Jump to content

dogless

Member
  • Posts

    975
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by dogless

  1. The buoy at Ansty marks (I understand) the stump of a tree which grew in the bank, and would  be problematic to remove without rebuilding the canal bank.

     

    I assume you mean Hillmorton locks as there's only a single stop lock at Hawkesbury.

     

    Hillmorton locks are busy, and often suffer minor break downs, but of all lock flights, Hillmorton seems in my experience to have repair work carried out fairly speedily.

     

    Rog

  2. That obstruction and buoy was removed about four years ago, along with work being done on improving drains under the towpath to assist moving ground water, and stone filled gabions added to try and stabilise the bank.

     

    If you examine the photo of 1910 , movement can already be seen  and at a time when there were few trees.

     

    It is a wet bank, made wetter by horrendous rain this winter.

     

    Without the budgets  for maintenance , and workforce the railways enjoy (being a commercial enterprise not leisure based) it's hard to see what more can be done.

     

    Rog

  3. Searching the Internet regarding this new (to us) mooring site and came across this old thread.

     

    Anyone know who operates the moorings ?

     

    There's no signage and whilst two or three boats are in there, it doesn't look like a finished project.

     

    Just curious, thanks.

     

    Rog

    20240302_091211.jpg

  4. We came up last Saturday in three hours twenty five ... only used one gate and paddle as it was quite icy.

     

    The locks were mostly set for us (but for leakage).

     

    No sign of volunteers, or indeed other boats.

     

    We're obviously not as old and infirm as we'd feared after five months at home ... and the breakfast in the cafe was stunning  👍🏻

     

    Rog

    20240224_094856.jpg

    • Greenie 1
    • Happy 1
  5. We had a Beta BV 1903 with 3,500 hours recorded when we bought the boat in 2004 at 11 years old.

     

    By January 2018 we had a new Beta 43 fitted as the old engine, which by then had over 17,000 hours, had become smokey and needed to be stripped down and reconditioned.

     

    Finding someone to strip down the engine and do whatever work was needed would have taken many weeks (a friends took three months to be completed) and at a cost which would be impossible to accurately estimate (the friend's ultimately cost £3,400)  depending what was found.

     

    Once done  several months and who knows what cost later, we'd still have an old but reconditioned engine.

     

    We elected to have a new Beta 43 fitted which cost around £7,000 fitted, and took two days.

     

    The engine now has over 4,000 hours and is performing as new.

     

    Rog

  6. On 16/11/2014 at 18:53, dogless said:

    I have owned my Colecraft narrow boat (built in 1993) for ten years. I was advised at the time of purchase, that once the boat reached 20 years of age, it was likely that I would be required to have the hull surveyed again as a condition of obtaining insurance.

    As the boat's twentieth birthday approached, I conducted a 'straw poll' of owners, but have yet to meet anyone who has had such a condition imposed on them.

    I have insured the boat again for my eleventh year without any such requirement.

    My question is, has anyone experienced this situation, and at what age ? (The boat that is :) )

    Thanks

    Came across this old thread by accident ... seemed appropriate to update and answer my own question.

     

    My broker (Nautical Insurance) required a full out of water valuation survey, giving me 12 months notice of the requirement.

     

    I was able to arrange the survey whilst the boat was out for its bi-annual blacking.

     

    The boat was 29 years old when I was advised of the requirement,  and 30 years old as the survey was completed.

     

    I will not be required to provide a further survey for ten years (I'm very pleased to say)

     

    Rog

    • Greenie 1
  7. Semantics I know ... but ring C&RT and advise them of your circumstances which make a longer stay necessary.

     

    We don't have to doff our cap and ask permission  😁

     

    Communication is good though.

     

    Rog

    • Greenie 1
  8. The only legal requirement is not to stay for over 14 days (unless circumstances dictate).

     

    These short term moorings are intended for us all to play nicely, share the space and not hogg one hot-spot.

     

    The choice is yours but personally 48 hrs on each seems OK.

     

    Rog

    • Greenie 1
  9. Pre covid, so 2018 or 2019, we were stuck for two days at Rumps lock waiting for water levels to be increased in the pounds up to Wheelock.

     

    We were visited regularly by C&RT staff who assured us they were doing all they could to feed water down from Bosley locks.

     

    Apparently the main feed for that stretch of the T&M is Todbrooke Reservoir and Coombes Reservoir.

     

    If that is true, there is no wonder water is low at present and will remain low until 2025.

     

    Rog

    • Greenie 1
  10. How do you know they're unlicensed unless you've checked their reg no. ?

     

    Marinas and private moorings are visited by number checkers, and many private moorings insist on license and insurance for obvious reasons.

     

    It's amazing how easy it is to find evidence to support one's own prejudices  😁

     

    Rog

     

     

  11. One sided random attacks do sadly happen.

     

    Some years ago my cousin's Mum and Father in law were both randomly stabbed, along with several others, in  a Crewe Post Office.

     

    No ryhme or reason ... the assailant had mental health issues and was arrested.

     

    Being simply in the wrong place at the wrong time can be all it takes if you're unlucky.

     

    Rog

    • Sad 1
  12. 2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

    There are plenty of fishermen who pitch tents on the towpath and sleep overnight, as well as hikers and so on. The only difference is that they are temporary, but it makes it impossible to discriminate against those doing it as a home - as does the fact that you can't just shoot the homeless as you could a stray dog. They got to be somewhere.

    Discussion about homelessness is a very different , though worthwhile subject to C&RT's interest in Mr Ward.

     

    The point I was making (poorly it seems) is that I suspect C&RT's interest in Mr Ward is now at an end.

     

    Rog

  13. Is it not likely, that having removed Mr Ward's boats from their waters, C&RT  will be entirely unconcerned  and happy to be ignorant of Mr Ward's ongoing housing situation.

     

    It is a fact that C&RT do not, and never have enforced byelaws (who knows why) and they have demonstrated yet again their painfully slow but ultimately effective way of dealing with none compliant boats.

     

    There are unfortunately many around the system seen to sleep in tents on or adjacent to towpaths.

     

    If sufficient complaints are made to the local council by residents, perhaps some action may be taken, but as far as C&RT are concerned I suspect Mr Ward will be filed under 'Sorted' like other boat owners who chose to push-back rather than simply comply with the very minimal requirements of ownership.

     

    Rog

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.