Ray

Thanks for the replies. As I mentioned before, I recall that something similar happened last year and corrected itself. I shan't be at the boat again until the weekend when we aim to take it out for a couple of days. travelling with someone who has installed/repaired several of these boilers (and has one on his boat). We'll light the boat's stove and that together with the warmth from the engine heated calorifier adjacent to the bolier may encourage it to spring into life. The boiler probably does need a service as it is five years old now and hasn't been serviced yet. Mind you, it hasn't seen that much use! I'll report back after the weekend.

I visited the boat yesterday for the first time since October last year. I turned on the gas and the electric and lit the hob with no problem. I attempted to light the Alde boiler. I could get the light on the panel to flash and then go out whilst I held the knob down. I could (not always) turn the knob to the relevant setting and the light would flash briefly again before going out. I recall all these things being quite normal. However, the boiler refused to fire up no matter how many times I tried it. I recall I had the same or a similar problem around this time last year but the boiler eventually fired and behaved for the rest of the year. This time I can't hear the ignitor click in unison with the light flashing which is what I think I used to hear. Does this indicate that the ignitor has failed? Is there anything else I can check when I next visit the boat? Many thanks.

Angle has been welded to the side panels of the hull such that the inside of the angle faces downwards and towards the outside of the boat. The spray foam coverage has not reached the inside face of the angle with the result that water, from wherever it may have come, is condensing on the uninsulated steel and dripping down the reverse face of the plywood cabin lining which it has turned black. The water also appears to have permiated through the plywood and is showing up as deep discolouring of the front face of the plywood. The discolouring affects the rear two thirds of the cabin including the rear walls of cupboards. There has been no evidence of water on the cabin floor, suggesting that the amount in the bulge was relatively small (compared to the overall bilge area). That said, the floor has been covered in vinyl and the edges of the vinyl have been sealed (to the side panels) but the (white) sealant hasn't shown any discolouring. The boat does lay completely horizontal in the water for various reasons. Consequently one would expect the damage to be worse on one side if water in the bilge had gathered on that side. However, the damage is roughly equal on both sides. We have only removed part of a panel on one side of the boat in order to try to understand the cause of the discolouring of the panels.

Would that apply if there was a large quantity of undiscovered water in the bilge? Basically, the panelling on the boat has gone black. Investigation revealed some of the steel had not been sprayfoamed and the black was due to water condensing on the unprotected steel and then dripping down the back face of the panelling and apparently seeping through the panels. The water had lay undiscovered in the bilge for a number of months, the absence of any access into the bilge didn't help. The suggestion is that the boat's owner is at fault for not removing the water from the bilge whereas the owner is suggesting that there wouldn't have been a problem if all the steelwork had been insulated. a 50% refit is at stake.

Perhaps I should have added that the question relates to a non-liveaboard boat - the boat concerned is not used at all during the depth of the winter and on the days it is used - a few days a week - it is only used for a few hours at a stretch.

What level of condensation should be expected on the hull metalwork below (the outside) canal water level if the spray foam insulation has left small areas of that metalwork un-insulated? Would the presence of water in the bilge have any significant effect on the amount of condensation?

Fixing it could be an interesting challenge as I believe the locks on the arm have no by-pass weirs and water is invariably in plentiful supply on the arm so I would envisage that they may have to add a by-pass weir before they can start work. I'd be surprised to see that lock open again within a month (or two).

And do you curse if you get to a lock with an open bottom gate only to find the pound above is dry (because the gate had been left open)? I can name you several locks where the leak is not visible unless you specifically know where to look and even that is not always possible. Having gone from the southern GU onto the Lee and back in late March a couple of years ago and found all but about 30 of the 180 odd locks against us and most with the far end gates open I was even more concerned to make sure I always close up behind me - as I always have done, havng been taught that way when I first started boating in the early 1970s.

There is a tendency for top gates on a lot of GU locks to "blow" open if the boat stops with the stern just outside the top gate to allow lock crew to rejoin the boat. This can sometime be avoided if the boat moves further away from the lock to allow the lock crew to rejoin the boat. I always make every effort to close top gates - and have been known to temporarily draw a bottom paddle to slightly drain the lock to keep the gates shut - because, as Alan has said, so many of the bottom gates leak, that if top gates are left open the pound above the lock drains. Last season we were ascending the Buckby flight late in the day and assumed we'd be the last boat through the flight because of the time of day. I even walked back down to one lock that I'd just left in order to close the top gates that had "blown" after the boat and the lock crew had departed for the next lock. It transpired that we were not the last boat through the flight as one came through a couple of hours later. For some reason which now escapes me I had cause to walk back down the flight the following morning to find a drained pound above the lock with the gates that I'd specifically ensured were closed. Last week I moved a boat in Milton Keynes. I was very surprised to see five other boats moving in the short time that I was on the boat I was moving. Both these instances tend to indicate that there is no rime or reason as to how many boats will be moving or when and because of the number of leaky lock gates I believe it is always best to close gates unless instructed not to do so or there is a boat approaching the lock that I am just leaving. Why do we close gates when we can see a boat approaching from behind and then not do so when we can't see the same boat, that may be just a few seconds from coming into view?

I have to admit that when we initially installed the stove on our boat we only added an extra layer of plywood - I never even thought of adding fireboard. Our stove is in a corner and positioned diagonally. However, there is a small cupboard between the bulkhead and the forward most rear corner of the stove at the front of the boat. It was only when I experienced how hot the inside of the cupboard was continually getting - through ceramic tiles and two tickness of plywood - and reading various posts on here that I decided to revisit the area. All the tiles were removed and fireboard - which I believe is obtainable in 4'x2' sheets from B&Q (although I managed to acquire somebody else's leftovers) - was fitted over the plywood and the tiles fitted to the fireboard. I was most grateful for the information obtained from this forum. Perhaps we should accept that the person to whom the OP refers was blissfully ignorant of the facts and simply trust that they have now seen the error of their ways rather than (as it appears to me) knock them for doing something that the more learned recognise as unwise. Or am I wrong?

Very many thanks to all involved, from whatever side of the mooring bollard and may this indicate a fresh approach by CRT and a chance for some of the CRT knockers to accept that they (CRT) sometimes deserve a break.

Perhaps CRT should take note of their lock usage figures for the last few years which in the SE area appear to suggest less rather than more boats using the canals in the area and nowhere near the 8000 suggested. Likewise their latest reasoning for the proposals seems more to indicate a determination to implement them rather than any attempt to take on board at least some of the comments made to them by respondees to the consultation. I cannot believe that it is normal for something to be put forward for consultation and no reason found from responses to make any changes to the original proposals. This is what CRT would have us believe. As Alan has indicated above, as someone who summarised 50 of the responses. the view that I got was significantly different to that which as been implied by CRT. Maybe we should offer to undertake the monitoring of the trial sites for a period and see if CRTs view of the impact of their proposals is the same as ours!

That's not to say that the new brooms should ignore the wealth of experience that no doubt exists wtihin the organisation or they could find themselves spending bucket loads of money unnecessarily.

We have NRVs on both inlets to the calorifier. I even fitted a pressure reducer on the cold feed to the calorifier in case the inward rush of water was managing to be forced well into the area of the hot water and cooling it down. In the end we upped the thermostat value on the engine and the problem seems to have virtually disappeared. The only time we didn't have a problem was when we ddn't use any hot water after we moored up - i.e. left the washing up until the following morning.

I think there have been some posts on here about Victoria Park and problems there recently. Im surprised that there's space at Padington. We found it full of Winter Moorers when we tried to get in there a couple of years ago. I'd suggest that you grab the first spot that looks likely as you approach Little Venice and then set off on foot to see what else is available a bit closer in and move up if you can otherwise you may go past the only mooring and end up cruising on for literally miles. We spent the night on the boat near Mile End and there were several others moored there. However, that was during the summer when the towpath was quite busy. Talking of which, you do have to be aware of the speeding cyclists some of whom seem to see the towpath as the cyclists equivalent of the M1.

I got it from a motor factor - Beta didn't seem to think it was needed. Unfortunately the paperwork is in the boat and I won't be going that way for a few weeks. You should be able to remove the current one and take it with you you'll find they should be able to match it. From memory te depth of the one I got was a shade less than the one Beta supply. Don't forget you'll almost certainly need to make a new gasket as well. I'll try to remember to dig out the details for you.

I had problems with my calorifier / Beta 43 combination. I tried most things , all recommended on here. I seem to have finally solved the problem by changing the engine thermostat for a 82º one. The consensus here was that the water just wasn't getting hot enough during the day to overcome heat loss through the calorifier's insulation overnight.

I am aware of a fair bit of the GU where large lengths are piled and some of that runs on from VMs. Much of the MK pound is like that so why would anyone complain about an absence of VMs in the area? From the top of (southern) GU lock 34 (bottom Seabrook) to the top of Marsworth flight (lock 45) there is piled bank all along the way and hardly any of it is unusable for mooring. There is also quite a bit of mooring in the long pound part way up the Stoke Bruerne lock flight (albeit I think all of that is restricted time wise but I don;t think is posted as VMs). I appreciate that hirers may not be aware they can moor anywhere but to the best of my knowledge they weren't consulted as part of the consultation. As those consulted presumably have varying lengths of experience, they'd know this wasn't the case and yet there seems to be this underlying concept that we have to use VMs - that's "have to" as in ignore any suitable adjacent mooring space. I just wondered why? We like to moor close to the bank if we can but we've been known not to on many an occasion. As I said in the OP, this isn't about the consultation (nor the DPA), it is about what appears to be a concept that you either moor on the VMs where you want to stop or you move on to VMs somewhere else even when there may be perfectly good mooring that isn't declared as VMs within a few yards of the end of the VMs

Having collated a number of the responses to the recent consultation document on SE mooring restrictions for CRT I have become puzzled by what seems to be a view that people will only moor on VMs. To my mind there is plenty of space adjacent to a number of the VMs mentioned in the proposals so why the need to worry generally about VM moorings? What is it specifically about visitor moorings that seems to give people the impression that they may be the only place to moor? Is it that necessary for people to have to moor that close to a bridge or exit from the towpath onto a road? In fact how many people routinely moor overnight (or for slightly longer) and only use VMs? What is the difference between mooring to one side or the other of a notice welcoming boaters to a specific VM assuming the bank is in a similar condition in both places? I recognise that there may be an issue for some deep drafted boats and that in the olden days where towpath condition wasn't generally as good as it tends to be currently VMs enabled you to get closer to the bank. Have we really got to the point now where people won;t walk even a hundred yards to the nearest bridge/pub? It isn't a criticism, just a puzzled general query and totally isolated from the consultation so please, no comments at that.

All the complaints must have been received in 2013 then. Coat, gloves & tin hat.

I think more people would have faith that CRT intended to do as their document says i.e. regularly visit the said sites if they were doing just that within the terms of the current mooring restrictions. Their proposals impose a far bigger burden on them that only needs to be seen to not be working to "encourage" some people to ignore the (proposed) restrictions. This means that those who would normally comply with the restrictions and have already been potentially inconvenienced by the change in the restrictions will still not see any benefit from the change. At present I can moor on a 14 day mooring for any length of time up to 13-14 days. a few hours either way isn't going to generally matter as I doubt I'd stay anywhere that long, but I may wish to stay for about a week. Under the new restrictions a 48 hour mooring could be as little as (say) 36 hours because of the timings of the visits by the presumably volunteer rangers. Consequently, my realistic staying time is not much more than a day without potentially being overcharged. The dislike of the proposals is as much the thought that it may spread elsewhere - the southern GU is now far far quieter than I can recall it in the previous 15 years and current monitoring of boats is actively reducing the number of problem boaters and areas. Hence the question over the need for the change let alone the accuracy of the stated reasons for the change.