Tony Dunkley
-
Posts
3,298 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Tony Dunkley
-
-
Tony Dunkley, on 03 Sept 2016 - 1:30 PM, said:
There is no 'upkeep' of the river to contribute to outside of the MNC.
Clearly this is untrue. On a canalised river there are weirs, sluices, flood control measures and indeed the maintenance of the locks such that they don't let all the water out of your reach, pollution control etc. And probably a lot of other stuff I can't immediately think of. The only thing being tied to the bank doesn't require is for the locks to actually work (gates and sluices move) and dredging (which doesn't actually seem to happen much!).
In reality, it's far from clear that what I said with regard to 'upkeep' is 'untrue' at all.
Locks are unarguably within the MNC, and the sole function of the adjacent weirs is to maintain a minimum depth within the MNC.
Weirs and locks in a state of disrepair do not, in fact, result in empty or dry upstream stretches of river, but simply in a lower water level and reduced minimum depth.
Flood control, even on rivers where C&RT are the navigation authority, is generally the responsibility of the EA, and regardless of whichever body is responsible for it in any specific location, does not, nor is intended to, facilitate or aid navigation except where there are flood locks, within the MNC, protecting lock cuts from flooding whilst enabling navigation to continue despite higher than normal water levels.
Pollution control is the remit solely of the EA and again, like flood control, does not facilitate or aid navigation.
-
I have no idea where you want to take this but I note you guys have also mentioned main navigable channel on canals in the past. That said "rivers" alone is bad enough, eg think of the Lee
I think my one line summary covered it well enough.
I don't see the relevance of the navigable channel in canals, or, for that matter, whatever it may be that's so 'bad' about rivers in general and the Lee in particular.
I'm also a little unsure about the comment re. your 'one line summary', but I take it to mean that you consider theft and extortion, as practised by C&RT, to be perfectly acceptable.
-
In your particular context the inadequacies I refer to are those that (may, subject to confirmation by a court) allow you to keep a boat on the Trent without contributing anything to the upkeep of the river. And also the complex interactions of the various different acts. I can't help thinking things would be a lot clearer if all the relevant preceding acts were repealed to be replaced by a single act fit for inland boating in the 21st century.
This particular 'inadequacy' is the undisputed [even by C&RT] common law right of navigation, not requiring confirmation by any Court.
There is no 'upkeep' of the river to contribute to outside of the MNC.
C&RT emphatically, and correctly, deny responsibility for any dredging outside of the MNC [they refer to it as the Minimum Open Channel in navigational/maintenance documentation] or bank protection and maintenance.
-
This section sounds a little flaky. Are you saying that you are relying on common law rights or statutory rights not to require a licence in your circumstances, as the latter in most cases takes precedence over the former.
Reliance is on common law navigation rights on C&RT river navigations, which remained, unaffected, after the statutory navigation rights on the canals were extinguished under the 1968 Transport Act.
Section 5(1) of the 1971 BW Act recognizes the fact that a boat Licence is acceptable as a substitute form of registration in differentiating between the registration of a vessel [being kept or used within the MNC of a river navigation] by obtaining a Pleasure Boat Certificate , and the licensing of a vessel by obtaining a ". . licence issued by the Board allowing the use of all inland waterways without further payment''.
-
I think a few of us are a bit torn on this one, including me (though I didn't vote up that post). I think many of us feel that everyone should contribute to the cost of upkeep of the inland waterways - no freeloaders please! In your case it seems you kept your boat out of the MNC and thus it wasn't really "using" the facilities as a navigation. According to your version of the law this is perfectly legal (yet to be proven in court) however it does create a problem for CRT in that if loads of people did the same, it would be very difficult to police licensing - it would be very easy for someone to claim they were permanently bankside whilst in fact sneaking out for a cruise whenever they felt like it, knowing the chances of being spotted were slim.
So to my mind the primary problem lies in the inadequacies of the legislation. But of course if you and other win, it could in fact be the precipitator of new and more draconian legislation that would not be in the interests of the majority. Who knows?
Set against that is of course the strong dislike of CRT making up the law to suit their agenda, applying bullying tactics and ultimately therefore acting unlawfully (yet to be proven in court of course).
As I said, I'm torn on this issue. But it nevertheless is very interesting to follow, and looking forward to the court cases.
The only aspect of the MNC argument disputed by C&RT is the extent of it. They insist that it extends across the full width
of river navigations from bank to bank. The problem they face in promoting this ridiculous claim is their own Byelaw 19, which requires pleasure craft to move out of the MNC when encountering commercial vessels.
The question of policing 'licensing' doesn't arise on any of the river navigations listed in Schedule1 of the 1971 BW Act, because the common law public right of navigation removes the obligation to licence a boat, and the absence of that obligation is recognized in statute.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'inadequacies of the legislation'. Which particular piece of legislation did you have in mind ?
-
I don't think he, or the 'greeny providers' actually understand the case and the background to it.
Maybe they are getting confused with CMers on a 'muddy ditch'
Or, maybe Parry has got more than one Forum snooper at work !
Could Parry and his Head of Boat Thieving be among them ?
-
Crowd funding something that suggests mooring to a side of a waterway allows you to escape contributing to the upkeep of a waterway seems so wrong, a way of destroying the waterways.
Would the four Forum members who have demonstrated their support for C&RT's criminal activities by voting approval for the above post care to explain why ?
-
1
-
-
I may be wrong but aren't we talking here about rivers? If canals are included in the "free to moor" scenario then I don't agree that should happen.
However, if, as has been stated many times, CRT is breaking the law, or trying to set up its own laws to suit its own vision of the world, then that is plain wrong.
Bob
You're not wrong, Bob, this is about rivers, specifically the PRN rivers listed in Schedule 1 of the 1971 British Waterways Act, and in this particular instance, about a boat moored out of the MNC on privately owned land, over which C&RT have publicly acknowledged they have no control or right to demand charges/mooring fees.
-
............. ................ ................ ..............
Anyone who is able to set up the suggested crowd funding for Leigh to afford professional representation [whether permission for me is granted or not] – please come forward and get it going. I remain willing to contribute my time and expertise as before, by way of assisting/instructing any willing barrister keen to add such a major case to their CV.
Would it be worthwhile asking 'debbifiggy' to make an approach to Parry and suggest that C&RT themselves should offer to underwrite the cost of instructing and retaining CLP and Miss Easty to act for Leigh ?
-
Get someone who's going the right way with a narrowboat to tie you tight alongside, and for the best steering and handling, have their stern at the very least level with and preferably 'overhanging' your fore-end.
If they've got a right-hand prop, then tie the boats starboard to starboard, if left-hand tie them port side to port side so they'll swing a bit less when they're in astern gear, and steer better/easier going ahead.
-
It could be one of the isolated stretches of the Grantham Canal that are 'in water' and have had some token dredging done, with the dredgings dumped in the canal bed, but right alongside the towpath. This has left a towpath wide enough to be mown with a farm tractor, as in the photo, and a relatively narrow width of canal.
If I had to make a guess as to where, I'd go for the length just East of Hickling.
-
You should try to avoid the big tides on the lower Trent and the Ouse above Selby for the seven days from Friday 16 to Thursday 22 September, and as you don't know whether or not the boat is up to prolonged periods of running at or near full power, you should also take every opportunity to run at full power between locks on the upper reaches of the river from Derwent Mouth to Cromwell.
If any problems do show up, then either get them fixed before going any further or get a train from Newark for a day out in York.
-
Lift pumps do get 'tired' after long periods of service. The diaphragm stretches and wrinkles, and the two one-way valves wear and cease to seat and seal properly which reduces the pump's output pressure and volume.
Repair kits comprising new diaphragms and valves etc. are obtainable from fuel injection engineers.
-
CRT solve low pounds by flowing water down from an upper pound. I don't see why its necessary to call CRT out for a low pound, if you're able to do this yourself.
The correct terminology is 'running water', and in light of the fact that a great many pounds are kept well below 'weir' instead of fixing bank leaks, it would be more accurate to say C&RT don't 'solve low pounds', . . . they create them, and in the process of doing so make matters even worse for the future because keeping pounds low allows the puddle to dry out, causing cracks in it which then leak even more.
-
Anything that disrupts either the vital Monday to Friday process of increasing the shine on the seats of the office chairs, or one of the numerous and pointless meetings that are convened for the sole purpose of deciding when the next meeting should be scheduled for.
-
Whereas the working boaters had to remember all the names of places and locks, nowadays to me, the Collins / Nicholson type guides have a lot to answer for with the disappearance of historical place names.
The names are in the guides so they must be right............... yeah!
To be fair though, it was British Waterways with their 'Cruising Booklets' that started the rot in the early 1960's.
-
When did these evocative names die out?
Effectively, from 1970 on, soon after Willow Wren took the last "two load" of "peas" to Croxley and "Mr Streak's" [ Michael Streat, the "gaffer'' of Blue Line at Braunston] three pairs took the last loads of "DS" a bit further down the "Junction" to the "Jam Hole".
-
I think they were often called "Corkers".
That's right, . . . . Corker's Two, and the two before [below] the bottom of Maffers were Peter's Two.
-
But he was only correct for
somemost locks.I've corrected that for you, Nick.
-
The maths are fairly simple.
The whole matter is very simple, and there's no need for any maths or any other sort of theoretical analysis.
If everybody closes up behind their boat at every lock, regardless of whether or not there is any point in doing so, then nobody will ever have a lock ready, . . . . that's a 100% certainty.
If everybody leaves the gates open, when there is no serious leakage at the other end and therefore no point in closing them, then there's a 50 /50 chance that the next boat to come along will find the lock ready.
-
Usually you are right on this sort of thing Tony, but in this case completely wrong. The pressure is due only to the level difference across the gate, nothing to do with how much depth of water below / depth of the gate below the lower level.
I'm right with this as well. The pressure head on the bottom gates when the lock is full of water to the top level is greater than the pressure head on the top gate with the water in the chamber at the lower level, except at the relatively few locks where the rise/fall of the lock is equal to or less than the depth over the top cill.
-
On some locks the top gates might seal better when the lock is empty. The full hydrostatic pressure is forcing the gates together.
In practice, top gates do generally leak less than bottom gates, but that's mainly down to them being smaller and lighter, and distorting less.
The hydrostatic pressure on bottom gates is far greater than at the top end, . . . . there's the the rise/fall of the lock plus the depth over the cill adding up to the head of water against the bottom gates, . . . at the top end there's only the depth over the cill.
-
The engine had a fulk rebuild new crankshaft main bearings etc, so evreything was stripped all the casings shot blasted etc and powder coated and so on, fuel pumps and injectors sent away for overhual, it runs very clean till you Hit three quater throttle then its just all smoke, iv checked the racks a fare few times they dont appear to be sticking, the idle spring? Is this where the two racks connect to the second pump?
I'll repeat what I asked in Post #8 ~ "What was the reason for having to reset the governor, . . . have you fitted new governor weight springs or speeder spring, and is the engine a factory produced variable speed model with an external speed control lever and adjustable stops, or was it made as a fixed speed engine with the [now variable] speed now being controlled by means of the speeder spring rod where it sticks out of the timing case ?"
Additionally, in your Post #1 you said ~ " . . . . sometimes has a habit of running away too.". If these are 'fuel' runaways [as opposed to 'lube oil' runaways] then the cause cannot be anything other than sticking pump racks and/or governor and linkage.
-
Why is it needed on the Llangollen canal as there is always water running down the by wash..?
It isn't, . . . no more than it's necessary anywhere else, UNLESS the gate or gates and/or paddles at the other end are leaking badly when they're closed.
British Waterways introduced this practice of closing up behind when leaving a lock many years ago after it became apparent that a substantial proportion of the increasing numbers of amateurs then beginning to boat around on the cut were too gormless to check for leaks on the gates behind them whilst the lock was levelling off. It was quite simply a way to reduce the chances of wasting water due to fouled gates or paddles that weren't all the way down because they had been wound down instead of being dropped.
It's very apparent that the real reasons for closing up behind a boat have been lost in the passage of time, . . . it is now normal practice on rivers too, even on the likes of the Soar and Trent where there are millions of gallons pouring over the nearby weir.
-
1
-
Tardebigge to York
in Cruise Diaries & Reports
Posted · Edited by Tony Dunkley
There probably is, but I'm not able to direct you to it.
Simon, who replied to you in post #2, will be far more useful to you than me as regards that, and he has put a video clip of his boat at Stockwith Lock on one of the many topics on here dealing with boating on the tidal Trent and Ouse.
You could also try typing 'Tidal Trent, tidal Ouse, Stockwith lock, Keadby lock, Selby lock' etc. into the Search box at the top of this page.