rowland al
-
Posts
516 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by rowland al
-
-
Just now, Alan de Enfield said:
the Common Market became the EEC, which became the EC which became EU ………………………………………………...
Couldn’t agree more. If you allow a few people to have too much power - well look what’s happened throughout history.
The thing is, I don’t totally blame the politicians, after all, most people are vulnerable to bribes. (Caveat alert - Not all politicians, especially those who don’t get paid).
-
3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
Lunacy :
The law journalist Joshua Rozenberg has reported cases where a surcharge levied against a young person became the responsibility of their parents - even when a parent was the victim of the crime in question.
This all went wrong when it became wrong to smack your kids when they were very naughty.
Reading that back, what I just said sounds very wrong these days. It never did me any harm anyway [twitch - twitch].
So Is this all progress then?
-
1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:
A man has been fined for being Drunk In Charge :
Maybe this is one way to stop the 'booze-cruise' problems.
I’m not sure those who run hire boat companies would like that idea. After all, if it wasn’t for them we’d all be stuck in a marina - apparently ?
I must admit there is a limit to these kind of things though. If they are doing criminal damage to other boats for example.
-
16 minutes ago, rusty69 said:
I'd think I had very poor judgement
That is the point really. It’s about trust really. Of course you also need to trust the person who recommends someone. I suppose that might make recommendations less reliable from people you don’t know on the internet.
-
29 minutes ago, Laurie.Booth said:
Very dangerous for anyone to recommend any workman/engineer etc...
But isn’t that all we have really? I’d prefer to be assisted by someone who has been recommend than do a Yellow Pages lucky dip.
-
8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
A couple of weeks ago the non-tidal section of the Trent (From County Hall Steps to Cromwell Lock probably averaged about 15-20 feet.
Mostly 10-12 feet some reasonable runs of 'high 20's' but we bottomed out in a couple of places at about 4 feet (around Burton Joyce area).
I'd suggest having a minimum of 60 feet of chain on the Trent (assuming you are 100% chain) - you can always add a length of rope to the end if it proves to be insufficient.
That’s what we have (with a long length of rope). Phew!
I am right in saying it’s better to have an anchor deployed at the bow on a narrow boat? Also, if you do get stranded on a mud flat, how can you avoid getting sucked in?
2 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:That's the whole problem on a river, I doubt anyone knows the maximum depth unless they sounded it AND the depth is likely to alter with scouring and silting. This is why I am not going to get to hung up on anchoring lengths as long as I feel I have enough.
Yes, but what is ‘enough’? Lol.
20 metres of chain and rope sounds ‘enogh’ - I hope.
-
8 minutes ago, mayalld said:
?
The beauty of it is that I am just me, and can do as I please.
Nobody pays me any licence fees, so I consider myself free to conduct my business not subject to the public scrutiny that CRT are subject to.
Funnily enough it’s what I try to do except I try to keep clear of ‘formal’ routes as they tend to put peoples backs up. Not to say that formal routes never work and informal routes always do.
-
13 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:
That is about all you can know. The Thames Conservancy used to publish the minimum navigation depth but I can't find that. Here is another source that looks about right. https://www.waterways.org.uk/waterways/canals_rivers/river_thames_non-tidal/gauge_information
For anchoring I would always assume double the depth but then I would gradually let the full length of rode out in an emergency and not faff about worrying it its 2 or 4 metres deep at that point.
It ranges from 5ft 6" above Teddington to 3ft above Kings lock but this is a river so any depth is the minimum and you could well find it much deep on the outside of bends or in narrows and weir streams. However any deep parts are likely to be comparative short sections a dragging anchor would soon reach a shallower part. No good if its dragging because it does not match the bottom or it weight and rode are too light.
Thanks Tony, but there is a bit of a difference between max draft allowed/recommended and actual depth though. We’re looking for the maximum depth, not minimum for anchoring.
I’m guessing most of us with an anchor on a narrow boat, we just use what was supplied with the boat or, like me, ask someone else and hope it’s long enough. ?
-
29 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:
I have cruised the Thames, Severn, Avon, Trent, Great Ouse and don't have a clue how deep they are, I don't expect many people do. I also don't have 5 shackles of cable on my anchor
Well Google says the Thames is about 20m deep in the estuary. Conversely, when we went through Henley we shared a lock with someone who was punting.
Thats about all I know!
-
1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:
And that is another worry with boat that now have a high level of mains powered equipment. Historically boats were wired out by boat fitters working on only 12 volts, now a lot have 230 volt systems with no regulation who can carry out that work.
Yes, it makes you wonder if the boat spent much of its life on a shore line. That’s why I said a full safety assessment would be wise.
I personally don’t like 240v on a boat , that’s where the ‘marine’ bit is relevant though.
-
36 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:
Ok caravans' needs are the same as boats then.
Getting back to the point, what caravan qualification are you proposing boaters look for in a technician to solve their charging problems?
Not the same needs, but similar.
The point I’m trying to make is that newbies need to take advice they are given on an internet forum with a pinch of salt.
If they are given incorrrct advice and injury or death occurs, will your insurance cover you?
I’m not denying there are clearly some very knowledgable people on here BTW. Even you Mike.
As regards qualifications, you probably know more about that than me.
-
1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:
You said caravans, not motor caravans!
Anyway motor caravans also rely heavily on mains hook-ups at campsites, so don't have the same performance demands as CCing boaters.
Erm, some boaters rely on hook ups too. This might surprise you but some people do live off line in caravans and motor caravans. They may use an external generator to provide 240v but then again, so do many boaters.
Most of the important issues are similar. However I don’t think you have to pay for a safety examination every 4 years!
-
3 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:
As I have already said diesels are better if run loaded, especially some direct injection ones that tend to smoke when on idle. By raising the revs to maximum charge and keeping it there you maximise the load on the engine and get a faster warm up. This in turn helps to minimise piston blow by and oil contamination by combustion products and condensation.
It also maximises the charge available to the batteries and as battery charging is a well reported problem any extra you can get is worth it.
I’ve always run mine on tick over (when static), I’ve not had any - erm no I’m not tempting fate!
I was told it was something to do with it causing glazed barrels. It does make you wonder if there is much evidence behind the stuff we are told. Can’t beat first hand experience, so long as it doesn’t kill you.
1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:Well the same comment remains valid. Can you suggest a caravan technical qualification to suit?
I dunno what caravans you've been looking at however. I've never seen one with a set of four Trojans and a Beta 43 engine to charge them.
No, but motor caravans have an engine and a domestic battery(s).
-
1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:
I don't think you have missed out anyone.
More pertinently, I don't think there is ANY formal qualification for a marine technician that means s/he will understand narrow boat electrics in depth.
Actually I wonder how much the ‘marine’ bit matters? Isn’t a boat just a large caravan floating in water? (hopefully)
-
4 minutes ago, Loddon said:
Ok to start it off I have listed below all the qualified and competent marine electricians I can think of;
? That’s not good! Lol
-
1 minute ago, Tanglewood said:
I think the answer gives rise to the idiom, 'how long is a piece of string?' It's the length of whatever ties it to your boat that is important, and the knot you use to do so, as can be attested by all those unfortunates whose knot slipped whilst at anchor.
If you know the maximum depth you are going to encounter (given tidal and flood conditions) you can calculate a sensible anchor chain length.
The problem is not knowing the maximum depth, and it’s solvable providing you have that information .
-
1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:
It is not just a case of charging fine at tickover. Diesels like to run with some load so by setting the revs (and 1200 to 1500 is based on "typical" engines not old ones) will normally be better for the engine by putting more load on it AND giving a faster warm up. This is true for any engine, its just that yours probably ticks over at around 400 rpm or less and will be running fats at 600 rpm.
Whilst I agree professional help is probably a good idea I do not agree they want a properly qualified Marine Engineer UNLESS the said engineer has several years small boat experience having stopped playing with big ships. I do not know any inland engineers or electricians that I rate who hold marine engineering qualifications but all are qualified in a related trade like vehicles or agricultural equipment. The problem for the OP is finding one who knows their stuff and will not rip them off. That is not easy so asking here is probably a good first step.
If your batteries ever go flat you may hit the problem associated with large highly geared alternators where the load on the alternator prevents the engine revving up or in extreme cases may stall it.
It would be useful to have a list of engineers who people here can recommend. When I first started out, it was a minefield and I got caught out. ?
I feel for any newbies as a result.
-
Ours is ‘quite long’ but it’s an interesting question. On canals there is unlikely to be a need for an anchor. On river and sea crossings you need to know the maximum depth (and adjust for highest tide).
Not many ‘canal’ boaters will ever do a sea crossing (unlike you) but I guess you’d need a chart for the particular crossing to decide on the correct length of your anchor chain.
I’ve been on a few inland rivers including the Soar, Thames and Trent (tidal and non-tidal). There were a few occasions I wished I had the anchor at hand especially when I was caught in floods. I now always have it on hand for rivers. Getting something jamming my prop was all I needed to learn that lesson.
So my question is, is there any information out there providing the maximum depth of inland rivers (bearing in mind that an allowance for tide and flood is also needed in the calculation)?
-
34 minutes ago, mayalld said:
Could it be that the change in attitude mirrors a change in performance from CRT?
This rather mirrors what I said in the other thread. The site doesn't have a pro-CRT or anti-CRT stance.
It (collectively) has a balanced view, that reflects the current performance
Yes and no. Maybe everyone just wanted to prove I’m wrong. ?
In all seriousness, it is somewhat worrying and as Naughty Cal asked, what are we going to do about it? Are you going to give up on pushing forward your FOI request for example?
-
Is it time to eat my hat yet?
Having caught up with the posts here, I do detect a slight change in attitude to C&RT as an organisation over recent months. I just hope everyone who has a strong view feed it back to C&RT.
I’ve found Mr Parry will sometimes answer directly to correspondence (fair play) but whether the organisation acts upon promises is another thing. I hope so.
-
7 hours ago, MHS said:
That surely depends on your alternator and the size of the battery bank. With our 175A alternator there’s little need to run it at the revs you mention. However it is better for the engine not to sit at tickover for hours.
We move most days so not an issue for us anyway.
It also depends on the type of engine and ratio of the alternator pulley to the crankshaft pulley.
If it’s got an old thumper engine like mine you can’t get anywhere near 1200 rpm, but with the correct pulley ratios the alternater will charge fine on tickover.
I think the best advice to give is to ask a professional qualified (and experienced) marine engineer to assess the whole situation and personal requirements. In particular there may be safety issues to address first!!
-
16 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
It's an ongoing saga, Paul.
With regards to refusal of two requests as vexatious and non-compliance with statutory and advisory timescales -
A 'test' complaint regarding one, together with supporting evidence, has been lodged with the Information Commissioners Office -
I have asked -
- That the Information Commissioner rules that C&RT failed to respond within appropriate timescales both to this request and its subsequent request for review.
- That the Information Commissioner takes note of C&RT’s general delay in responding to requests and requests for review and takes appropriate action (I quoted Dave Mayall's request and others in the public domain as examples).
- That the Information Commissioner overturns C&RT’s decision to refuse this request.
- That C&RT be required to provide the information requested in part 3 and part 4 information.
- That the Information Commissioner rules that C&RT may not use the reviewing officers decision as a reason to refuse any other request (I think that answers Alan Fincher's earlier question).
I am not expecting a decision from ICO until the new year.
With regards to the allegations of "harassment of many staff" made by Tom Deards, (C&RT's Head of Legal & Governance Services and Company Secretary), his threat of legal action and his demands that I remove articles, Mr Deards refuses to say which staff or which articles .
Thus, Mr Deards accusations remain vague and I am put in the position of being unable to comply even if I chose to do so ...
I have put this to him and the silence is deafening.I suspect false accusations of harassment against individuals is a criminal offence, or at the very least a form of slander or defamation (civil matters). So it’s probably wise that C&RT are cautious before going down that route (not to mention the bad PR they’d get).
-
3 minutes ago, Paul C said:
I'm not sure whether the "harassment" angle has been duly considered or judged upon - as I understand it, it was because Allan chose to name members of CRT staff and make it a personal attack of sorts, rather than sticking to the main issues - please remind me of some details if I've got this aspect terribly wrong.
I guess Allan is the only one who can truly clarify that. I understood he only used information already in the public domain.
Also, I don’t beieve C&RT followed through their threat. Maybe because it’s unfounded or maybe they are a just a kind organisation.
-
16 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:
An interesting question.
Last time I looked at "whatdotheyknow" CRT were effectively stone walling all Allan's requests, old and new. (I'm happy to be corrected if that were not the case).
I'd be interested to hear any update that he (or the Information Commissioner) has managed to persuade them that they have a liability to do otherwise.The ‘vexatious’ card is one thing, but accusing someone of harassment to avoid being open with information is another.
This is a registered charity being mainly paid for by public money, surely no place for creative accounting, withheld information and hidden minutes.
-
1
-
How long should your anchor chain be?
in General Boating
Posted
I’m glad my narrow boat doesn’t weigh 2840 tonnes (even with me on it)