Jump to content

magpie patrick

ModeratorDonate to Canal World
  • Posts

    8,734
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by magpie patrick

  1. Surely the point of the 30 minutes max rule is to make it obvious you can't leave the boat there and go shopping or have a leisurely lunch on board. Every rule will have ways in which people can wilfully misinterprete it. "Boat must not be left unattended" - crew has a five course dinner on board. "Water point only" - operate all those thirsty appliances whilst on the water point and stay six hours... "30 minutes" - time to give someone else a go

    • Greenie 1
  2. 4 hours ago, BilgePump said:

    Not getting into politics but anyone involved with New Horizons would get double brownie points in my corner. It's been a fixture on the Macc and Peak for as long as I can remember, passed my mooring earlier this week when over there. They've been making life better on the water since long before CaRT started. Long may they continue.

     

    2 hours ago, 1st ade said:

    Many years ago I witnessed New Horizons being "launched" (OK - it was already afloat...) by a very juvenile Prince Charles - can't remember the year but ? 1980 as I'd just passed my driving test...

     It was Gordon Bailey's initiative when he was Mayor of Stockport so 1980 would be about right.  Back then (and possibly still now) each mayor had a "Mayor's project" - I do wonder how the others are fairing nearly half a century after inception. 

  3. 12 minutes ago, Cheese said:

    But 'every 14 days' doesn't mean that every metre of waterway is checked simultaneously, just that a particular length is checked at some point in any 14 days.  So a boat moving through multiple checking areas could be validly unseen for many weeks, even months. Being 'unseen' on that criterion wouldn't mean anything.

     

    The purpose of checking is presumably primarily (or only?) to pick up non-moving boats without a home mooring or those without a licence at all. I don't see how 'non-sightings' particularly help with either. It might partly support the first category by establishing that there has been at least some movement, but without a positive sighting elsewhere it doesn't give any indication of sufficient range to satisfy C&RT.

     Your first paragraph defeats your second - the boat in your first paragraph has travelled to several checking areas to remain unspotted. If it has stayed in one place it will not have remained unspotted. 

     

    There is only one criterion for overstaying - you were in the same place for too long. If the boat isn't there it hasn't overstayed. 

     

    Cruising range is a different matter and more difficult, but it would take quite some skill to remain unspotted on the K&A for example, where the entire route is walked weekly. You'd have to know what day the route was walked, what day the next section was walked etc to the extent it might be easier to comply!

     

    Finally, no court is going to accept the idea that, because CRT didn't know where you were, you must have been breaking the rules! 

  4. 5 minutes ago, Faraday Mike said:

    The milk churn can was given to the Rose  a few years ago so we painted it!!.

     

    It looks very good aesthetically, but on a website like this it will get questioned! 

     

    Are you one of the volunteers? The team are doing a grand job

  5. 17 minutes ago, Cheese said:

    I have 'not seen' about 32000 boats already today; how do you think I should log them?

     You shouldn't, and that fact you haven't logged them should be interpreted as they are not there on that particular length of waterway, ipso facto they are not overstaying on that length of waterway. 

  6. 12 hours ago, steve hayes said:

    It is a pretty poor system, in 18 months we’ve been logged twice in our Marina and once on the Severn.

    i recon we’ve had our number taken at locks, ride by loggers and walking loggers dozens of times in that same period.

    so I guess the question is why waste the time and money doing it if they’re not going to record it, or the bigger question are there two sighting systems, one public and one private ?

     

    One of the key weaknesses in the system is that there is no interpretaion of "no siting" - if a CRT spotter walks past the same spot three times and you are there on the first and last of those they don't pick up on the significance that you weren't there on the middle one - that only gets noted if they see you somewhere else. 

     

  7. 11 hours ago, David Mack said:

    One is part of a longstanding boatman's tradition; the other is an example of the post commercial carrying world practice of painting canal roses on just about any type of object.

     Thank you - that was my suspicion! 

     

    15 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

    I have a can just like that at home, bought it when I first started boating and its not very good

     no lid, no spout - almost useless as a water can!

  8. 5 hours ago, magnetman said:

    It looks like a bit like a trebuchet. 

     

    Is it a thrill ride? A travel hoist on rails would be cheaper. 

    It seems an enormous structure just to move a narrow Boat. 

     

    The original plan for this was to lift boats across the river - there was a problem to solve as the EA wanted the proposed aqueduct to be above a certain level, and this mean locking up at each end. The idea of the swing was that it would lift boats over the river at a level clear of any floods, where as an aqueduct would potentially obstruct flood levels. 

     

    The issues around the proposed aqueduct were resolved but the concept lift was then applied to a link down to the river which, when improved, would link the canal to the city centre. 

     

    There is a pedestrian footbridge in Derby city centre that swings - not for boats but to get it out of the way of flood waters - high water on the Derwent is a serious issue. 

    • Greenie 1
  9. This weekend just gone we had a trip on Rose of Hungerford - part of joint birthday celebrations (only ten days between our birthdays). This prompted some thought on my part on the history of trip boats in restoration, but I digress.... on the cabin were two water carriers, both traditionally decorated but one was a normal water can and the other more like a small milk churn. Does this other one belong to another tradition or is it just to look pretty? 

     

    Good trip BTW, and more power to the K&ACT for doing this and getting people on the water. 

    20240706_154836.jpg

  10. Just now, David Schweizer said:

     

    Yes, but usually on something not very important, and I aways double check before pressing the confirm button. Pressing the wrong digit, and not checking it could result in some sort of legal action being taken against the innocent "offender" Would you be happy if that happened to you?

     

    given my experience the legal action is unlikely - during the never ending voyage with Lutine I twice got "spotted" with emails sent suggesting it was time I moved on - for this to be initiated in error the same wrong number would have to be input three times. 

     

    For the record, my first offence was at Lower Heyford, I had moved but not far enough (through the lift bridge) and the total stay was about three weeks, the second was near Devizes and was struck from the record when I protested it has been snowing and it wasn't safe to move the boat (which CRT agreed with) 

  11. I'm currently pulling together some notes on the history of canal restoration for leisure purposes (to remove things like the Thames and Severn in the 1930s and the even earlier Bradford Canal!) and a professional query threw me a curved ball. The query came from the Somersetshire Coal Canal Society and was "how long as our canal had protection under policy H3 of the local plan" - Policy H3 protects the line of the canal as an archaeological relic and has been in place "as long as I can remember" so probably at least since 2006, but I realised I had no idea how I'd check - once upon a time paper copies of old local plans could be found in the library, but paper copies are a thing of the past.  

     

    The reason for the request was practical - it would be helpful in public debate to say how long the protection had been in force, but it set me thinking - when the history of canal restoration is written planning policy will be a significant part of that history, just as the original acts and other consents are now to the original canal building. When did restoration become a planning policy "thing"? I first worked on such a policy in 1996, to protect a route for the Derby Canal across Pride Park - but in my wide eyed innocence back then it never occurred to me that such a thing might be innovative, or that it might not be. 

     

    Does anyone else have any knowledge of the history of planning policy on canal restoration?

     

    Ta very much for any contributions!

  12. 2 hours ago, MtB said:

    Puzzled about why you want to escape Yorkshire.

     

    I thought it was nice up there....

     

     

     Can't see why anyone would want to escape Perry Barr either! 

     

    That said they must be one of the easier flights to avoid, with three other canals leading from the Walsall Level and three more from under spaghetti junction

  13. On 15/06/2024 at 17:38, zenataomm said:

     

    I (and my grandparents) disagree.  Boat registration applied to the boats' suitability.  Vagrancy laws apply to people, and were/are used a hammer to get rid of undesirables not playing the game.  It also enabled bossy know it alls to step on your boat and harass you to behave. 

     

    I don't dispute what your grandparents said, but I would dispute that one can avoid being a vagrant by not living on one's boat one week a year, or that one would become a vagrant if one lived on board 365 weeks a year - the wording of the vagrancy act is far more nuanced than that.

     

    Reading the act, one would only have to trade without a licence (pedlar), beg or be a prostitute for long enough for the authorities to notice to be charged, and it wasn't aimed at no fixed abode, it was aimed at rough sleeping among other things. 

  14. 6 hours ago, zenataomm said:


    The original boat people, although their boats were registered for domicile had to live away from their boats for a week every year.

     

    Assuming you mean working boat families they lived on board 365 days a year. That's the reason their boats were registered, to ensure the vessel met basic habitable standards. 

  15. I have just read the article - this is local to me, and the contents fall into three areas:

     

    Some of the things affect people on low incomes full stop - the cost of living etc

    Some of them are the effect of trying to live on a boat on a very low budget - it's hard

    Some of them are not accepting that other people use the canal... (including the headline)

     

    The Wilts Times often seems to have decided that liveaboard boaters are a cause celebre, I do sometimes wonder if this is simply to wind up the Bath Chronicle who tend to take the opposite view....

    • Greenie 3
  16. 9 hours ago, Mad Harold said:

    Are CRT breaking their own rules?

    ie. fibreglass boats are not allowed to use the Standedge Tunnel.

    Perhaps they are only using steel canoes.

    But they're not braking the rationale for the rules

     

    Fibreglass boats are not allowed because the tunnel profile is tight - My then narrow boat Ripple came out of the tunnel with a deep scratch that would probably have been a tear a fibreglass cabin, but a canoe is nowhere near the maximum profile that will pass. 

     

    Having been through on Ripple, I wouldn't take Juno (all GRP) through and I wouldn't have taken Lutine (GRP top) through, but I wouldn't worry in a canoe, other than whether I'd have the energy to paddle it through!

  17. Going back to Bratch and the variants on the Monmouth Canal - Bratch locks seem to be about ten feet apart, they must be at least seven feet apart to allow the top gate to swing, the sets at Fourteen locks are rather further apart partly because they're wider and the gate is therefore bigger, but the proportions as a whole are more generous presumably because they were built with side pounds rather being modified staircases. Bratch were modified before the locks at fourteen locks were built - would the engineer in South Wales have been aware of the changes at the Bratch or was this a local development? How much did information transfer happen? 

     

    I also note at least two other pairs near Cwmbran, one of which is now buried, where the canal doesn't widen out between the locks but the gap is quite a bit longer, probably around 40 feet. 

  18. 16 hours ago, Chris Lowe said:

    As I'm about to update the river navigations, does anyone have a good suggestion to start.

     

     

    I think it depends on what you mean by "navigation" but you could do worse than have a look at South Wales rivers, two things I've spotted.

     

    The Usk was navigated as far as Caerleon - there were wharves below the town bridge, it may have been navigated further. The river wasn't "made navigable" though. 

     

    Before the Neath and Tennant Canals opened there was a lock cut on the Neath River at Aberdulais, it can still just about be seen on the east bank near (and under) the aqueduct. 

     

    The Tawe was navigated at least as far as White Rock (east bank) and the copper works (west bank) - it is now impounded by the barrage and occasionally navigated as far as the Liberty Stadium - edited to add I see you've got this one

  19. On 08/06/2024 at 22:05, Mike55 said:

    Whilst the design may be unique, because there are 2 or 3 to that design they are not themselves unique. I refer you again to the Murray Walker-ism I mentioned of the "unique" F1 car being followed by its identical team mate. Again the design was unique but the car wasn't as there were 2 of them. Same here. 

     

     

    On 08/06/2024 at 22:15, MtB said:

     

    This is reminding me of Donald Trump claiming recently to be "An innocent man, very innocent". 

     

    Like uniqueness or pregnancy, innocence is not a matter of degree.

     

     

     

    On 08/06/2024 at 22:25, Mike55 said:

    Absolutely, something is either unique or it's not. 

    Mirriam-Webster dictionary 

     

    Many commentators have objected to the comparison or modification (as by somewhat or very) of unique, often asserting that a thing is either unique or it is not. Objections are based chiefly on the assumption that unique has but a single absolute sense, an assumption contradicted by information readily available in a dictionary. Unique dates back to the 17th century but was little used until the end of the 18th when, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, it was reacquired from French. H. J. Todd entered it as a foreign word in his edition (1818) of Johnson's Dictionary, characterizing it as "affected and useless." Around the middle of the 19th century it ceased to be considered foreign and came into considerable popular use. With popular use came a broadening of application beyond the original two meanings (here numbered senses 1 and 2a - my note 1 below). In modern use both comparison and modification are widespread and standard but are confined to the extended senses 2b and 3 (my note 2 below) . When sense 1 or sense 2a is intended, unique is used without qualifying modifiers.

     

    Note 1

     

    being the only one : SOLE
    being without a like or equal UNEQUALED
     
    Note 2
     
     
    distinctively characteristic : PECULIARUNUSUAL
     
    Foxton and Watford are unique, they are distinctively characteristic (note 2) of the Old Grand Union Canal and don't appear anywhere else. If you really want to be pedantic then you could claim I should have written the sentence in full "The side pound system of staircase locks at Foxton and Watford is unique to the Old Grand Union Canal" but that's a bit of a mouthful, and the rules of language do also allow us to simplify things so long as they are generally understood
     
    The Bratch system does appear on other canals (Stourbridge, Monmouthshire) so is not unique
     
    I didn't research that for the purposes of this, I just have an interest in how language evolves 
     
    Right, I'd better go and do some work, otherwise my clients might get pedantic about deadlines (and me not sticking to them)  ;) 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.