Captain Pegg

I disagree, those are the places I'd stay on that route, they are the secure moorings. Although I'd probably go straight into Brum in one go via Ashted, which is possible in a day from Lapworth, but the OP perhaps wants to go via Garrison and Aston. Just to add to my earlier comment that if @Col_T is planning to go past C-de-B and moor overnight before Camp Hill then they may struggle due to physical limitations on being able to moor which was referenced by an earlier poster who lives in the area. Not sure if they didn't just mean they are going past C-de-B in general.

Regarding Bournville, the secure moorings - behind a gate on the offside - are almost permanently occupied by liveaboard boats. There are towpath visitor moorings but it's another of those places where some will advise not to moor, despite the fact that Bournville itself is a nice area. The next nearest moorings at Kings Norton fall into a similar bracket but I regularly see boats moored overnight there. I'm not sure what you want to see at Bournville. Cadbury World is aimed at kids.

I thought it might have been one of the boating groups on Facebook. They generally make CWDF look like a haven of knowledge and sanity by comparison. I don’t use Pearson’s personally, but I think there’s a big difference in security when it comes to leaving a boat unattended, especially overnight, compared to a one night stay while cruising. I think places that might once have been considered undesirable now regularly attract moored boats. As others have said the one thing you should aim to do is stop in central Birmingham. On the way in Catherine-de-Barnes is a posh place, Camp Hill and Star City are secure but not attractive and there’s also a secure mooring three locks up the Aston flight. Of the places that have been listed one you may find dubious if you arrive there intending to moor is the business park above Ashted locks. The “top’ of the GU main line is actually Warwick Bar/Proof House Jn where it joins the Digbeth branch of the B&F. That’s between the Camp Hill and Ashted flights. The literal top is the Knowle to Camp Hill pound.

What have you read and where? It sounds like nonsense.

And for which they have to be able to enter into a contract with the purchaser. I was responding in general but referencing a poster who claimed the licence wasn’t a contract because issuing of licences is enshrined in statute. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. I don’t think we’re disagreeing, it was just the way I phrased it.

They wouldn’t be able to sell licences. I guess they could offer free unrestricted use of the waterways instead…

One of the problems of lay people reading legal documentation is that they tend to get rather wrapped up in their own comprehension of what the words literally mean whereas within legal circles the application will focus on context and purpose. For all his undoubted knowledge and well constructed arguments I sometimes felt that even Nigel Moore fell into this trap. There is a reason that legal professionals undertake years of training and gaining experience in order to practice. The idea that buying a licence from CRT isn’t entering into a contract is utterly wrong. It clearly meets all the legal principles of forming a contract and if it were not a contract the buyer would have no legal protection. The fact that CRT is a body that is both created by statute and limited in its powers by that statute doesn’t prevent them from freely entering into contracts, since that would prevent them from discharging their statutory duty. A principle of any contract is that the party making an offer can apply conditions of their choosing providing they do not breach statute law and are reasonable. Those conditions don’t have to be enabled by any statute law. You have to remember that the offer made by CRT has both a price and a set of conditions that apply in combination. If you don’t accept the conditions then you are making a counter offer and CRT don’t have to sell you the licence at that price. If you have bought a licence for the price CRT offer then legally you have accepted the T&Cs, doesn’t matter if you think you’ve signed for them or not, they were part of the legally binding offer that you have accepted. Unless of course you can prove agreement to a revised set of terms. The primary sanction for most if not all breaches is correctly a fine. Note that mooring restrictions now come with a threat of a fine for overstaying displayed on the signage. The fact that CRT have chosen to do this says to me that even if they have never executed a penalty in the past they are giving themselves the ability to do so in future. However in the situation of sustained breaches of the Ts & Cs I think CRT could legally terminate a licence for deliberate breach of contract but whether they could refuse to issue a new licence is debatable. They certainly can offer a more restrictive licence and if you continue to breach Ts & Cs you may only get to test whether they are legally bound to continue to offer you a licence after they’ve Section 8’ed your boat. At that stage no matter the outcome - which is 99% certain to favour CRT - you’ve lost anyway.

Is that meant to be a joke?

I didn't know that the canal at this location used to continue further than it does today.

It does beg the question as to why only the swim would need overplating. I'd have thought it wise to get a surveyor's opinion. One problem with overplating the swim is that it will change the engine cooling capability if there is a skin tank on the inside. However if it's a cruiser stern it may be realistically possible to replate rather than overplate.

So it allowed horses to pass which isn't possible/easy in a tunnel. Seems a bit extravagant for such a short tunnel.

Prototype has a double meaning and can just refer to the first of type built whether or not it was a test for something that was intended to follow. So if it was the first tunnel with two towpaths then it is the prototype of that design. The fact there was a quarter of a century gap between Newbold and Netherton and they were built by different engineers for different companies makes it seems doubtful there was any knowing link between them. It does beg the question why Newbold was built that way as the north Oxford never had two towpaths, was it an aborted intention or was it simply built to a symmetrical design?

Absolute thickness and variation in thickness tolerances are different things but a 10mm plate could in theory be as little as 9.15mm. It could also be a lot more than 10mm thick, but what it cannot do is have two places that vary by more than 1.0mm (for a 2000mm wide plate but potentially by more if a larger plate is cut down to size).

Even on a new plate adjacent readings will vary. A 10mm plate can have up to 1.0mm variance in thickness overall.

When you say Newbold was the prototype for Netherton do you mean that it is simply of similar construction and pre-dates it, rather than it was a test piece? Is it established that is was the first such tunnel? Coseley Tunnel - eight years newer than Newbold - is of the same configuration and precedes Netherton by 20 years. (Desperately trying to revert to the subject at hand cos this thread shows the good and bad sides of the forum).

I appreciate why @howardang said what he did but my counter to that is that there is consistent evidence here. I was tempted to say that the ultrasonic test reading WILL be of the sound steel and if it had been done by a skilled ultrasonic test operator interpreting the primary signal output I'd be confident of that. Exactly how a modern ultrasonic test meter that can 'see' through paint layers and the like calculates thickness is less obvious, it doubtless involves some fancy algorithms in the programming. Remember that ultrasound is primarily used to find very fine internal cracks, the meter isn't going to miss the interface between steel and rust, it's just a question of how accurately it can position that interface but you have lots of room for error here. Quoting thicknesses to 0.1mm is a bit misleading anyway. I took the .9. to be someone hitting the keys the wrong way round and it should be 9.9, presumably you've checked that out. So you have a 1989 boat - that appears to have been built with a 12mm baseplate - and has some localised loss of material that you are dealing with properly and it retains 10mm minimum baseplate and 5mm minimum side thickness. Even more importantly you have little to no pitting because that's what will get you rather than general hull loss. I'd say that's pretty good, I've seen worse in the bottom of boats and I think many folk are oblivious to what is happening to the top surface of their baseplate.

Presumably this area corresponds to the locations where the survey records 2mm of plate loss and hence gives you a logical set of evidence? I don't see why an ultrasonic test wouldn't work adequately done from inside but equally I don't see any reason why it would give you a different answer from the one you already have. The ultrasonic reading you have should reflect the boundary of the sound steel and not include the thickness of rust.

Gloucester seems a good bet. If road transport not available or preferred it's 45 to 50 minutes on the train, two trains an hour, and walkable at both ends. Albeit £3,500 for a season ticket or £18-£22 a day individually. Probably cheaper than road transporting a boat to the M&B and back again.

I think that anyone who gets bothered about the system used to describe the same thing is completely missing the point. I mostly use metric measurements because that's how I was taught (I was 1 year and 1 day old at metrication) but like many people I'd struggle to tell you my height and weight in metric measurements and I've never literally ordered 568ml of beer.

Now I can picture it. Personally I don't see any issue with the no mooring at Ansty, it seems reasonable to me in the circumstances although it is perhaps a longer stretch than it needs to be. Then again I'm not a big fan of mooring at all.

Now you mention the one at Hawkesbury I can picture it. A boat pulled out of the lock onto it in front of me a few weeks ago. Of course it's back to back with the water points on the Coventry. You mean Stretton Stop not Sutton (I wondered for a moment how you came to have both Hawkesbury Jn and Sutton Stop as different places). I wasn't sure there was a public tap at Stretton but obvs Rose Narrowboats have a water point. Can't picture the one at Ansty. Forgot about Newbold. That, Hillmorton and Hawkesbury would probably do. ETA - I feel it necessary to add to the above to prevent anyone correcting me to say that Hawkesbury Junction is a junction where the Oxford joins the Coventry Canal and Sutton Stop is a lock on the Oxford a hundred or so metres away and therefore they are different places. Sutton Stop is the entire place to anyone local to the area.

Clear bin bags so you can see there isn't a bomb in the bin. As for water points: Top of Calcutt locks - although you probably won't have any requirement for it so close to base Braunston Turn services??? - opposite the junction but it can be busy Below Hillmorton locks - definitely water there and at a place and time you'll perhaps need some but probably quite a high throughput of boats. Brownsover on the offside?? Might be boats moored there Hawkesbury's taps are past the narrows toward Bedworth and you'd have to reverse one way or take a short trip up to the old Newdigate colliery arm and turn there. There must be others. There is a water point at Braunston by the toll house at the marina arm. Strictly speaking it's not on your route but you could head there, turn at the arm and find somewhere to moor.