doratheexplorer

Only one narrowboat there . The first is utterly unsuitable for a couple as a liveaboard. The second is not what they're looking for, suitable really only for rivers, is clearly being sold as a project. The third is outside of their budget even before paying for the survey. It's also clearly being sold as a project. It has no fixed bed or solid fuel stove. It looks to be a wreck. The chance of there being a sound hull under there is next to nothing. This is my point, why buy some old knacker where you don't know what the score is, for more money than a bigger, tidy boat with brand new overplating and you've been able to oversee the work? This is a boat which has been completely stripped out for refitting and the owner has given up about a quarter of the way through. Utterly unsuitable to live on without spending thousands, and it's already over budget. It doesn't even have a kitchen or toilet!!!! It's 40 years old and smaller than 45' All you're doing here is proving my point, that the £15k boat in front of the OP looks like a great deal.

Could one of the people saying walk away direct to OP to a £15k which would be a better choice?

I would say there's a world of difference between those two lengths for a liveaboard. 45' is pretty much the shortest length I would consider, as it just about provides room for a kitchen, living room, bathroom and permanent bedroom. With a 30' some kind of problematic compromise is needed. Typically either the loss of the living room and lust a small chair next to the kitchen, or the loss of a fixed bed and having to make up a bed every day. I would rule out either option for a liveaboard. You would also have very little storage space, when you've got all your worldly goods with you. I don't think non-liveaboards always really grasp what this means. Most people don't want to get by with 2 pairs of knickers!!! The OP has an opportunity to buy what sounds like a thoroughly decent boat for £15k. As I keep saying, at that price and length you're usually looking at the worst of the project boats, needing a total strip out, refit AND replating. This is the cheapest boat currently at Whilton: https://www.whiltonmarina.co.uk/used-narrowboats/details/5193.aspx It's just been reduced to £17,500 having been at £22k. It's a Springer from the 80s with original hull thickness of 5mm. It's 32', has no fixed bed, an extremely basic kitchen, cabin height is too low for most men to stand up in and in all probability will need overplating any time soon. There isn't even anywhere to hang clothes. I wouldn't go anywhere near it as anything other than a hobby boat. If I lived on that I predict I'd turn to the bottle in a big way within a few months. It's dismal.

1. Is there such a thing as a 45' Highbridge which is suitable for a couple to liveaboard? 2. Your example of a 25 year old boat which only needs spot welding is likely to need in excess of £25k. Have you seen the dross which is selling for £15k? I'll say again, £15k for a solid, freshly overplated boat is an absolute steal right now.

I'd say for a budget of 15k this seems great. At that price, you're usually getting a total wreck. You've described a reasonably clean and tidy boat with a good engine. And you're able to get it for 5k! I'd snap their hand off for it. Spend 10k on the replating and you have a solid vessel and you know exactly where you are with it. You could very easily buy elsewhere and spend 15k on a boat which starts sinking a few months later, or has terminal engine problems. Don't worry too much about insurance. There are 3rd party policies which don't even need a survey, if it comes to it. Oftentimes, an insurer will wriggle out of a claim on a fully comp policy anyway. At the budget end of the market, there's a fair argument for not bothering with fully comp. I think some on here are very unaware of the absolute dross selling for 15k these days. It's all very well saying "save up until you have £30k" but that's easier said than done while trying to live and pay rent. You'll probably be able to save the whole £30k more quickly while living on the boat. Once the overplating is done, you would surely sell the boat for around the purchase price if you needed anyway, and upgrade to a fancier boat in a few year if you want.

Which conditions were you treating for?

All new medical treatments, are by definition, new. At some point, they have to be implemented. Your idea is that we wait a few years to see if any of the trial cohort suffer side effects. Of course the big problem with that approach is that c.80 million people will die. That's a pretty big side effect of your post. I am very well aware of the innovations around some of the new vaccines. I have a degree in Biology and a Masters in Public Health. I work in neither field now, but the general principles still rattle around my head.

This just isn't true. I can see why it seems true. But the delay in rolling out vaccines normally is usually in progressing through stage 1 to stage 3 trials. Once the large scale stage 3 trials are complete, the vaccine can gain approval quite quickly, not years down the line. So the 'risk' with the vaccines you've already had are much the same as this time. With covid, the money and expertise which was been provided has meant that each stage of the trials has overlapped with the previous stage, but the time given to each stage has been the same as usual. Also, manufacturing started well before approval, meaning that roll out could happen instantly once approval was gained. I'd have some sympathy with your position if covid only caused mild symptoms. In that case, the tiny risk with a vaccine may be deemed unreasonable. But covid KILLS PEOPLE!! I can't state this strongly enough. The chances that a vaccine is more harmful than the virus it attacks, is so vanishingly small that the idea deserves nothing but derision. It's akin to staying indoors in case the sky falls on your head. I partly blame hollywood films like I Am Legend and World War Z for making people distrustful of medicine. A thought to leave you with: smallpox killed approximately 300-500 million people in the 20th century alone. The vaccine arrived in the early 19th Century. Every single one of those lives would have been saved if there was a widespread vaccine roll out in the 19th Century. Logistics and money stood in the way of that, but also people didn't want the vaccine because of misinformation propaganda which was circulated at the time. Eventually the WHO made a concerted effort to eradicate it, and now we all complacently live in a world where nobody has to worry about that awful disease any more.

I wrote a long and detailled response to this, and then as I sent it, it disappeared into the ether! Feeling very frustrated now!

It's interesting that you describe yourself as a non-risk taker. You do understand that catching covid is a risk, yeah? And these vaccines reduce that risk by 90%. Covid is KNOWN to kill people. It's also known to cause long term effects. Further side effects from covid may manifest after several years. There is evidence of permanent organ damage. And you're willing to risk all that, to avoid a possible risk from taking a vaccine which has had the same rigourous trials as any other vaccine, but has been fast-tracked by carrying out those trials in tandem and by diverting almost the entire global resources available onto this one thing??? Also masks are clinically proven to work in the case of covid and many other diseases spread in respiratory droplets and aerosols. It's why medical staff were routinely wearing them for many procedures well before this pandemic. Posting daft videos from conspiracy websites doesn't give you any credibility at all. Try some actual peer reviewed research. To try and explain: Yes, the holes in masks are bigger than the individual virus, but the virus isn't carried in the air like this. It's carried in respiratory droplets, which are far bigger than the holes in the mask. So when you wear a mask and breathe out, those droplets remain stuck in the mask. By the time the mask has dried out, most of the virus has 'died' and any that hasn't will remain non-airbourne and stuck in the mask, hence why we are encouraged to use disposable masks or you wash them regularly. You call yourself a pro-vaxxer. You're not. You're an anti-vaxxer, a freeloader and a conspiracy theorist. At least admit it. If everyone took your stance, there would be no solution to this pandemic until it had run its natural course. That would likely mean tens or hundreds of millions of deaths worldwide. That's your plan. Why don't you own it.

I'd do the same. If CRT tried to move me on in the current circumstances, I'd love to see them actually take formal action. I just cannot see CRT attempting to enforce the 14 day rule at the moment. They're pretty hands off in winter on a normal year, so why would the try anything this year. Then again, CRT never cease to amaze me with some of their decision making.

It doesn't come close to my preferred cruising area. Typically I cruise between Sharpness in the S.W., Naptonish in the S.E., Nantwichish in the N.W. and Burton in the N.E. In a typical year I will, at some point go a bit further. This year I made a foray to Chester (my first try at single-handing Beeston lock), and another to Whaley Bridge/ Bugsworth, although my cruising has been reduced in months this year, because I didn't go anywhere until June. I tend to alternate with years heading vaguely north with years heading vaguely south. Thanks for the link though, it's the first time I've seen that. Not seen any previous reference to it by the government or anyone else. It still doesn't change the fact that your interpretation is bizarre since there's no reliable way of telling when you cross into a new area. The obvious interpretation is the one I gave. The word 'area' in the guidance is deliberately kept vague because the encouragement is to not travel, but without enshrining it in law. As is our government's way. But back to the point about the CRTY guidance. Even if you're right, the guidance for cc'ers is highly likely to lead to boaters not complying with government guidance. As I've already said, the common sense approach would be to suspend the 14 day rule. In fact, I'd advocate suspending it for the whole network for the avoidance of doubt amongst boaters.

No way. They could have easily used the word tier. They didn't. They used the word area to minimise travelling. Your interpretation is just bizarre because few people will know where their 'tier area' ends. I'm in tier 3 right now. The local authority in this area is Sandwell. More widely I am in the West Midlands combined authority area. I have no idea which of these is my 'tier area'. And I have no need to know. All I need to know is that I'm in tier 3, which means I don't travel unless it's for one of the prescribed reasons. Following CRTs 14 day rule is definitely not one of those. Which is another reason why this so called 'common sense' which CRT are expecting us to use, doesn't extend to themselves. The common sense thing would be to suspend the 14 day rule for everyone within tier 3. At this time of year, who even cares? Maybe CRT are just worried about people demanding refunds for winter mooring permits, assuming anyone still bothers with them?

As usual, CRT are making themselves look remote, uncaring and foolish. The guidance for Tier 3 says; "avoid travelling outside of your area, including for overnight stays other than where necessary". This is not outside of your tier, but outside of your area. Area is not defined, but in the circumstances, it makes sense to define it in a similar way to "place" from the 1995 Waterways Act. This means that anyone in Tier 3, in order to comply with the continuous cruising guidelines, will have to breach the covid guidelines. What's more important to CRT? Enforcing a poxy waterways act (which allows longer stays where it's reasonable), or keeping your customers safe from a deadly pandemic? Remember what the act says: "the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances." If it's not reasonable to stay put right now, then when the hell is it??

These threads always put me in mind of this sketch

An excellent safeguard, as long as the PRV always functions as it should. p.s. that looks like MY kettle?!!! p.p.s your stove is wonky. p.p.p.s you have an eco fan. So you views are null and void. p.p.p.p.s your stove surround doesn't get my thumbs up. It doesn't look safe from pyrolysis.

An understatement there. But water not circulating in a pipe system, well that not too hard to imagine is it? I was unclogging gunk out of a pipe 2 days ago. It was a sealed system, so logically there was no way for it to be there, yet there it was ?‍♀️

Yes. PRV are known to fail. Usually by venting too often. But they can go the other way.

Ah, PRVs. Those things which never go wrong... Wondering why you have added this sentence which makes it look like I said something which I didn't?

I think you're right. But I would still worry about it. So I prefer not to have one.

I thought long and hard about upgrading my Squirrel to have a back boiler. The stove currently heats my boat fine, so the reason for me would be for the hot water. I'm sure if I had it installed, I'd love it while it worked ok, but the issue for me is when something goes wrong. I don't think I could ever sleep soundly with a system in which water could be boiling in pipes and with the chance that the pressue build up wouldn't be able to escape. With a pump system, the pump could fail at any time, and it's depleting batteries. With a gravity system like Tom has described above, if something goes wrong, the gravity circulation slows or stops and the water starts boiling.... the consequences could be very bad indeed. I'd rather find other ways of heating my water.

I require a good connection for work. I'm video conferencing every day pretty much. I've never needed to do more than tether my phone.

I do this too. Works fine for me and obviously cheaper than getting a second contract just for wifi.

Perfect! But I wasn't really tipping her off about a visit today, just to give her enough time to empty a can of oust around the house. My plan is to sneak up all secretly like, when she's least suspecting.