Tony Dunkley

Now we've established what you're saying, lets have a try at why you're saying it, other than what looks like a need for stating the blindingly obvious.

Very good indication of the extent of the owners competence, experience and knowledge.

Are you just saying that if your boat's a bit over length for a lock, then you have to be extra careful?

Not quite sure of the point you're making there.

A good point at which to start winning an argument on the effect of the "intent" element on navigation, 'bona fide' or otherwise, would be, long before getting near any Court, to get some indication from C&RT why they appear to regard long distances moved as 'bona fide' whilst claiming that short distances are not. If carefully phrased and put to C&RT they would find such a question difficult to answer without appearing to be applying double standards.

You are, in fact quite right, on some waterways there is the odd lock shorter than the rest, but now I'm going to get pedantic and say, only if you have a boat longer than the designed maximum length for the waterway you're on will you have a problem. ,

Strictly speaking , the engine will be producing 4-5 hp ( at the flywheel ) but the boat will actually be 'using' less than half of that. Take away from the hp. figure something like 5% (or a bit more) for frictional losses in the gearbox and sterngear, then allow for the propellor turning only about half of what's left into useful thrust to push the boat along. The low efficiency of so-called narrowboat propellors is down to the high operating revs and small diameters.

A very sensible precaution if you have reason to think that your boat may have increased in length since going through the last lock.

The wording of the OP is not particularly clear on exactly what C&RT do want the photos for. Perhaps their request to Boston was badly or ambiguously worded, possibly for the reasons I gave in Post 342 on this thread . . . we really haven't got enough information to get a clear idea of what the issues are.

Are you sure about that? The OP said C&RT wanted the photos to prove she had moved the required distance.

The Judge used the Mersey Ferry example to illustrate the fallacy in C&RT's assertion that 'bona fide navigation' can be determined on the basis of distance travelled.

It was C&RT v Geoff Mayers. The Judge himself used the example of the Mersey Ferries make the point that 'bona fide navigation' is very definitely not dependent on distance travelled.

I believe that vessels based on other Navigation Authority waters have on occasions been subject to the attention of C&RT's Enforcement Orifices, and I've heard a rumour that C&RT are considering taking action against the Mersey Ferries for not 'cruising' the requisite amount when away from their home moorings. I hope you're going to write to Judge Halbert at Chester and tell him so.

Of course he does . . . many times every day. . . Liverpool and Birkenhead are definitely two different places, even on C&RT's Maps.

Yes, and there's the option of a 4 blader to increase blade area some more, but they're even more inefficient. Strange as it may seem, the most efficient design of propellor would be a single blade . . . the vibration might be a bit of a problem though.

The engine horsepower is more than adequate for the boat, including any sort of river use. However, without trying out the boat on deep water there is no way of knowing what it's max. speed is with the propellor that's fitted. Because of their shallow draft most modern so-called narrow boats have relatively small diameter propellors, they are also frequently under pitched and unable to absorb all the available horsepower, with the small diameter making them very inefficient at turning that limited amount of power into useful thrust. Fuel consumption is a good guide as to whether a propellor is making full use of the available power. If possible, ask the previous owner if they have any figures for that, particularly river use. A good approximation to work on is that a diesel engine will burn one gallon of fuel per hour for every 20 horsepower it's producing.

No, write "You already have it" on the Renewal Form and send it off. There really isn't any point in looking for a good reason for things that C&RT do or ask for, there won't be one, just put it down to the fact that it's C&RT.

According to the Judge who presided over Geoff Mayers trial at Chester the answer to that is a most definite yes.

I don't need to check anything. What you say about lockeepers is true, but also irrelevant because I haven't suggested putting keepers at every lock. As far as your second comment goes . . . I don't think it's for you to say what I am for or against, or what suits me. You don't know me and you don't know what my opinions are, but as you just seem to want to quibble about whatever's said whilst having nothing useful to contribute yourself, I think I'll follow the very sensible example of many others and just completely ignore you.

Yes, and look at the bloody awful state most locks are now in as a result. I'll just have more attempt at getting the point across . . . not having the Enforcement Orifices would save £2.7 million pa. that could be spent on lockeepers and lengthsmen, who could also check boat Licences, as they used to do.

Shouldn't that read 'Surgical Support Manager'?

They would be instead of not in addition to the Enforcement Orifices, as I said on Post 165. It's a method that worked alright before, with the added benefit of getting the now totally neglected day to day routine maintenance done.

From what has been said so far on this thread it appears to be assumed that C&RT want the photographs to prove compliance with their CC'ing requirements, but is it not possible that they really want them for quite the opposite reason? The OP suggests that Boston's boat may not have been sighted or logged in all the places she has moored (due to the warden's patrol range being limited). Perhaps they are asking her to produce evidence that they can use to show that she has not moved to a different "place" every 14 days, with the location and extent of those "places" being decided by C&RT after they have the photographs.

It's not a problem . . . C&RT are being watched to see if they start looking for another target to make an example of to try and frighten other boaters into complying with their "make it up as you go along rulebook". . . . Boston may have been selected for the purpose.

When they thought it would suit their purpose C&RT decided, and announced, that 'bona fide navigation' and 'cruising' were the same thing. Unfortunately for them, in their usual blundering manner, they omitted to first look up the meaning of 'cruising' as relevant to inland waterways, which turned out to be . . . "sail about in an area without a precise destination" . . . so you can forget about 'objective' tests and mileage and go and find them a bandage for the corporate foot they've shot themselves in.