Adam

They are automated, check the board visually but most importantly visually check the flow. The boards and lights don't match up that well. The lock will still let you pen through.

We used Robert Burton (Burton Marine) for a BSC, he is from Dumfries but happily travels and works that area. He was the only 1 of 4 that got back to us.... Pleasant chap.

Is it a banned app? How about tinder, Grindr, park for night and Duolingo?

I think that's brilliant! Have you heard of the Dull Men's Club on Faceache? They would appreciate this!

Is this the one that's already built as a sail away? Extremely good value for money whatever it's little shortfalls - I can see why your wary, if it's too good to be true it probably is. If it is the already built wide beam, pay a deposit and balance on collection/ delivery so no issues going bust during the build. If the company didn't have a reputation I would be very very wary.

We had our narrow boat surveyed at Dunchurch pools - out and In £195 including vat.

Weird judgements and pushing the interpretation of the law is exactly how the BWB came to charge for end of garden moorings. I was under the impression Tony won his Case his case in 2014 and the carting off of his boat is recent, presumably for a different matter?

That statement applies to 90 percent of "constant cruisers" London is just the top of the iceberg, people not interested in boats living on boats as cheaply as possible - I side with them in a way, for a lot of people it is their only real option. It isn't CRTs fault but it's certainly their problem.

Do you have a link for the case outcome Alan? The above confirms the legality of "ghost" Moorings though doesn't it. I.e a farmer charging a couple of hundred quid a year (with invoice) to moor to his riverside riparian land (CRT have no say , as long as if moored there it wouldn't impede navigation. There would need to be infrastructure either... Mooring pins and a plank is still a mooring. Meanwhile the "moorer" enjoys themselves between two London boroughs. Hopefully however it it was to be abused, CRT would seek to close the loophole

CRT/bwb vs Anthony Dunkley circa 2014 as I recall. I have had a quick Google for the case outcome but can only find the defence. It is out there somewhere I read it recently. The salient points,(as I recall, somebody may be able to tell you more / find the judgement) - he had a home mooring but didn't use it , a private river mooring - he cruised up and down the trent, staying 14 days in each place - they revoked his licence and refused to issue a new one, tried to section 8 his boat but the court decided they shouldn't of revoked the licence , and must reissue one

They tried not to be satisfied in one case, the judge told them to stop being so picky. High court I believe so precedent set

That does open the question what is the case on a river navigation not scheduled In the act and requires a canal licence to cruise, the 3 that come to mind are the Don, Aire & Calder if you were only to boat between the locks on the river sections ? Have they failed to transfer it for you before?

Legal or illegal - it doesn't matter as it's not enforced. It could perhaps lay in the same category of law as a Scotsman being allowed to be beheaded within the walls of York or whatever the old law is. Don't worry, CRT haven't enforced a bye law for circa 20 years.

The licence should be transferable as per the 1971 act, again unless it's been amended/ repealed. I'm sure iv seen this stated somewhere else too? The canal and river licences aren't transferable (but arguably the river part should be?)

Interesting, I thought that might be the case - as aside I note a river licence is transferable unlike it's canal counterpart. Could you point me to the thread - I already had a search prior to this thread

I note from light enjoyable reading of the 1971 BW act... the attached clause for river licences / pleasure boat certificates. It isn't a option on CRT's online licencing portal to licence for 3 years, but from a flick through subsequent acts i can't see this section amended / repealed. It could be quite the loophole for missing 3 years worth of increases if you get in there before April?

The lengths they go to for a permitted overstay

Something needs to be done to tempt boats up there, at minimum cheap winter moorings or extending the 14 day rule to 28 to get the Cmers flocking, or at a maximum giving some dispensations out to marina operators / private investors to entice them into the area. Both would require much better maintenance, note the "calder valley" facebook page of the CRT lads that maintain the Western HNC & Rochdale is always filled with posts of them fixing the HNC, something tells me the resources are being concentrated. Do we have have figures for passages over the Rochdale?

https://canalrivertrust.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapTools/index.html?appid=b46e3e0bda4a44a0be267df7674139a5 Type the reference in there and it will show you the location

The subsidence causing the closure was reported by a boater (he mentioned on the Rochdale canal group he had seen / reported it), so likely no foul play from CRT.

Another response from crt after asking for confirmation "I have spoken to the team leader on the Rochdale Canal. He has advised that the width was reduced due to subsidence at several locks along the network leading to a maximum beam of 9ft5. Kind Regards, " Looks like the thin end of the wedge. More likely floating towpath related than 4 and a half feet of lock subsidence.

Doesn't the Rochdale have a 99 year condition attached through the millennium funding? I guess they will see how long they can keep it closed on safety ground (years and years) and see if anybody mentions it. I can see why they want to close the west side, 90 percent of boats don't make it past Tod

Response from CRT... I have asked for clarification, it seems that's the "I haven't actually checked what you asked" response Thank you for contacting Canal and River Trust. The waterway dimensions listed on the website are not temporary. If a canals maximum dimensions vary this will be noted so boaters know how far they will be able to travel along the navigation.

Flicking around the CRT website I noticed they have the published width on the Rochdale as 9ft6 now, I was aware it was never restored to the full 14ft but used to be 13ft2 or so? Is there a single particular restriction that reduces the dimension significantly, and is it a temporary measure? I assume not given that's now it's published dimension.