up when dropping in a lock . . . what does matter is not to have those bloody stupid chains holding it down, because if they're fairly strong, as they usually are, if the fender get caught in the gate the the boat gets hung up.

Had a look at that . . . but that way of starting with one or two turns on first was only used if you were making off the hitch with strain on the rope after first having to check it while running out under strain, instead of just putting the rope onto a bollard as when tying up.

Clove hitches are very quick to make, but they can start slipping undone under strain or jamming up too tight to get off again without cutting the rope depending on the direction the rope leads away from whatever it's round and the position of the "crossover" in the hitch relative to the standing part. By far the worst feature of the hitch if used to secure a mooring line, particularly when its temporary when working a lock, is that it can't be easily or quickly taken off while under strain. The best type of hitch the one that's used by professional boatmen on every different type of vessel I've ever seen, from narrowboats to ships. I don't think it's got a name, but I'll have a go at describing how to make it. Hold the rope in both hands and drop the first turn onto the bollard as if you're going to make a clove hitch, reverse the direction of the rope tail round the bollard and the standing part and take it round the bollard in the opposite direction back to the standing part. With the hand not holding the rope tail, pull a bight under the standing part and drop it over the bollard, this makes a second reversal of direction round the standing part and leaves the rope tail passing under the standing part to your other hand. Now make a third reversal of direction with the tail and then put on a final one (or two with light rope) turn round the bollard. That hitch will take anything up to the breaking strain of the rope without slipping, will never tighten up on itself and jam, and can be taken off when under even maximum strain. PS. In referring to a "bowline" here ,I know that you mean a headrope and not the bowline that's used to put an eye on the end of a rope, but it reminded me that Trent boatmen used to refer to an eye made that way as a Goole splice.

Maybe it's because you haven't been moving enough, remember that boats are now required by C&RT to be genuinely 'cruising' when not on their home mooring, and you've been hanging around all week like a bad smell, including yesterday just because it was windy. . . or was it just you being windy? If you don't believe what I've just said about C&RT, here's an e-mail from Parry : -- Dear Tony, Jackie Lewis is the Canal & River Trust’s General Counsel, the senior legal advisor to the Trust. You have misunderstood the position that Jackie has set out. She has explained previously to NABO (and others) that whilst there is no statutory requirement under section 17(3)© of the British Waterways Act 1995 for boats with a home mooring to “bona fide navigate”, there is, nevertheless, a requirement that boats with a home mooring comply with the Trust’s licence terms and conditions and cruise whilst away from their home mooring, mooring on the waterway in any one place only for short periods whilst cruising. I hope this clarifies our position. Regards Richard Which of the two have you done the most of this week, cruising or mooring?

You have completely misunderstood the Post quoted. You need to go back, look at what preceded it, and then read it all more carefully.

No I haven't and it doesn't interest me in this context either, because it would be C&RT's problem, not mine or any boat owner's.

Yes, just so, either boat is free to pivot about the point where the ropes cross but the butty can't yaw out of line significantly. Same method was used towing empty dumb barges. Cross straps/ropes can only be used for empty/light boats of course. The steering reversal effect was something I learned of quite by chance, but out of necessity, some years ago, after the tug I was working, on a Contractors job moving plant and screening/washing equipment on a pontoon, broke down leaving a lot of expensive hired in stuff, and the men, standing around with nothing to do until the part to repair the tug arrived. Apart from the tug, the only other vessel on site was a small transom sterned motorboat used for ferrying the workforce about. I first tried pushing the pontoon with it, but seeing where you were going was the real problem, the pontoon being about 40 x 30 feet with a lot of high and bulky stuff on it, so I reversed the bridle I'd had on the tug and tried towing with the two lines from the centre of one of the 30 foot sides of the pontoon to the two cleats on either side of the motorboat's stern. The engine in the motorboat was only about 15 hp so it was all painfully slow, but it worked. The first few minutes needed a lot of care and concentration because of going against natural instincts of which way to steer.

That would seem to be in agreement with what I said earlier in Post 186 . . . I think 57' 6'' is about the length for there, so 60 foot is overlength for the waterway isn't it?

Does anyone know anything about, or have any thoughts about, some strange looking propellors I've seen in photographs of boats out of the water? They have almost flat looking rectangular blades with the pitch increasing towards the blade tips. I've been told by someone who had one of these on his boat that it performed very much better than the original prop, particularly astern, stopping the boat in about half the distance it used to take. He said they are made by a small firm and have only become available in the last 4 or 5 years. I think the brand name was Axial, or something like that.

A bridle in use on a conventional tug is set up from a single point on the tug (the towing hook) to both sides on the tow, but rigged the way you had to do it because of having a cleat on either side and a single point to secure to on the narrowboat would have the effect of the two lines under tension holding your boat straight ahead because it can't pivot in either direction with both lines tight. In this situation your boat could only be steered by making it move sideways and in effect pivoting about the T-stud on the narrowboat ( think of it as being like a horizontal pendulum). The result of this is that your boat's steering will work in reverse provided both lines of the bridle are kept tight at all times, with port helm swinging you to starboard and vice versa. It's not easy the first time you try it, but if you can stop yourself from making all the normal steering movements based on your own ship's heading and judge things by the direction you're actually moving in, it's not as difficult as you might think. Helm changes should be applied as slowly as circumstances allow to keep both parts of the bridle under the same constant strain.

Were you trying to tow from the starboard cleat with a single line?

You're right . . I hadn't looked carefully enough at the drawing and assumed the field to be stationary to allow running in oil. I wonder if there's any record of how well it worked, apart from the obvious vulnerability of the props. Edit: Just ignore me, I'm talking rubbish . . . with a static field the comm. would obviously have to be on the armature wouldn't it. . . . . or > > what about a permanent magnet field, although it does look as though that set up next to the bevel gears could be sliprings . . . I don't know ! The thrust arrangement on the outdrive certainly looks very 'iffy'.

The single row ball bearing should cope fairly well, but seems to be installed only to take ahead thrust with the load being transferred directly to the casing end cap. I wonder how it was lubricated. Oil filled casing presumably . . made practical by the remote comm?

Did you get the impression that the meeting, and particularly the most vocal of those attending, may have been to some extent 'stage managed' in order to set the tone the way Parry wanted it to be?

What an interesting bit of gear, and really a long way ahead of it's time. Do you know what effect the increase in pitch towards the blade tips has on performance, particularly when only partially immersed? It's a feature which I think has been introduced fairly recently by some propellor manufacturer claiming improved performance on canal boats, but their blades are rectangular shaped.

Commercial vessels with accommodation below decks such as barges and tugs have ducts to low level from under the deckhead, cruisers would probably have something similar.

A lot of the good performance would be down to the Crowther prop. The blade design/shape they used always seemed to produce better thrust than the more usual 3 X Mickey Mouse's ears jobs fitted to a lot of modern boats.

What's difficult about it for C&RT? If they are so minded, all they will have to do is demonstrate by means of 'recorded' sighting and photographic evidence, genuine or manufactured, that the boat has been at one 'place' for more than 14 days, or has returned to the same 'place' without first visiting a sufficient number of other 'places'. A simple and easy enough thing to 'prove' to the extent a County Court will be likely to accept from such as a Navigation Authority, whether or not the boat really has overstayed or returned without making the minimum required 'movement'(s) according to the "Guidance", and also whether C&RT really do check every mile of waterway as frequently as they claim to, but quite obviously don't. Having been recently caught out manufacturing evidence for use in Court, they may be more careful, and possibly successful with their next attempt.

Only when operating at full governed speed (rpm) and turning a correctly matched propellor which can absorb and transmit all the power the engine is capable of producing.

It is being assumed that C&RT have asked for photos so Boston can prove compliance with CC'ing requirements. How about considering the possibility that C&RT want them in order to prove she is not complying. Going by what she has said in her posts, the request for the photos and the assurance that the 18 miles moved is adequate were both made only verbally, with no written confirmation.

Well, quite frankly I think what he's posted is complete drivel from beginning to end . . . don't you? He also seems to think that you and I have somehow merged to become one person !

So how would you go about , in his words, flooding the well deck "by water spouting from leaky gates or paddles" if the stem was against the bottom gates?

I was trying to work that one out too, but from the first sentence in the Post it sounds as if he thinks it's usual for some people to turn their boats round and go down locks stern first . . . quote : -- " many boaters do not wish to bump their boats stem against the top gates all the way down " . . . . that would give you the opportunity to flood a forward well deck if you really wanted to. It's a funny way to go about working locks, but I suppose it takes all sorts.

Could you help C&RT by supplying them with some surplus bedpans to replace the ones that all this piss has been taken away in?