DonCorleone
-
Posts
20 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by DonCorleone
-
-
14 hours ago, Señor Chris said:
Is it feasible to miss out Goole and do Selby - Trent Falls on the outgoing tide then up the Trent to either Keadby or West Stockwith on the incoming tide?
Yes, perfectly feasible, but also potentially very hazardous. You must have suitable weather and river conditions that both you and your boat can cope with, and the appropriate pilotage and tide time information. From Howden, just above Goole on the Ouse, to Keadby (Gunness Wharf) on the Trent you will be sharing the river with commercial shipping, and for the whole of the journey you will have to cope with the all of the many effects and characteristics of the area's tides. Pilotage and/or pilotage information and guidance is available from a retired former Humber, Ouse, and Trent barge and tug skipper on the Thunderboat forum.
-
Strictly speaking, boats making use of the canals are obliged under the law to be licensed, whereas boats enjoying the common law public right of navigation still applicable to the Trust's river waterways satisfy the law's demands by simply carrying a annual registration certificate, which for some reason known best to the Trust's decision makers is misleadingly presented and sold to boaters as a 'Rivers only Licence'.This throws up something of an anomaly in that whilst promoting the myth that the registration certificate the law demands for using a pleasure boat on a river waterway is a type of discounted Licence, the Trust does not insist on compliance with the National Access Agreement provisions on 'Licences' in respect of boats moored in marinas located on rivers under their control.
-
2 hours ago, dmr said:
We are 70 foot 8 and 3/4 inches and getting to like the North more and more, can we fit through Thorne Lock?????
...............Dave
Possibly, maybe, but certainly worth a try, and you would have to go down the lock stern first with the stem in the mitres of the top gates - the cill is very short and stays covered with the lock drained right down.
If you can't get through Thorne you can by-pass it via Selby or Goole and the Ouse down to Trent End, but only in conditions suitable for both you and your boat and with all the appropriate pilotage info.
All the advice and guidance you need will be available via the Thunderboat forum.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, zenataomm said:
And of course this wouldn't have been a problem for anyone as they wouldn't have met any other breasted up boats coming South.
Correct on the first count, and entirely wrong on the second. There were pairs of empty boats from Wellingborough going back to Brentford to reload with wheat and they too ran abreast up Slapton Fields and Marsworth, and from the Cowroast to Cowley Lock.
-
1 hour ago, dmr said:
.................. ........ have you used the canal system and have you ever boated on the Rochdale ????
Yes, I have done a bit of boating on the 'canal system', including occasions in the early years when I went along on the forced passages through the Ancoats locks in protest against the Rochdale Canal Company's abandonment Bill. It was hard going, but very satisfying after having finally made it by bodging up collapsing lock gates with bits of old carpet and wood in much the same way as the C&RT are now attempting to mackle-up Lock No. 45.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, roland elsdon said:
................. we used to run breasted 14 ft beam almost all the way from london to berko, but that was in the 80s.
................................ The historic limit of wide boat navigation is berko.
In the days of regular commercial traffic it was customary, everyday practice for pairs of empty boats returning to the Midlands coalfields to run abreast from Cowley Lock to the Cowroast, and from the top of Marsworth to Grove Lock.
-
6 hours ago, dmr said:
Yes, but the canal was abandoned and some of it was built over and its reservoirs sold off. The restoration was an epic task involving demolishing a building, raising the level of roundabouts and bridges and finding a new route under a motorway etc. Its now a 12 foot wide and 3 foot 3 deep waterway at best, but the real issue is that its full of crap, has limited water, and very few boats use it. CaRT are enthusiastic about boating, but unless boats actually use it there is not much CaRT can do, its regular use by boats that keeps a waterway navigable.
...............Dave
Your explanation of the difficulties encountered with a boat of approximately one quarter of the displacement of the boats the canal was built for doesn't hang together, any more so it would seem, than do the gates on Lock No. 45.
Demolishing buildings and raising the levels of roads crossing the line of the canal are not issues relating to navigable depth. If your assessment that the canal is "now a 12 foot wide and 3 foot 3 deep waterway at best" is in fact correct, it would be more accurate to describe it as having been reopened to navigation whilst remaining in a semi-derelict condition rather than as having been 'restored'. The fact that "its full of crap, has limited water, and very few boats use it" also tends to confirm that maintenance standards are set no higher than whatever is needed to keep the canal in it's present semi-derelict condition.
Whilst it is unarguable that the regular passage of boats is beneficial to the general condition of a canal, the same cannot be said of lock gates which have, apparently, been left in service until they have become too decrepit to retain their shape under retention level water pressure and the influence of gravity.
-
3 hours ago, BruceinSanity said:
I was thinking about this reservoir argument whilst steering today when the penny dropped. The typical marina is only a few feet deep. Even a socking great big and deep one like Mercia has very little impact on the pound between Dallow Lane and Stenson, where balancing is a problem because of the discrepancy between the two locks.
In assessing/calculating the effect on pound level of taking 'x' number of lockfuls of water from a pound, the depth of the pound and the depth of any connected reservoir capacity at the same retention level has no effect whatsoever. The one and only factor which does have an effect is the total water surface area of the pound plus any directly connected reservoir capacity at the same retention level.
-
3 hours ago, mayalld said:
Of course, "sound business and commercial practice" could just see CRT deciding that they don't want that additional reservoir capacity, and putting in the stop planks.
Whilst I concede that the likes of the C&RT may well do as you suggest, such action on the part of a navigation authority forced into restricting the use of or closing down their canals through lack of water by mid-Summer can hardly be described as "sound business and commercial practice".
-
2 hours ago, dmr said:
.....and have had superb support from CaRT getting our big deep boat up here.
The terms 'big' and 'deep' are relative, to say the least. The canal was built to take 74' x 14' 2'' size Mersey Flats loaded down to 5' draught. The fact that you needed ''support'' from the navigation authority to get something approximately half as wide and half as deep along the canal is hardly cause for compliments or praise.
-
On 19/07/2018 at 13:08, mayalld said:
And do you feel that this means that your share of maintenance should be less?
Assuming that you're speaking of canal maintenance, the answer to that is I have no responsibility or obligation to contribute anything towards it other than through taxes.
-
On 18/07/2018 at 12:47, mayalld said:
What DonCorleone, Higgs and co habitually ignore is that no matter how hard they argue that this charge by CRT or that charge by CRT is wrong, and we shouldn't pay it, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I've said nothing of charges related to marinas in this thread or elsewhere, apart from pointing out that sound business and commercial practice would see the owners and/or operators of marinas situated alongside the Canal & River Trust's canals charging the Trust for providing additional reservoir capacity.
-
1 hour ago, mayalld said:
Except you seem to feel that your share of the ANNUAL cost is less than others, because you are in a marina for 6 months.
This is news to me. I keep a small outboard powered open boat in a private boathouse.
-
2 hours ago, nikvah said:
But if the lock below the marina is not maintained (at a cost) the water in that pound drains out and the Marina is a big dry dock.
All locks require maintenance, irrespective of whether or not they are in the vicinity of a marina.
-
11 hours ago, nikvah said:
Just reiterating but...CRT supply the water that floats your boat, this costs them. No locks, no level, no marina. The license is only a contribution CRT investments and govt funding keep us afloat.
Far from 'costing' the Trust, the water held in marinas sited on their canals costs them nothing, and in reality is additional reservoir capacity serving the pound in which the marina is located and any lower level connected pounds. From both a practical and a commercial standpoint, the marina owners/operators should be charging the Trust for canal water storage.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:
My recollection was that as Mr Dunkley was alternating between his home mooring and the towpath opposite, his argument was that he was complying with the T&C requiring him to move every 14 days, and distance was not relevant. He was moving so this why CRT got the bloody nose. They were wrong.
So CRT responded by modifying the T&Cs to make HMers comply with CC rules.
Thanks Mr Dunkley.
It appears you are implying that this man's actions have in some way inconvenienced both yourself and others, but I am at a loss to understand quite how you have arrived at this conclusion.
I believe the alleged sin was the daily use of his boat in the same few miles of the Trent Navigation without ever returning to his nearby mooring, and it was on these grounds alone that his boat licence was revoked by the Trust. Having revoked his boat licence on these highly questionable grounds the Trust's lawyers had expected the Court to endorse their intention to deprive the man of his boat, but for some undisclosed reason they were subsequently obliged to discontinue the proceedings.
-
41 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:
Correct. The T&C saying HMers can moor anywhere for 14 days current at the time of the court case was replaced with current T&C requiring CC-like cruising in 2015, IIRC. Mainly as a result of the Tony Dunkley case IIRC.
My recollection is very different. As I recall the Trust used Tony Dunkley as a test case to see if they could get away with imposing CC'ing conditions on boats which were away from their 'home' mooring, and they came away from the Court with a bloody nose after being forced to discontinue their case.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Meanderingviking said:
As you have a mooring and may be forced off it temporarily, i think you could put the case that it is 'reasonable' for you to remain in one place for more than 14 days. There is reference to this in the terms and conditions of the continuous cruising licence.
I think you need to re-read the relevant Section of the 1995 British Waterways Act, the requirement to move every 14 days applies only to Licence holders without a 'home' mooring.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, lewy said:
Thanks Guys , I need water about 4ft deep to drop the rudder as its welded to the post not bolted , on the Monmouth and Brecon canal that could be a problem as its shallow , but I will get it off and as suggested cut some off the front and weld on the rear .
perhaps then I can let my wife steer whilst I visit the Head
Drop it off and get it back on in a full lock - plenty of depth and easy to find again if you lose it !
Mooring in Marina unlicenced
in New to Boating?
Posted
Have this piece of C&RT correspondence framed and take great care of it. Any form of written material on or within which they are telling the truth is a rare and highly collectible item and certain to increase in value.