agg221

If you are heading up towards Market Drayton then do wave to our boat as you pass - we won't be on it but I am sure it will appreciate it. It's in the linear moorings just after Betton Wood (the wooded slight cutting) - the anonymous, very low, short grey boat with an odd-looking bow and a short tug deck. Would be good to know if it still looks OK (always wonder about that) but we will be finding out for ourselves next week. It should be, but there was a bit of water in the bilge for some reason last time I was there which is never a good sign! Alec

I rather enjoyed the Danni and Joe fit-out series. It was straightforward and did not dress it up. There is a lot of good content on Youtube and I do appreciat the effort some people go to - some is way more interesting than television. @system 4-50 whilst I like Blondihacks, This Old Tony is probably one of my favourites. Alec

I can think of another boat seller with similar tendencies... Alec

We draw 3'1" static, so a bit more when moving. We made it to the end of the Llangollen and the BCN isn't really too much of a challenge, except that we do pick more rubbish. We hit the odd thing underwater but the only two places we have got really stuck in the channel are the narrows before Titford Pools (gave up on that one) and the last lock on the Llangollen which has a major scour below it at the moment. Generally it is not an issue. I think the only place which might really be a problem is Savick Brook on the Ribble Link. Not sure we would clear that, although we do have very low air draught (Dudley Tunnel low) so I wonder if we could make it under the bridge while the water is still high enough. At 2'8" you should have no problems. Alec

If anyone really wants to know, this is the work I did on aerogels. Sanjeev Naik who is named at the bottom of the report led the project for me (he was part of my team). https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/260117/reporting Not my image, but this is a picture of the standard demonstration for monolithic aerogel: https://www.aerogel.org/?p=891&px=%2FClassic+Aerogel+Photos%2Ftheflower-lbl.jpg Alec

No, it's different from Thinsulate. Both have polymer fibres but in the aerogel blanket the fibres are there to carry as much aerogel as possible, rather than to be the insulating material. The thermal performance is quite different - Thinsulate is around 0.05W/mK whereas aerogel blanket is around 0.015W/mK. The trade name is Spacetherm and it is made in the US and imported. There are much cheaper sources if you look carefully (which given that I had to clad all the walls of my extension 30mm thick and the ceiling 50mm thick I was heavily incentivised to do!) but this gives the general properties: https://insulationmerchant.com/products/5mm-proctor-spacetherm-silica-aerogel-blanket-2400mm-x-1200mm-2-88m?variant=42489145622686&currency=GBP&gad_source=1 I actually ran some research projects on aerogels a few years ago. We were looking at dramatically cutting the cost of production, which is driven by a very slow process in very expensive kit. It worked, but did not go commercial as the company we were working with went under. We made up some plaster samples and pre-fab panels which were particularly effective. The monolithic material is very weird to handle - it weighs nothing, has an opalescent look and sucks all the oils and moisture out of your hand. The classic trick is to put a piece of it over a blowtorch with a flower on top and show it doesn't damage the flower even when the back face is glowing. Alec

Rather late to this thread, but the material you would use is silica aerogel blanket. This has the aerogel particles embedded within a thermoplastic polymer matrix. Performance is compromised compared with monolithic aerogel, but it is way easier to handle, being fully flexible, robust (monolithic aerogel really isn't robust at all) and cut with a hot knife. Thermal performance is about 3x better than Celotex. I had to use it when I built my extension. It was very expensive, time consuming to install (although would be much easier than anything other than sprayfoam in a boat) and quite dusty, but it did work and I will do it again when I uprate the insulation in the old parts of our house. Alec

Another company you could try is Matt Gregory. You would need some idea of the total weight, and would probably need a wharf where you could get right alongside with the full length of the trailer but if that can be met, it may be a cheaper option. Matt has a 120 ton hiab and trombone trailer so the whole lift at both ends can be done with an integral vehicle. You will need to define both where it is coming out and where it is going in - Harefield Marina may be an option for the latter as I think you could get full length alongside at the wharf by the shop. Alec

I suggest that you start by temporarily clamping a piece of steel sheet in your intended location and see if it gets hot enough. If it does, great, if not then plan B. My Plan B would be to try clamping a piece of aluminium sheet in place instead. I would go for something around 10-12mm thick, over the whole top and overhanging to the side as desired. That will conduct the heat far better so if the steel doesn't get hot enough, this is more likely to. You can improve heat transfer still further by sanding the top of the stove flat and making sure the metal face to face contact is as good as possible - a layer of stove black will not noticeably reduce the conductivity. Assuming the steel doesn't get hot enough but the aluminium does, I would then encase the sides and underside of the aluminium in stainless, probably 2-3mm if I could find it lying around. A simple folded structure will do, although if you weld up the corners it would look neater (there are stainless arc rods available). This is because the thermal conductivity of stainless is surprisingly low, so the heat will then mostly transfer to the top, rather than be lost through the base or sides of the overhanging plate. The plate could be a drop on fit with a frame around the existing top, but if you screw it on as Tony suggests it will be more secure and have better heat transfer. Alec

Large yellow flame suggests fuel is getting through but it is not getting enough air. I would be gently wire brushing on the inside, then putting a mirror on a stick down there to see where all the holes should be and poking them out with a needle. This is a somewhat regular requirement for our 66M. Alec

Do you have a big yellow flame (up around the coils) or a little yellow flame (down below the coils)? Alec

I thought Bambi and Thumper were assigned to guard Willard Whyte... Alec

Yes. Alec

Correct - when the narrowboats share the lock. Alec

No, because that is about lock cycles rather than about water per cycle. If two boats go through together in one lock cycle it takes half as much water as two boats going through in two separate cycles. Alec

OK, so imagine (if you can bring yourself to do this!) that you are only going to drink -half- a pint of beer, but that someone has put a pint glass in front of you and it is full to the brim. So you drink it down to the half pint line and that is your half pint. Now imagine that you decide you are going to have another half, and someone puts another pint glass in front of you and again it is full to the brim, but this time it also has ice cubes in it. So you drink it down to the half pint line, leaving the ice cubes behind. In both cases, you have drunk half a pint of beer out of a pint glass. In both cases the level went from full to the half pint line, but in one case there was less beer to start with and finish with than in the other, but you don't care because you had the half pint you wanted in both cases, and the levels went from full to half full just the same. Alec

To fill a lock, no. But, to work a fat boat or a tennis ball through the lock will take the same amount of water. It's the water used to change the level which is independent of what is in the lock. Alec

Got it. I had factored in that the volume of water in the lock at the start of the cycle is dependent on the displacement, but not that the amount of water at the end of the cycle is comparably dependent on displacement and therefore the total water transferred is identical. The only relevant factor remaining as a difference between narrow and wide beam is that generally two narrowboats can share a lock whereas two widebeams can't. Alec

I believe that is correct. My point was that in consequence different types of boat will use different volumes of water. The unknown is whether the average (mean) narrowboat has more or less than half the displacement of the average widebeam. I am presuming more, on the grounds that the average length of narrowboats is likely to be around 50' (not tested, but 57' is a very popular length and has been for many years) and the average length of a widebeam is more like 60' as they have generally been built by a smaller number of builders over a shorter period. However, the average beam of a narrowboat is 7' whereas the average beam of a widebeam is not 14', more like 12'. Not allowing for swims (which given how bluff many modern boats are seems like it wouldn't change the figures much), that gives a surface area of 350sq.ft for a narrowboat and 600sq.ft for a widebeam. Assuming the same draft, that would mean the widebeam uses more water per lock than a pair of narrowboats. My figures could be wrong, but I don't know where to get better data from and the difference appears to be sufficient that the principle would still apply if there was considerable variance. What probably makes more difference though is that to lock through two widebeams takes about twice as much water as to lock through two narrowboats (should two come along at once and be going the same way). Alec

To correct a couple of points from your post: 1. There is plenty of useful debate on this forum, and on this thread in particular. Unlike many CWDF threads, this one has remained civil throughout the discussion of a contentious topic. You may be confusing this with people not agreeing with you, which is fundamentally the reason for a debate. 2. You appear to feel that there is an anti-CCer mindset, in the form of a 'them and us' mentality. I do not detect this. I see nobody suggesting at any point that CCing and the associated community should be eliminated*. I do see a clear consensus that without additional funding the state of the network will deteriorate still further. I also see a general recognition that boaters in general will be asked to pay more to generate a substantially increased revenue stream. There are several options as to how this cost could be split, and CRT has chosen a particular option. I have not been persuaded by any arguments given so far that this is fundamentally the wrong choice. Attacking the basis for the decision will not work - there are several pages of posts immediately preceding this which indicate why that is the case (largely that there is no obligation to consult, and that having chosen to do so, CRT has chosen the approach which got the most votes). @Arthur Marshall makes a very good point that historically all boaters paid the same (I presume with a variation for length) regardless of their mooring status, and correspondingly no charge was levied by the waterways authority against privately run moorings. I would be interested to know whether you feel this approach would be 'unfair' and if so, why? Alec * as distinct from the mindset of claiming continuous cruising status whilst making every effort to avoid cruising at all - there is definitely a very strong sentiment for eliminating that, but it is from all other parts of the community regardless of mooring status so is not a point of difference.

I presume that would be somewhat dependent on the particular widebeam and particular pair of narrowboats though - a 57ft x 12ft widebeam ballasted to normal residential levels would displace say 30 tons so 30cu.m of water. A pair of lightly ballasted, fairly short narrowboats might only displace 20 tons between them whereas a fully loaded working pair would be more like 60 tons (except they would probably have grounded out well before they reached the lock!) Whether they 'should' pay more or less probably depends on the balance of real costs of the wide range of factors I commented on (and probably some more besides) but whether they 'will' pay more probably depends on how much CRT thinks the market can withstand. Alec

I do not have a widebeam and cannot think of any circumstances under which I would ever do so, so my thoughts are not based on personal gain. On the one hand, widebeams occupy more space on the water. That means they use more water per lock cycle than a pair of narrow beam boats, they occupy more space in a marina mooring and they prevent double-mooring online. They also cause a level of inconvenience to other users in less well dredged channels (exacerbated in slab sided boats which are not really designed to move) and in passing certain parts of the system such as Braunston tunnel. BUT On the other hand, they do not put more pressure on services such as water, rubbish and elsan points, there are not that many locations outside London and parts of the K&A where breasting up is a necessity and occupying more space in a marina is only relevant to the marina operator, not CRT. How many times do narrowboats actually encounter another boat to share locks with? We sometimes do but often don't. Additionally, there are large parts of the network where they cannot go and many of these are the older canals with higher cost for infrastructure for heritage reasons and because, unlike rivers, almost all of which are widebeam, they do not have a natural water supply. It clearly wouldn't put anything like the pressure on the system for a widebeam to cc around the Trent, Calder and Hebble, Aire and Calder and the Ouse as it does for a narrowboat to do the same around the Oxford and Coventry. I am not putting forward any particular suggestion for change here, just noting that there are some points which could be made. Actually, they sit rather in favour of regional charging but not assuming the same rate for all regions? Alec

The good old RACI matrix. Alec

A deliberately provocative response this on my part, but the intent is to provoke thought around alternative perspectives, rather than provoke an argument. But there is good evidence that if you live aboard you will use more facilities than a leisure user. Should your fees be increased more than theirs to allow for this? Often or always? If you sometimes use the rubbish points then you need them to be there, and you need to collection to be regular to avoid the collection site becoming a health hazard. That means collection is based on frequency rather than volume, so the cost remains the same. What about the leisure user with a home mooring that does not have a rubbish point though? They will have no choice but to take their rubbish home with them so they definitely shouldn't pay for the rubbish service - perhaps that component should be removed from their licence and added to yours? Your choice of language appears to indicate that you draw a distinction between the 'good' ccers and the 'bad' home moorers. Let me illustrate by reversal of your wording: 'Don't forget some ccers don't half rack up the miles all year round! And where would the canal system be without hmers gently using it in summer?' This is at best an over-simplification and at worst a divisive, 'them and us' view. Take some examples. How do you classify fuel boats within your definition? What about year-round leisure users? What about towpath dwellers who claim to continuously cruise but actively do as little cruising as possible? What about the squats that get created on the K&A towpath? In the end though, it has to be accepted that this is a discussion forum and that is all, so we can discuss as much as we like but CRT makes the decisions regarding categorising users and then how much it can charge within each category. FWIW, I think the widebeam charging debate is a far more interesting one, but doesn't seem to be creating much opinion. Alec