Captain Pegg

I think the advice about the paddles on the same side only truly works on the GU Birmingham line and it’s a function of the layout of the culverts. The SU ex-Chester Canal broad locks are some of the most difficult on the network and the more broad locks you encounter the more you realise how good the GU broad locks (both types) actually are.

I think there’s a lot of misleading - and some frankly terrible - advice above. There is no definitive way to work any lock. The most expedient way of operating the same lock can change according to the length of the boat, the number of crew, the weather, the confidence of the skipper and the experience of the crew amongst other things. It can also change from lock to lock on the same canal or flight because the consecutive locks may not be set out in the same way. Add in the presence of other boats, crews, volockies and do-gooders and things change again. There is a lot of difference between designs of broad locks and I’d be confident that a lot of what is published above in good faith only applies to certain broad locks and not all such locks. For instance if I were to open the offside gate paddle on a GU (ex-GJC) broad lock first with my own boat in the lock it would do a better job of holding my boat again the nearside wall than opening the nearside ground paddle first. To many folk that’s anathema. I’d very rarely be without a line around a bollard in such a lock but occasionally that may happen. The truest things I know are that if you’re single handing you really are better with a line to shore unless you’re very confident in the lock’s behaviour and on the GU Birmingham line only use the paddles on the side the boat is on (unless it’s evident the lock won’t make a level without the other paddle raised). Otherwise find your own way by trial and error.

That’s the Birmingham Gun Barrel Proof House. Gives its name to both a canal and railway junction. (And I didn’t need that subtle clue from David.)

Bona fide historic working boater. Born Alice Wain and grew up on working boats and married into another boating family. A regular attendee at historic events. I only knew her by sight in passing although by marriage she was a relative of mine.

CRT is a quango. The consultancies are pretty much the polar opposite.

I can’t speak for the Civil Service but that’s not how it works for an organisation like CRT at all. You can’t delegate accountability.

I don’t think these locks weir through the gates, both Gregory’s Mill locks have weirs above on the towpath side so it may appear they don’t have by-washes. In general W&B locks have easily visible offside by-washes. Also right from the outset I recall the CRT notices stated the navigation was blocked by a sinking boat rather than a stuck boat.

That reminds me that about 18 months ago I had to tie up, climb the ladder and go and wake up the lock keeper at Upper Lode.

Severn locks have lights and the lock keeper will see you approach. You’ll get a flashing red light as they prepare the lock. They will also signal which side of the lock they wish you to be.

That move is very unlikely to be able to be completed in one day by a boat mover. They’d have to travel from home and back again on a day with a very favourable tide and having had suitable time to ensure the boat is prepared and ready for a tidal passage. I’d guess that price reflects two people for two days. I think the reason some folk tell tales of inflated prices is because moves are priced for two people which is absolutely unnecessary on the canal network but if you don’t know a particular stretch of tidal water taking along someone that does is arguably a wise thing to do. On my website I say I don’t offer any service on tidal waters. While not strictly true because I have done some it’s simply because for some passages I’m not the best person for the job. You want someone that knows the water for certain jobs. I don’t think you can complain too much about anyone willing to take full commercial accountability for your craft on the tidal Trent for a three figure sum.

Thanks for the mentions @matty40s and @MtB. I’m currently recovering from eye surgery so may not be able to help in the timescales but I have PMed @Liz E with a few pointers of what she should be looking for in terms of price and insurance. A couple of my customers at the back end of last year told me they’d had quotes from elsewhere that were broadly double what I charged them. And my rates are comparable with a couple of other boat movers I know.

There is perhaps some confusion here between soil nailing and rock bolting. And I see the myth that trees support unstable slopes is being perpetuated.

So that’s easier than enabling heavy plant and lorries access to a place where there’s a thousand tonnes of earth to be moved? And who needs messing and toilet facilities in the workplace? It’s a partial truth at best anyway, and one that’s not really related to re-construction of earthworks. There’s very little “modern” in the thinking that goes into Modern Railways.

I find it strange that someone who avidly boats to all corners of the BCN worries about Coventry and Nuneaton. And if you worry about them you should really fear Bedworth.

There’s a significant history of motorising boats built to be towed. The reality is that a much larger number of unpowered boats than have already would meet their demise if they weren’t converted in some form. Lesser of two evils perhaps. Boats are living things.

In respect of the new build you refer to it’s probable that the paint remained properly adhered but to mill scale rather than the base steel and it’s the mill scale that has fallen off taking the paint with it.

Sounds like he never entirely lost some Oxford from his accent. The issue isn’t the use of the name or the pronunciation though, it’s the way it’s written. I dare say my boating ancestors - with an almost identical family history to Mike - also used the name but I’ll wager they never wrote it. And I’d be certain if they could have written it they’d have been sure to spell it correctly. In any case I’d also bet that what boat people actually called it was a lot closer to “Wigrums” than “Wigrams” phonetically.

My own dislike is the use of the name ‘Wigrams’. It’s a term that seems to have come back into modern usage probably via the books published by the wartime female trainees (themselves never called Idle Women in their own time). I don’t dispute that boaters once used this term but what they were saying was “Wiggerham’s” in the hybrid Midlands accent that boaters tended to have. It’s someone’s name so somewhere along the way somebody should have done some research and got the spelling correct, particularly for the marina which in my view spoils the look of the place to boot. How crap to be remembered by folk that never knew you and can’t be arsed to spell your name correctly.

I doubt any of us here had heard the term until @IanD referenced it when describing his layout for Rallentando. I very much doubt any boater made the term up and Ian himself is avowed in his dislike of nods to tradition - real or faux - so I can’t see he would be guilty of using the term for the reason you suggest.

Fore-cabins were for people, additional space for children to sleep. The term seems to originate in its modern (only?) usage with Tyler Wilson and I’d guess that’s from the part that’s from Newcastle-under-Lyme rather than the one from Sheffield. @David Mack, I think it’s pretty clear that I don’t know if the term has any true historical provenance. However looking through A Canal People the only fore-cabins pictured are over the bows. These being ex-FMC general cargo boats repurposed for the coal trade. Gifford being a Clayton’s tar boat also carried a cargo where mass likely governed over volume in terms of loading. So maybe there is something in it. Are there photos of boats in the Potteries with fore-cabins at the front of the hold? Just because we don’t know something to be true doesn’t mean it’s false.

I’m pretty sure that @IanD picked the term up from his builder and the explanation was that the space in which it sits was available because the boats concerned carried raw materials of high density to the Potteries, i.e. clay, rather than finished products. Whether this is true, or if it is that the term was ever used historically, I know not.

Assuming it even was a real thing once upon a time isn’t a potter’s cabin supposed to sit further back than a fore cabin, in the space where the cratch is on most carrying boats? And there’s another one, cratch instead of deck board.

CRTs vegetation control contracts probably forbid it. There’s plenty of stuff that fire could spread to including the ground itself if the slope is dressed with ash, which is common at least on embankments.

Morpeth - which is a curve with a 50mph speed restriction with a maximum permissible approach speed of 110mph - does have Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS). TPWS is a tertiary system, the driver being the primary system and Automatic Warning System (AWS) the secondary. On the approach to any speed restriction with a reduction of 30mph or more an advance warning board must be provided. This is an inverted triangular lineside sign displaying the speed ahead in black numerals on a white background with an orange border. The advance warning board is situated ahead of the commencement of the actual restriction at a distance that enables all trains to reduce speed suffciently. 180m in advance of this board will be an AWS magnet situated in the four foot space (i.e. between the rails so the train passes over it) that triggers both visual and audible warnings in the driving cab. The driver has 2.7 seconds to cancel those warnings by depressing a button on the control desk otherwise an uncommanded emergency brake application will be made. (Should this happen the train will also be de-configured in some way and possibly lose all brake pipe pressure meaning it will need to be re-configured before proceeding. It requires reporting to the signaller in all circumstances. It's more an immoboliser than an automatic brake). Once cancelled the AWS plays no more part and what happens next is entirely at the drivers command. However should the driver fail to slow the train sufficently by the time it reaches the TPWS overspeed sensors that are situated between the advance warning board and the commencement of the restriction and it is travelling faster than a pre-programmed speed the emergency brake will again intervene. Neither of these systems offers full protection for a variety of reasons it's probably not worth going into but it's principally because they are retro-fitted to a pre-existing railway rather than designed into a fully integrated system from scratch and are also provided on a cost vs benefit basis. It's entirely possible to drive a train through these warning systems and arrive at the curve in an overspeed condition. Only the European Train Control System (ETCS) provides direct full speed and over-run supervision; although tilting trains have a form of continuous speed supervision because of the increased overturning risk. Automatic Train Protection (ATP) only exists in isolation in two locations and is a more fully effective system than TPWS but obsolete. It offers protection against rear-end collision or level crossing incursion that is not provided by TPWS.

I believe Forget Me Not was built by Sephton’s in 1928 for John George Grantham. According to Narrow Boat magazine It was acquired by Samuel Barlow Coal Co Ltd in 1940 from a Joseph Grantham. John George Grantham had a son of that name so assuming both of the above pieces of information are correct that’s likely to be the connection. There were multiple boats in the Grantham family called Forget Me Not. Forget Me Not is of course the butty of the hotel boat pair and is the one on the outside with the hold full of weeds in the above picture. Its cabin was removed (or perhaps disintegrated) many years ago now. Mabel still has an extant cabin.