Captain Pegg
-
Posts
5,055 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Captain Pegg
-
-
1 hour ago, Ronaldo47 said:
My understanding is also that it is misleading to say that steel can be made in an arc furnace. All the arc furnace can do is melt existing steel scrap and put it into a more suitable form for re-use. Unless the scrap is of high quality, specifically that it does not contain non-ferrous metals, it will be more prone to rusting than steel made from iron ore, as the non-ferrous metal content will be liable to form centres for electrolytic corrosion. The use of recycled steel was I think the cause for the poor body life of certain japanese cars in the 1960's, as well as the Vauxhall Velox's reputation as a rust-bucket.
There are steels and there are steels, in that the quality of the iron ore can have a significant effect on the quality if the steel. Swedish steel is generally of high quality because the ore from which it is made has beneficial properties and can be used to make steel with a consistent performance. Recycled steel which in practice will almost inevitably have been made from scrap from different sources, will be unlikely to exhibit such a consistent quality.
It's different for Aluminium, where melting aluminium ore in an arc furnace is the well-established method of manufacture. However, it does require a lot of electric power, and so tends to be made where cheap hydroelectric power is available.
Whatever the method of production and wherever it’s done the material from which steel is made is some form of contaminated iron. Be it carbon and sulphur in pig iron from a blast furnace or the rust and foreign bodies in scrap. In any case blast furnaces are charged with scrap to aid the smelting process.Steel making is mostly about removing the unwanted stuff and if that can’t be done then making sure it’s encapsulated in a form where it isn’t detrimental to the performance of the product is the next best thing. That is achieved by the addition of alloying elements.
The idea that steel made from scrap is inferior is a myth that seems to stem from ignorance of how steel is made.
To the best of my knowledge the electric arc furnace process is relatively new and there are only two major producers in the UK. Not sure any 1960s Vauxhalls would have used it.
-
1 hour ago, Heartland said:
The carbon argument is one that needs perspective. Those who follow the Carbon Neutral view point talk about green steel where electricity is used. However steel is alloy of iron and carbon. To remove the carbon means that steel cannot exist in the future.
This is a confused statement.
Steel made by the electric arc furnace method uses scrap as it's feed stock and hence is recycling carbon that is already locked into the alloy. That carbon has to exist in some form somewhere. It's doing no harm while chemically locked into a piece of metal.
Steel made by the traditional method of converting pig iron made in a blast furnace introduces huge volumes of carbon into the atmosphere from the coke used to smelt the iron ore. Only a small proportion of the carbon gets locked into the pig iron and most of that is removed in the steel conversion process.
Hence adopting new materials to limit the overall global requirement for steel while promoting the use of the electric arc process to recycle waste ferrous material into steel is a more environmentally friendly approach than just continuing to produce new metal from the smelting of ores.
-
1
-
-
I’ve moored above Atherstone locks and I’ve also moored below the town locks many times and left my boat there unattended overnight. Access to shops and the station is why people choose to moor in the town rather than the countryside. I’ve also single handed the flight at various times of day including early and late and in near darkness. Never had even the slightest hint of a problem there.
I also have no expectation of encountering Volockies after 1400, below lock 5, in inclement weather, or in winter.
-
39 minutes ago, IanM said:
The locks were shortened, not lengthened. Cutting new recesses and moving the lower gates would have been much easier.
How were these locks drained, via gate paddles or ground paddles? If the latter it could explain why altering the top of lock was easier as that appears to be have been achieved without altering the original culverts.Also works to the bottom end of a lock might have required a lot more de-watering activity than alterations carried out inside the top gates.
-
The Blisworth passage was this morning so any wide beams still north of Stowe Hill will certainly be struggling to make it.
-
1
-
-
Pretty much the most dangerous place on a canal is a lock and volunteers are evidently trusted to operate them safely.
I believe Harecastle tunnel is operated by volunteers, that’s certainly how it appeared to me on numerous trips through this past year. There’s some pretty significant fixed plant operation and safety critical tasks to be undertaken there.
-
The notice for booking of passage of the moveable towpath is still current.
Although as 9’ 5” constitutes a wide beam craft it’s difficult to deduce exactly what width of craft CRT think can navigate the Rochdale yet still need the towpath to be removed.
The GU case is most definitely temporary (at least officially) and relates to the bridge below Shop Lock. There is a legal requirement to maintain that waterway fit for boats of 12’ 6” beam.Previous threads have shown CRT’s grasp on their own published dimensions can be tenuous. As with all things CRT this is more likely cock-up than conspiracy and I think perhaps stems from the maintenance of the published dimensions by operational staff concerned with real time issues rather than asset management staff with an understanding of the legal requirements and longer term strategy.
Just to prove the point while the GU between Whilton and Camp Hill accommodates 12’ 6” craft the Oxford between Napton and Braunston is 7’ maximum beam.
-
2 hours ago, David Mack said:
Or twice that number if every working contained two boats, both filling and emptying.
Yes, an ‘operation’ is a full cycle. -
31 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:
I received 79 notices last year for wide beams traveling through Blisworth and Braunston tunnels
From which we can deduce there are a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 316 widebeam passages from Stoke Bruerne to Braunston over the course of the year.
The latest lock usage stastics for Buckby top lock (2022) show 3815 operations. So that's at least 3,500 and a maximum of 7,000 narrowboat movements.
-
The CRT volunteer scheme certainly costs money to train and equip the volunteers, who can also claim expenses.
Not that we should worry about that in this case since it is likely cheaper than providing employees. Albeit the fact that volunteers can't be rostered may be a factor in why there was a suspension of passage over Christmas.
I think CRT have the balance about right in prioritising around 4 hours of each week for widebeam passage through Braunston and Blisworth tunnels. Although I doubt widebeams account for as many as 1 in 20 movements through the tunnels which is what that broadly equates to in terms of time. Albeit noting that if you're going the same way as a widebeam then you aren't necessarily restricted.
@Lady M were you planning an early cruise through Blisworth tomorrow?
-
I think the majority of winter moorings are probably taken by non-liveaboards. That's certainly the case where my boat is currently moored.
A winter mooring is clearly a home mooring based upon CRT's own definitions. Yet it doesn't directly qualify for a licence rebate under the new charging regime. It could of course be built into next year's winter mooring prices but I'm not optimistic that it will.
-
It's a result of there having no been no widebeam passages available between 22nd December and 3rd January due to staff shortages over the Christmas holidays and as the canal is closed south of Stoke Bruerne after this weekend this may be a very necessary window for those craft heading southbound.
In normal circumstances there is provision for a maximum of two widebeams in each direction on Tuesday and Thursday mornings.
-
2 hours ago, Rob-M said:
Perry Barr...?
Yeah, must be. -
4 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
I can’t fault that one,particularly like the idea to drop down Farmers Bridge and then work around to and up the Perry Barr Flight,
I may have slightly expanded upon @Arthur Marshall’s question. It does involve a cruise down the Staffs & Worcs to Stourton but that also means he’ll get to go through Bratch locks.I think the Stourbridge and Dudley route is far and away the best approach to the core of the BCN. Nothing much to write home about on the B&F and I’m not mad on Wolverhampton locks. The others have their moments but they’re the wrong direction for Arthur.
-
I propose a core route and possible detours along the lines of:
Access the BCN via the Stourbridge and Dudley canals with possible visits to Stourbridge basin and Hawne basin.
Head round to the BCLM at Tipton and take a trip into Dudley Tunnel with the DC&TT.
Carry on into Birmingham city centre via any combination of old and new main lines and it possible take a trip up Oldbury locks to Titford pools. Moor in Birmingham city centre.
Leave central Birmingham via Farmers Bridge and then probably Ashted/Garrison for Star City moorings.
Ascend Perry Barr and Rushall flights then explore the top end of the BCN including possible visits to Anglesey, Norton Canes and drop down to Walsall basin.
Contiune round via Wednesfield and then exit down the Wolverhampton flight.
Penkridge, Stourbridge Town and Wolverhampton stations are all easy for the canal. Penkridge and Wolverhampton easy for trains from the NW.
Obviously you could do the whole thing the other way round.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, magnetman said:
It is an interesting situation.
Some slightly more enlightened people might suggest that an increase in volume of Boats in general is a basically Good Thing for survival of a canal waterway.
If the present situation in one's life involves a Boat too wide for the area or perceived as too wide then questions get asked and perhaps improvements to the navigation can be made. Improvements which would be beneficial to everyone regardless of what kind of Boat they have. Sometimes people moaning can help with these things.
I know that nobody likes the dreadfully awful wide bean canal Boats and this is a valid position for a number of different rather obvious reasons. However if one temporarily removes oneself from the immediate dislike of something which is after all incredibly difficult to like one can come to a realisation that these horrible monstrosities may actually be having an overall positive effect in terms of the ongoing viability of the waterway.
As long as they aren't covered in endless random scrap with piles of old gas bottles and rusted bicycles as well as randomised small diesel tanks and open petrol cans on the towpath and hersute old pissheads shouting and/or ranting at everyobody it might actually 'be alright'.
Shiny Boats can be Good Boats. It has been known.
Specially if the CRT hit them in the goolies and charge more money for the pleasure of owning such a horror.
Exactly. And purple boats too.I also have a theory that the licence fee for boats up to 35’ should be halved.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
3 hours ago, IanD said:I try to see the other point of view and not cast aspersions on other boaters, unlike some others -- you included, see your quoted post...
Yes until now I haven't owned a boat, and I've never lived on one. OTOH I've travelled over most of the UK canal system -- a lot of it several times -- over the last 40 years in an assortment of boats both hired and privately owned, which I would suggest is a damn sight more than a lot of boaters have done. Maybe you've done more, maybe you've haven't, frankly I don't give a damn -- but you sure do seem determined to keep stoking an argument for no purpose.
And please, *please* stop repeatedly trying to make out I've said something I haven't, it's getting tedious... 😞
Do you not recognise that adding a ‘disppointed’ or ‘rolling the eyes’ emoji to the end of a post - particularly about someone else’s choices - is a horrible behaviour? As is starting a response with a <sigh>? It isn’t compatible with being tolerant of others’ points of view.
I’m not so daft to think that there aren’t some issues but I will always defend the right of a craft meeting the navigational dimensions to be able to navigate the waterway in question. And I’ll always challenge anyone who claims that wide boats shouldn’t be on waterways that are legally required to be maintained to facilitate their navigation. I genuinely can’t think of a northern waterway that a wide beam can access that doesn’t fall into that category.I’ve done that many times on this forum; mostly in relation to the GU. It isn’t just you.
-
5
-
28 minutes ago, IanD said:
Why do you suggest that, when I said precisely the opposite?
Not all Northern canals are wide, as I'm sure you know -- but on the wide ones, widebeams are no problem, as I've said several times now... 😉
I really don't understand why you keep on digging at me here -- all I'm saying is that inconsiderate boaters in widebeams cause more inconvenience to others than ones in narrowboats, because they're wider. Do you disagree?
I'm sure that you (and other posters on CWDF) are a considerate boater, so obviously none of this applies to you 🙂
It’s because you continually cast aspersions on other boaters based on what I suspect may be fairly limited experience and knowledge.
Which are the northern canals that aren’t wide that have problematic wide beams?-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, IanD said:
Because often a narrowboat breasted up to a wideboat sticks out too far, especially if there are also boats moored opposite -- which there often seem to be at services... 😉
Absolutely nothing wrong with wideboats in the right places (where there's enough space for them), they've got a lot more room inside than narrowboats which is why people buy them. The problems arise when they're on crowded stretches of canals with lots of moored boats and restricted channel width as a result, or when moored too close to bridges or bends -- which they often seem to be... 😞
Are you suggesting that wide beams shouldn’t be on the northern canals where you’ve presumably experienced these problems first hand? -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
36 minutes ago, IanD said:I'm not being rude, this wasn't pointed at you (or any other considerate boaters, narrow or widebeam or CCer), it was aimed at the boaters who ignore both the rules and courtesy and common sense and moor (or cruise...) where is convenient for them regardless of whether it's inconvenient for others.
And when the idiots do this, it's usually more inconvenient for others if they're in a widebeam because it's more of an obstruction.
You're not stupid or an idiot, so I'd have thought you'd agree with this fairly obvious fact... 😉
Which is exactly what I said -- the builders are supplying what most of their customers want, with the emphasis on the internal fittings and fixtures and space, and mostly ignoring the engineering and hull underneath because nobody cares... 😞
Hardly surprising if you look at how boats are promoted on websites and at places like Crick and in reviews, loads of stuff about kitchens and "ooh, look at that!" features, very little about the things that make a boat nice to navigate in. Those of us who actually care about things like that might despair, but most new boat customers couldn't give a sh*t... 😞
I doubt you’d start a response with an audible sigh in a face to face meeting with a group in the pub.The point was that a boat moored stupidly is a boat moored stupidly. Whether it’s a widebeam or not isn’t relevant to that fact.
There are lots of circumstances where a particular shape or size of boat or the attitude or size of crew can be an impediment to others.In some circumstances a 70’ boat squeezed on the end of a mooring impeding a junction, a lock landing or a winding hole is more of a nuisance than a 50’ boat would be. But we don’t get excited about 70’ boats here because they conform to the collective notion of what a ‘proper boat’ might look like. Not only that the numerous pairs of 71’ 6” x 7’ 0.5” boats moored abreast on the GU are definitely OK despite the fact it’s only officially a 12’ 6” wide waterway north of Berkhamsted.
If we’re worried about CRT’s funding issues surely we should be welcoming boaters to the waterways rather than tutting at the shape of their cabins.
None of us have any claim to the waterways, and even less to be self appointed arbiters of what is right or wrong. It’s of ultimate benefit to us all to get boats onto the canal in the first place. Then comes the issue of how to manage the consequences.
-
6
-
1
-
1 hour ago, IanD said:
<sigh> are you seriously suggesting that a 14' widebeam moored stupidly is no more of an obstruction than a 7' narrowboat moored stupidly?
Regardless of permitted dimensions, [stupid+bigger] is worse than [stupid+smaller]. For example, if [stupid]=[moored all day on a water point] then you can usually breast up to a narrowboat, but not usually to a wideboat. Yes this has happened to me.
If you're not stupid, no problem either way... 🙂
Why are you so rude? -
13 minutes ago, IanD said:
Very probably, also the boaters I speak to (who see the same problem) tend to be round here.
OTOH when I've been travelling round the system -- mostly Oop North in the last few years -- I've encountered widebeams moored (and travelling...) so as to make passage difficult on numerous occasions. Yes narrowboats also moor in stupid places (near bridges and on bends) but they cause much less of an obstruction when they do. Sorry but that's just fact, not any kind of prejudice... 😉
Widebeams on wide canals or other places big enough for them, absolutely no problem, live and let live.
So it’s just boats that inconvenience you. No need to distinguish the type. And presumably if the boat is within the permitted dimensions all is good.
-
7 minutes ago, IanD said:
Personal experience, and talking to other boaters, and CWDF. Social media also but this is rather less reliable, as any fule kno... 😉
When boating where though?
I’m on the GU between Berkhamsted and Birmingham every month, often more frequently, and I haven’t noticed any significant changes in the numbers of wide beams of the move. In a routine day I’d expect to encounter 0 or 1, with 0 being more likely than 1.
I don’t doubt some people do get inconvenienced by them. I’ve had minor delays further south where they are more prevalent; a certain amount of which is because those on the move often seem under-crewed.
It made me wonder if your experience was skewed by towpath observations around London.
-
40 minutes ago, IanD said:
To repeat -- if inappropriately/badly moored/steered widebeams weren't becoming an increasing PITA for other boaters, there wouldn't be so many complaints about them, on CWDF and elsewhere. The same applies to CMers.
Considerate widebeam owners and "real CCers" feel rightly aggrieved at being lumped in with the gits, but this is unavoidable 😞
License fee discussion, yes. Alleged hatred of widebeams is what this thread was about, and upsetting/disturbing other people is precisely the issue here.
Is your evidence of increasing levels of annoyance caused by widebeams gained from personal experience or from the comments of folk on CWDF or other social media?-
1
-
hydrogen boat with UK fuel cell completes testing
in General Boating
Posted
The technology may be but I don’t think the process has been used to make steel in any large volume in the UK until relatively recently. I don’t think it’s the reason Vauxhall cars were crap. That’s got far more to do with protection, or lack thereof.
Anyway it’s not what this thread is about.