NBDensie

Our itinerary early July last year... Sat: Woodham Locks, moored near Chertsey Road Bridge Sun: St Johns Locks, good mooring 1/4 mile before Brookwood Locks Mon: Brookwood & Deepcut Locks, moored at Mytchett Canal Centre Tue: Odiham Wharf Wed: End of navigation/Odiham Castle (lovely spot and good moorings) then back to near Eelmoor Bridge : good moorings at end of main Farnborough runway Thur: Frimley Lodge Park - good moorings Fri: Deepcut & Brookwood locks, moored at Sundays moorings. Sat: Day off Sun: St Johns & Woodham Locks

We can recommend the Red Lion at Hopwas - we were there on Monday. Excellent Doombar and Bombardier and well prepared standard pub fayre plus. A better prospect than the Tame Otter opposite.

Disagree with the naysayers. We did the Basingstoke for a week last year getting up to the end of navigation near Odiham Castle. We had a great time and thought it was one of the most attractive and interesting canals on the system with tragically few visiting boats. The Deepcut locks are hard work but the Mrs and I managed fine, mainly on our own. The restrictions on lock passage limit one's options but a bit of pre-planning solves that. The only problem that cannot be got around is if your boat is of more than average height - a couple of bridges are (IIRC) 5ft 10in above the water. In return you have a week or two cruising what must be the most attractive canal in the south (or south + midlands). The mature woodland scenery is stunning with only occasional views of the densely populated Surrey commuter belt. I challenge anyone to name a more attractive spot on the canals than the isolated end of navigation with its crystal clear water through which you can see fishes swimming around your boat, a large number of dragonflies are in residence, and the whole area is overlooked by the historic castle. One must commend the staff in keeping the canal open and the efforts of the various bodies responsible for the canal in fixing the major problems it was had with the semi-dereliction of the Deepcut locks and the landslips. The canal has its problems. The main (only?) source of water I believe are springs at the Greywell tunnel, water shortage is always a serious risk. The lock gates need to be recaulked every day passage is permitted to minimise leakage. When we were there in June last year we were told there were only 3 or 4 visiting boats on the whole canal - so visit the Basingstoke, its a great experience!!

Generally true, but not so for the big locks on the Trent & Mersey from Shardlow to Burton, particularly the 12 ft Stenson lock. Open the boatside paddle first and you will be pushed violently to the other side. Its much quieter if you gently raise the farside paddle first and dont touch the nearside one until the lock is getting full.

Sounds great. Who's your insurance with please?

Do you arrange weekly internal inspections?

As someone who cruises for periods of up to 3 months a year I am very concerned that conditions for house insurance on unoccupied houses are getting more and more onerous. The Halifax latest Ts&Cs require unoccupied houses to be internally inspected at least once every 14 days! I for one would be very wary of asking a neighbour to do this because it seems unreasonable to ask anyone to take on such a potentially vital responsibility. Does anyone know of a more reasonable insurer? Or do people just ignore these conditions and hope for the best?

That is an assertion that is certainly open to argument. "Bona fide navigation" is a criterion of motive. Is one's objective to travel from A to B and onwards, or is it to stay as close to A as possible perhaps because one's life is based at A? Unfortunately motive is a little difficult to measure. However various prima facie tests can be applied, one of which is distance travelled. Others could include place of work (if any), where one's children are at school, time spent in area, overstaying in particular places, long term history of movement etc etc.

In the real world guidelines are frequently enforced by licencing. If you behave in a way counter to a Registration Body guidelines you may be refused a licence. Then operating without a licence is illegal.

Operating the waterways for navigation is a charitable purpose. Of course CRT could have a large licence fee for CCers who are navigating, as for anyone else, but that is a matter of finance. It's a rather different discussion to that of the principle of gaining benefit outside the charitable purposes.

Unfortunately in the real world if the Guidelines cannot ultimately be enforced they will be ignored by a significant number of people, especially those whose main interest in the waterways is cheap housing. I would argue that the ultimate sanction for not following the Guidelines is backed by law under "bona fide navigation".

Though from a practical point of view it's the Guidelines that are the more important as failure to meet them could in the end lead you to losing your licence.

From a practical point of view it is up to C&RT to implement policies that are compatible with its interpretation of the Act. It is very likely to do this in consultation with interested groups. Anyone who disagrees would ultimately have to get a judge to make a ruling, presumably on the basis of "reasonableness" .

Section 17 ©(3) states (in summary) that the Board can refuse to issue a licence unless (i) the boat has a mooring OR (ii) ... engaged in bona fide navigation.

It doesnt need to mean anything for boats with a home mooring. Under the law such boats dont need to be engaged in "bona fide navigation". It seems to me it is painfully clear that relying on the Law for practical guidance is a waste of time, and using the detailed wording of the Law to justify particular ways of living on the canals leads no-where. What is important is the C&RT Guidelines which I believe could usefully be strengthened and more rigorously enforced. Then any boaters who feel that the Guidelines are incompatible with the Law are welcome to put their case before a judge.

Why are you only concerned with supporting boaters with respect to part of the law? I shouldnt use the term "bridge hop" as it does not appear in the Law. The key wording in the law is "bona fide" but unfortunately the Law fails to define it. I believe this is the critical issue rather than 14 days. I want to stay near a little village where my children are happy at school. So I moor for 14 days within walking distance of the school, and then "navigate" to another "place" 100 yards up the canal and stop for another 14 days after which I turn around and repeat. Do you believe I am meeting the Law's requirements and so worthy of your support? If not why not and what changes would I have to make to my strategy to gain your support?

I dont think people would have trouble with the view that if "the Board" have given permission then remaining in one place for more that 14 days is "reasonable in the circumstances".

The law says this regarding the provision of a licence: "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." You support boaters who follow the law. In determining whether you support some individual boater what criteria will you use to determine whether the vessel is being used for "bona fide navigation" and "remaining continuously in one place" ? If I want to bridge hop I could make a case that I was meeting the legal requirements. Would you support me?

There is a reasonable means for people to live on boats and remain in a relatively small area when they need to for as long as they like - proper residential moorings. I agree that in some areas these may be in short supply but that is a problem that is amenable, at least in principle, to a simple solution within the geographical constraints.

I agree that exactly the same reasonable rules on overstaying should apply to both CCers and people with genuine moorings and believe they should be followed in their spirit not merely the details of their wording. The disadvantage of clarity is that piss-taking can be justified on the basis of detailed textual analysis rather than common sense. However as I understand it a problem is that restrictions on CCers are enshrined in law which makes the devising of a general strategy much more difficult.

I am afraid I disagree. If CRT need to create new rules to implement their interpretation of the Law, they have every right to do so. Indeed that is the only way that they can enforce their interpretation. From Richard Parry's comments and actions so far I am at the moment confident that they will do this in way that will benefit the bona fide boater.

CRT have every right to interpret and enforce the Law in what they consider a reasonable way. If someone considers the CRT interpretation is not reasonable ultimately their only recourse is to convince a judge. If they are successful it is then up to the judge to identify a reasonable interpretation of the Law.

Here we go..... 1) The heat energy stored by the boat is some constant "a" multiplied by the temperature inside the boat T: H=aT 2) The rate of loss of heat is proportional to the difference between the boat temperature and the outside temperature - Fourier's law. dH/dt = -b(T-Tout) where b is a constant, t the time in hours from start and Tout the outside temperature. dH/dt is the differential (calculus!) of the heat with respect to time. 3) Tout varies over time, assume linearly: Tout = 5 - 5t/12 so when t=0 Tout =5 and when t=12 Tout=0. So dH/dt = a dT/dt = -b(T- (5-5t/12)) Rearranging gives: dT/dt = -bT/a + 5b/a -5bt/12a 4) This is a differential equation whose solution is: T = c.exp(-bt/a) -5t/12 + 5+5a/12b where c is a constant. 5) But when t=0 T=24, so 24=c + 5 + 5a/12b c=19-5a/12b So T = (19-5a/12b)exp(-bt/a) - 5t/12 + 5 + 5a/12b 6)Now we have to determine a and b We can find a by experiment: Measure the boat temperature, turn on the heating and determine the fuel H1 to raise the temperature by 1 degree. Then a = H1. 6) We can get b/a as at t=12 T=18 So 18 = (19-5a/12b)exp(-12b/a) +5a/b Its a bit messy to work out b/a from this : I will leave it to you to sort out. But now we know a, b/a, and therefore b 7) The fuel needed to maintain the boat at T when the outside temperature is Tout is b(T-Tout) per hour. I hope the maths is correct, my brain hurts!

Of course it depends which models you are talking abou. Garmin have a wide range of devices with different facilities. For driving I would use a TomTom but on the boat (or hiking) it isnt the right device for me. I use my hiking Garmin etrex-10 whilst cruising. I dont usually need to know my location nor the best route to my destination but find other data of great interest such as speed, time since set-off, time spent stationary, average speed overall, average speed whilst moving etc all of which the Etrex-10 provides. The practical use is that it is then easy to adjust the throttle for maximum efficiency.

You cant win with fires doors. I left them open last winter and the fire rope seals expanded making it impossible to close the doors sufficiently to flip the latch. After the first few fires with the doors leaking smoke despite being pushed close with a lump of wood the rope eventually squashed enough to close them So I am trying leaving the doors closed this time. I visit the boat from time to time so it sounds like it would be sensible to check the doors arent sticking.