Momac

I agree . Some people were in the habit of buying day tickets on a pay as you go basis which in fact lasted two days as the day pass started on one day and finished on the next day . C&RT have effectively lost that income. The one week ticket isn't a bad price but many people are not going to be happy about paying for a week and use for that for a day out (even though they can afford it). I did buy a one week pass earlier in the year and didn't get to use it more than a day on the boat nor did anyone ask me if I had a license , but the license was for peace of mind. I think if something happened at C&RT fault and the boat was not licensed it would not be possible to make a claim against C&RT if the boat was unlicensed . C&RT, by being greedy and increasing fees extra over inflation , have almost certainly reduced their income from boats kept in marinas that are off water.

The C&RT fee is the same regardless of whether ''canal and river'' or ''river only'' are selected on the online application form.

C&RT do ask where the boat is kept on the online application form. The explorer charges also variable depending on boat length, as per other licenses ,and go up to large boats so I don't think such boats can be defined as portable.

I understand that . My boat is off water when its in the marina (in my case).

It's an automated on line purchase and not the cheapest license by a long way. And yes I believe the reduction for rivers only is a legal requirement. A quote from another forum (which may be out of date) reads as follows ....... ''''the British Waterways Act 1983 Section 4(1). It states: “. . . the Board may register pleasure boats and houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment of such charges as they may from time to time determine: Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 ''

I have been considering the 30 day explorer license as it may suit my needs . The explorer license may be economical compared to a 6 month river license which I usually buy. There doesn't seem to be a 'rivers only' version of the explorer license. Is that correct? Other licenses are cheaper for 'rivers only' but apparently not the explorer license . Is there a justification for the absence of a rivers only discount with the explorer license ? I have written to C&RT on the subject but might get a faster feedback on here .

Nether lock hydraulics and probably others have been damaged on more than one occasion due to people cracking the gates open too early , probably a lot earlier than you or I would do it. And probably holding the button pressed in too long. Can't really fault C&RT for dealing with abuse by fitting controls that prevent damage from abuse.

There is no such thing as a zero emission boat , ship, car , bicycle, pedestrian, horse or anything else. This where the EV promoters have made a mistake. If they claimed low emission then people might believe them.

The ladder on the wall is the safer bet. The old controls were better but I think people abused them (accidentally or otherwise) ..... so they made the lock operation by the boater a more automated process.

Tricky at the best of times

Awful weather. Surprised there have been any fishists to be seen ............ and presumably there been not many boats moving.

I bought 20 litres of ready mixed glycol coolant not so long ago for £24 including delivery. So the waterless product is ten times the price.

From the interweb ............ Cetane number is a measure of combustion efficiency. The higher the number, the better potential for each and every droplet that is sprayed into the combustion chamber to burn and produce power. The more efficiently the fuel burns in the combustion chamber, the less possibility to produce smoke and byproducts of combustion that the exhaust after-treatment system must manage. The more of that fuel that burns, the better power output and better possible fuel mileage you can expect to achieve from the engine. https://blog.amsoil.com/what-is-cetane-and-why-does-it-matter/#:~:text=How does increased diesel cetane,a measure of combustion efficiency.&text=The more of that fuel,to achieve from the engine. .

Does higher cetane not result in better performance ?

Higher cetane and lower emissions as you say . If its available and only 10p a litre extra and that is offset by better fuel economy why are we not using it in boats already? https://www.crownoil.co.uk/products/hvo-fuel-hydrotreated-vegetable-oil/?utm_keyword=hvo&gclid=CjwKCAiAlNf-BRB_EiwA2osbxVLGOuNO2DqBdOWWD56JLYP_PNluYg4pOi0HU6K9DGv_dkkCYx3tyxoC43gQAvD_BwE .

Now you mention it I wonder if fuel polishing systems on boats will need to become the norm. I am guessing a small electric fuel pump and a filter could do the job. Or perhaps something more sophisticated (and possibly more expensive) like the following https://www.marine16.co.uk/diesel-dipper-2/dieseldipper .

I use a desiccant dehumidifier . I am presently setting the dehumidifier to run for 8 hours once or twice a week and that seems to be doing well. I am able to get to the boat very easily which obviously doesn't apply to everyone. https://www.appliancesdirect.co.uk/meaco_8l_desiccant_dehumidifier_electronic_control_dd8l/version.asp?refsource=apadwords&mkwid=scjuTZv7N_dc&pcrid=291303606193&product=DD8L&pgrid=57444875886&ptaid=aud-431500191577:pla-447035768813&channel=googlesearch&gclid=Cj0KCQiA8dH-BRD_ARIsAC24umbe7RyakmZV4FhmrzbuXeACAdEQE6InUBqIRjGC2lNy7Mq3o_8dubAaAvzJEALw_wcB I have tube heater on a frost protection thermostat set to 5 degrees but tube heater scan be bought with a thermostat built in . I also have a small heater near the calorifier . Not really trying to heat the boat but just protect against frost. The dehumidifier creates a little warmth and a little air circulation. The fridge is switched off and the door ajar and also all doors in the boat ajar .

That's the general idea but it only works with tiny amounts of water .

I am guessing the fuel in aircraft is consumed fairly promptly and has a fast turnover Unlike a boat where fuel can sit in the tank for many months. I suspect the time factor is significant.

Google finds that to be something in bio diesel The Clearwinner additive I have been using is similar to fuel set in the way it works . Incorporates water molecules rather than causing water to drop out. But it only works with microscopic amounts of water . Water from a leaky filler cap seal isn't going to be absorbed. Perhaps a change back to Marine 16 would be in order as I suspect bio diesel content is only going to increase in the future.

I am no expert on the subject But its the first I have heard of adverse reactions to additives. Its not clear to me what type of additives are RCR referring to ?

Is that referring to additives used by the boat owner for diesel bug Seems a bit speculative

The use of a fuel additive cant possibly do any harm and just possibly may help prevent a diesel bug issue. I use a fuel additive on most occasions that I add fuel. Presently using Clearwinner LA88 and have been for a couple of years . Its relatively economical https://www.clear-winner.co.uk/products/marine/ sales@clear-winner.co.uk

I thought the barrier would be raised before low tide to retain water on its upstream side . But it seems not.

Must say nappies are incredibly cheap . Perhaps for those who have engine bays that are not swilling with fluids or don't want to use nappies there are pads available that will absorb oil selectively , or all fluids if preferred . https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Oil-Fuel-Maintenance-Chemical-Spill-Absorbent-Pads-Workshop-Garage-Safety/111546604067?hash=item19f8b21a23:g:FWIAAOSwQJhUjrK5