Wanderer Vagabond
Patron
-
Posts
3,698 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
231
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Wanderer Vagabond
-
-
9 minutes ago, dmr said:
I have thought about this a bit and I would like to know how Foxton and Watford work, and in particular how the sideponds actually save water.
The sideponds are not like a typical sidepond which is half filled from a full lock, instead Foxton works just like a standard staircase where water drains from one pound to the pound below......it just happens to do this via the sidepond. On most Foxton locks you can actually see this...the water rushes into the sidepond, does a quick U-turn and rushes back out into the chamber below.
I assume there must be some advatage when the flight turns from going up to gong down? Maybe I need to draw a few little pictures, but I bet somebody here has already worked it all out 😀
Not sure about saving water but I would have thought without the side ponds the system would grind to a halt for boats going up. Going down is fine since you bring your water with you, but if the boat coming down leaves all of the locks empty, where are you going to get your water to fill them if you are going up, unless you go right to the top and run water down?
-
1 hour ago, zenataomm said:
I expect as an attempt at stock control the steerer starts of with x thousand ltrs of fuel, a starting counter number on the pump, x bags of coal and x numbers of whatever other stuff they sell. Each transaction is entered in a book with meter readings opening and closing from the pump.
Upon return to base a closing stock take is done which when subtracted from the opening gives the value of stock presumably sold.
That value should equal the amount of cash carried and cheques, plus electronic payments received.
If the shortfall was £X xp. Then a gander through the sales book for that amount arrived at Arthur. I expect it was his transaction that's at the bottom of it, but not Arthur himself. Upon questioning the steerer has only two options, pay out of his own pocket or recall that Arthur didn't pay.
I shouldn't pay twice.
I'd be in agreement regarding not paying twice, the difficulty is that by doing so it almost amounts to an admission (to them) that it was you that was mistaken rather than them. I think my approach would be to go to the office and, not in a confrontational way, ask them to show me the paperwork on which they are basing their claim (presumably the sales book). Your suggestion does look like what has probably happened and Arthur has just been unlucky, but then if errors are being made, it is equally possible that two £50 sales were made without them properly collecting the money. If they have found themselves £100 short and just gone through the sales book looking for a £100 cash sale and fingered Arthur for it, it does show pretty sloppy accounting.
If I was going to continue to use this particular fuel boat, I'd probably stump up if their documentation did give a reasonable implication (balance of probabilities, or even less) that I hadn't paid, but if I were going to stop using the fuel boat then they'd need good solid evidence that I hadn't paid before I'd do so.
-
13 hours ago, Annie cariad said:
Like to hear the fuel boats side of this
10 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:This is largely what I've done. I've mentioned in my letter that the business, which does a lot of filling and dropping off in absentia, depends on trust. I've asked them to delete all my personal info as I won't be using them again.
Four Counties run a couple of boats, Halsall and Alton, and until Jason left, Bargus, all based at Bollington Wharf on the Macc. The registered office is there , though oddly the postcode is wrong either at Companies Hiuse or on their site.
This does sound like a pretty unfortunate situation, particularly as it sounds as though you were previously a regular customer of the fuel boat (I always tried to whenever I could as well). The difficulty that I would foresee from your agreement to pay, even though you now wont be using them again, is how it will now be viewed from the business (which is why I linked the comment about 'hearing the fuel boat's side). Now I'm willing to side with you in that you paid and it wasn't recorded by those on the boat, but the narrative that will now come from the business will be,"We had this bloke who tried to scam us, but he eventually paid up". This is why I think that if I were in your position and not intending to use them again, I would politely decline to pay since by paying you feed that narrative that you were mistaken rather than them.
I have to say that whenever I've used the fuel boats it has either been with use of a card, or bank transfer, so that I do have some independent evidence that money has gone from me to them. As MtB indicates above, the problem arose as a result of having no receipt and I have to say that I always ask for a receipt for every purchase from everywhere, no matter how small. This is mainly to ensure that if I've bought something in one shop and then go into another that sells the same sort of items (supermarkets generally) for further purchases, I can prove ownership of the stuff I've paid for.
ETA Just as an afterthought, how do you record the domestic/propulsion split on your purchases from the fuel boat? I regularly buy from our basin (Hawne) and we have to complete a signed declaration every time, so if they have the declaration with your signature on it, how would they explain you not paying (as you would obviously have needed to be present)
-
1
-
-
On 02/10/2023 at 21:40, sueb said:
I certainly agree with legalising drugs but what concerns me more is the way the drugs are provided in this country. People don't seem to be bothered about the children being used to move drugs, the people used as drug mules and all the corruption that goes with it. As long as people can get their drugs they couldn't care less about any unfortunates caught up in the supply chain.
I think that is more part and parcel with legalising the drugs, since doing so removes the supply from the criminals responsible. Whilst those of us who aren't addicted to recreational drugs are concerned with the criminality currently involved, it is probably a big ask to hope that the addicts would be. They are addicted to the product so they don't care where it has come from, bearing in mind that some of the product may well have been passed thought someone else's digestive system, or stored in other bodily orifices, yet they are still happy to inject it into themselves. They even inject it into themselves not knowing exactly what the product contains.
-
5 hours ago, blackrose said:
I smoked hash and grass (as it used to be called) from the ages of about 16 to 26. I stopped doing it because I went travelling and ended up on the other side of the world away from my circle of friends for whom dope smoking was a daily ritual.
After that when I did occasionally smoke I used to get paranoid and I realised it was no good for me. Although cannabis isn't physically addictive it can become psychologically addictive for some people. Fortunately I don't have an addictive personality. I've tried most recreational substances in my youth including mushrooms, LSD, speed and heroin and I have to say, if I had an addictive personality I'd be addicted to cocaine because for me it's very nice indeed.
I have a friend who's been suffering from serious paranoia for the last year or so due to about 35 years of smoking cannabis. He thinks he's some sort of progressive genius and complains that nobody understands him - a kind of delusion of grandeur which is a classic symptom of cannabis induced schizophrenic paranoia. A few of us have tried to get him to understand that it's the cannabis that's doing this to him, but he won't listen and thinks we're all trying to put him down and the cannabis is good for him and the only thing keeping him sane. The irony is that he was an active member of the Legalise Cannabis Campaign for many years and look where it's got him - As well as losing his mental health I think he's about to lose his flat because he's not working and stopped paying the mortgage.
Of course, I have other friends who've been s smoking dope daily for just as long or even longer and they're fine so it affects people differently.
Well, if they were legalised they could be taxed and generate huge income for the Exchequer, so I'm not sure that argument stacks up?
I think the reason most recreational drugs other than alcohol are illegal from a govt standpoint is the public health implications - cannabis was traditionally seen as a gateway drug to harder class A substances, although the argument for legalisation says that taking cannabis away from drug dealers is less likely to result in it becoming a gateway drug.
I think there are cultural reasons too. Most recreational drugs (other than alcohol) have been associated with a counter-culture. But society wants people to be productive, not sitting around stoned questioning why they're going to work at a boring job everyday. In moderation alcohol helps to release stress, it doesn't make you question your existence.
Some very interesting points coming from someone who has used the said drugs. Just a few observations, when you said that if you were of an addictive personality it would be to cocaine, that can also create paranoia. One of the scariest guys we had to deal with was an ex-professional boxer who, according to the hospitals when we were trying to get him sectioned, was suffering from drug induced paranoia as a result of his cocaine use. Because of this they refused to take him as they said there was nothing they could do for him. Fortunately whilst he would often get right 'in your face' during his episodes, I never actually knew him to have physically assaulted one of us although I have seen the results when he assaulted civilians and he made a real mess of them. We never really got to the bottom of why he never attacked any of us but one suggestion was that he considered us in the same light as boxing referees making us 'untouchable' (thankfully). The only other person who could control him was his father (another ex-boxer) but everyone else was 'fair game'.
As far as gateway drugs goes, tobacco could be considered the gateway to everything, from smoking cannabis to 'chasing the dragon' for other recreational drugs, I didn't know many (any?) drug users who didn't smoke. I'd agree though that if we could get the supply of drugs out of the hands of criminals it would at least be a starting point. The difficulty we have is that we are fighting market forces from the wrong direction, we need to remove the demand rather than control supply.
It sounds all very well and good when there has been some big drugs 'bust' but what it means in reality is that for those drug dealers who haven't been 'busted' the price of their stock has just gone up, so that approach is only going to succeed if you can simultaneously bust all drug dealers at the same time (and even then it isn't a long term solution). Unlike most products in market situations, there isn't a top price for addictive drugs. A lot of those on chaotic lifestyles who are addicted get the money to pay for their hit from stealing so it doesn't really matter how high the price of the drug is, they will simply steal even more to pay for it, so as well as encouraging unhealthy lifestyles, we are driving crime as well.
-
2 hours ago, nicknorman said:
Yes typo, sorry! For me it is about the potentially insidious effects of cannabis even when taken in moderation, especially for younger people. Alcohol taken in moderation does not have the potential for a permanent mind-altering effect.Have to say that as one who doesn't smoke (cannabis or any other recreational drug) I don't know about the insidious effects. Alcohol has insidious effects though, it is called habituation. The more that you drink, the more that you need to drink to get the same effect (which is also present in most other recreational drugs, other than LSD). I remember testing someone once who was was clearly an alcoholic and whilst the legal breath driving limit for alcohol is 35 (equivalent to about 4 units of alcohol) he managed to blow 165, so more or less the equivalent of 20 units of alcohol, and whilst his appearance would be described as a bit unsteady, he certainly wasn't paralytic. I'd be unconscious with that level of alcohol in me. Simply by becoming an alcoholic he'd had a mind altering effect since he was addicted to alcohol and needed it just to feel normal, I don't suppose that he now ever experienced drunkenness, (I say 'now' but he's probably dead by now)
-
34 minutes ago, nicknorman said:
It’s certainly true that alcohol causes a lot of harm. My uncle was an alcoholic and it killed him, after making his life a misery for several years. However just because one harmful drug is illegal, doesn’t mean that we should allow more!However alcohol is a slightly different animal from cannabis. People can drink alcohol in moderation all their lives and have no adverse effects. But there does seem to be something about long term cannabis use, even in moderation, that results in changes to their brain that turn them into “dope heads”. But in particular there seems to be strong evidence that cannabis use in youngsters can cause irreversible brain damage that case or at least trigger psychosis / schizophrenia etc.
I don’t really buy the “gateway to hard drugs” argument but I do think that the seemingly harmless cannabis actually has a nasty dark side.
I'm not really making the case for any drugs, but what is needed is consistency. I'm assuming that the highlighted bit was a typo but I simply don't see that making any of them illegal actually addresses the problem, it simply creates more 'criminals'. I drink alcohol, but I don't think of myself as any better than someone who smokes cannabis, and yet what I do is legal, what they do is illegal, no real logic to it. People also smoke cannabis all their lives without much in the way of adverse effects but for some, as with alcohol, it has bad effects.
It would obviously be better, in health terms, if people took no recreational drugs at all, but accepting that simply isn't going to happen what we then need to look at is harm reduction and if all drugs were legalised there would be more control in what people are actually taking. Most of the deaths from the likes of heroin are as a result of people having no idea whatosever of the strength of the heroin they are taking, which can range from 5% cut with a whole load of rubbish to circa 80% which can be lethal. There is never going to be any successful outcome to making cannabis illegal simply because, much as you can make your own alcohol, you can grow your own cannabis. Heroin and cocaine are obviously going to be more tricky since getting the source materials will always be difficult, but whilst it is the hands of criminals, it will always be achievable.
We've had 50 years of failed legislation, I'd go with Professor David Nutt's idea of trying a different approach. It isn't going to make things any worse than they already are, and may make them better.
-
3
-
-
43 minutes ago, nicknorman said:
I think the prevalence of public cannabis smell is part of the general feeling that laws are for other people, and let’s face it, you never see a policeman on the beat so the chances of being arrested for it is minimal, same as for so many other “allegedly” low level criminal activities. I don’t particularly have a problem with cannabis, I have been known to partake in my 20s and 30s, but it is not a harmless drug as I’ve known 2 young people’s lives ruined by psychosis which was almost certainly a result of cannabis use at a young age.
I generally dislike smelling other people’s activities be it smoking tobacco, cannabis, vaping fake clouds of strawberry juice or whatever. But in the great scheme if things it’s not catastrophic, just a sad reminder of how local policing has ceased to exist and it’s every man for himself, might is right.
By comparison however, how much harm does alcohol cause? When working we were dealing with alcohol fuelled fights pretty much every weekend. The occasions where people would get drunk and then go back home to beat up their partner were prevalent. That ignores the health effects of alcohol consumption whether cirrhosis of the liver and liver cancer along with a variety of other cancers. No drugs are harmless but the Americans in the 1930's found that prohibition of alcohol simply put the supply into the hands of the gangsters, and who supplies the heroin,cocaine,MDMA and cannabis these days? As alcohol in the prohibition era proved in spades, banning drugs simply does not work. If you can remove the demand, as has happened with cigarettes (although the cunning tobacco companies have now replaced them with vapes) is the only way in which to solve the issue. Locking people up (or even executing them, as Singapore does) is simply a waste of time.
-
4
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
3 hours ago, IanD said:It's almost as if decriminalisation and treating addiction as a health problem works, in contrast to the UK "lock 'em up" approach which clearly doesn't.
So much for evidence-based policies... 😞
Exactly this ^^^^. The law criminalising drug use dates back to 1971 when there wasn't that much of a drug problem, people were content to smoke cigarettes and get drunk on alcohol. So here we are 50 years later, with a law that hasn't worked because drug use is now widespread (you will smell cannabis on the street pretty much everywhere), and the approach is still 'more of the same'. What is that quote about repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result referencing? oh, I remember, it's insanity.
When this is compared the the diminishing number who smoke cigarettes, because it has been treated as a health problem rather than a criminal problem and it shows the way ahead, if only those at the top would actually look.
-
5
-
On 22/09/2023 at 22:00, Col_T said:
My view is that, as others have said, risk averse translates into they don’t really want to. Selling the house and buying a boat could be described as rash, at best. Renting the house and buying a boat is the best of both worlds.
It comes across as you pressuring your friends, it’s not your role. They shouldn’t do what you are suggesting.
Interestingly risk averse would suggest one who doesn't like to take risks. The thread title is risk adverse and the dictionary definition of adverse is,"....Contrary to one's interests or welfare; harmful or unfavorable....." perhaps a Freudian slip in the original question?
-
Just out of curiosity, I'd be interested just how it has come to crack. You don't need to put that much pressure on the greasing tube, do you?
-
2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:
I think it's interesting that there is a friend who wishes to sell "his" house and live on the water, but "they" are panicking about stuff. It does look like one wants to do it more than the other, and that's a recipe for disaster. Two people cooped up on a tin can, one of whom doesn't want to be there, misses the garden or friends and family...
Exactly this. if you have two people on a boat and only one wants to be there, it is only going to end one way
-
2
-
-
36 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:
The point for your friend to consider is that house prices rise and a boat slowly rusts away losing value. So in 15 years time, the boat that was purchased with the sale of a house will have lost a lot of value, and selling it will not even raise enough for a small deposit on a house, let alone how to pay the mortgage. I wouldn’t sell the house.
I'd go with your position, there is the old adage of 'Buy in haste, repent at leisure' which is worth thinking about. I have the fortunate position of a house and boat, but if I hadn't and only had the house I'd be thinking more along the lines of taking out a loan to buy a boat whilst paying for it from the rental income of letting the house. Once you are out of the housing market it can become difficult to get back into it unless you have access to a lot of cash, and boats have a habit of soaking up a fair bit of cash.
-
3 minutes ago, magnetman said:
One of the mistakes on boats with relatively small accomodation space is to have oversized fires with fire brick linings. This is overkill.
What you really want is just a plain steel fire which heats up and cools down fast.
Both my boats have custom made fires which I do know is unusual but I am surprised a market has not developed for a properly designed fire for a canal boat.
Interesting one, I can't think of anywhere else I've seen a similar fire to mine, other than on another narrowboat. In the depths of a cold winter it is good to have one with a load of fire-bricks to retain the heat overnight with minimal fire burning (not good to wake up in the morning with frost on the inside of your windows) it just takes a bit of practice to get the fire burning just right. When you get it wrong, it means opening the doors🥵
-
If it gets a bit chillier I might fire up the Eberspacher for an hour or so, but it needs to get a lot chillier to light the fire 'cos it makes it too d*mn hot. It's kind of like the conversation you always get with people on the towpath which starts with the line,"I bet it gets chilly in there in the winter" which I usually correct them with,"Nope, the fire is rated at about 5Kw and its not a big area to heat. Do you have to leave your door open in the middle of winter? 'cos I often do"
-
5 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:
Although not definitive, that 14V suggest that the alternator probably is working well enough. When charging fully charged batteries from the alternator nowadays, I would expect a reading of between 14.2 and 14.6 volts, depending on the alternator.
Putting the voltmeter on the as described above should give a reading to one or two decimal places, so a bit more accurate, and can be used after following a procedure, for assessing the batteries rough state of charge.
FWIW, diesel engines tend to be more reliable and longer lasting than petrol units and the alternators systems are just the same, except it chargers more batteries for a boat's domestic system.
I'm not entirely convinced on that assessment, if there is one thing on my the boat that will fail it is the domestic alternator. Off the top of my head I've been through at least 5 now and I would guess it is all down to the fact that, unlike in a road vehicle setting when there is a 50mph cooling breeze coming through the engine, on a narrow boat it is very difficult to keep them cool. Engine alternator not so much since in reality it doesn't do a lot of work, so doesn't get as hot. When my domestic alternator failed (again) when down on the Nene at Peterborough I managed to get the boat back to Braunston (there is a very useful alternator supplier at Daventry) by disconnecting the domestic alternator and connecting the domestic batteries to the starter battery (with a car jump lead) so that the engine alternator charged all of them. I disconnected the jump lead when starting so that the starter didn't draw from Domestic battery bank. I now carry a spare domestic alternator in anticipation of the next time it fails.
On another point, you don't necessarily get strange smells when charging duff batteries. My starter battery was trashed last year by a dead short (that's another story) but seemed to survive until I wanted to go out cruising this year. Whilst on shore line I connected the domestic and starter batteries together to try to put a decent charge into the starter before firing up the engine (the boat had been left for about 9 months without going out) and whilst neither I nor my OH could smell anything, the battery was obviously gassing as it set off both of the carbon monoxide alarms on the boat (even though the gas given off wouldn't have been carbon monoxide).
-
We passed through there on Monday and can't say it seemed any worse than many other locks. Since the balance beam is still attached (and therefore counterbalancing the gate) if one came across the same situation on one's travels would it be reasonable to put a loop of rope over the mitre post and open the gate that way (so not putting any stress on the balance beam itself) or is that likely to cause other damage? I kind of get that if the balance beam had completely broken off and was no longer counterbalancing the gate you could possibly jam the gate open if you tried to use that method (although in theory the heel bands should still hold the gate in place).
Just a thought.
-
3 hours ago, jeanb said:
Thanks very much MP: understood. We're not fans of Farmers Bridge/Curdwoth.
We like the miniature railway at Kinver and if we get our finger out we'll have time so we could be heading to Stourton Junction but don't want to upset C&RT due to their biological controls. Does anyone recommend overnight moorings near Merry Hill?
I think I might be misunderstanding the route you are wanting to take. The area that CRT are having biological controls on are at Blowers Green/Parkhead (https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices/26121-weed-issues-dudley-no1-canal-greens-bridge-to-railway-viaduct-parkhead-and-down-on-to-dudley-no2-blowers-green-bridge) and to get to Merry Hill from either theWolverhampton 21 or Farmers you will still be going through it. There does seem a certain lack of logic to the CRT advice as well though since they are asking boaters not to pass through and yet from 6th - 11th there is the Black Country Boating Festival (https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices/26047-black-country-boating-festival-2023), are the hoping that everyone will be coming from the Netherton Tunnel direction?
-
Just a small observation, is this topic in the right thread? I occasionally dip into a variety of threads but most of the abuse seems to occur on the Politics thread. I haven't noticed much swearing or abuse on the threads actually relating to boating (occasional grumpiness perhaps, but isn't that what you get when you gather a bunch of old farts together?(for the avoidance of any doubt, I'll include myself in that definition
) )
-
10 minutes ago, magnetman said:
You are supposed to read it as "S H one T"
Wasn't that a registration number of a Reliant Robin?
-
4 minutes ago, Stilllearning said:
I do find it difficult to believe that the country has gone that far downhill since we lived there, but hey-ho, we are committed to the visit.
This an image of our intrepid leader examining a pothole in Darlington.
but politics aside, it illustrates perfectly exactly what the problem is. They have obviously marked in white around the relevant hole (since the paint has severely faded one can assume that it was painted a while ago) but just look at the rest of the surrounding road surface, it is all breaking up and putting a couple of bobs worth of asphalt into that hole will do nothing constructive at all, but that will be all that they do. Within months there will be another pothole to deal with, the whole road surface now need to be ripped up and resurfaced but they don't have the money. 10 years ago they could probably have got away with simply top-dressing it, but it is way beyond that stage now, and that situation is reflected throughout the country.
-
2 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:
You are not the first person to try and tell someone who lives in the area that you know better - although usually it's about the Kennet and Avon Canal.
I regularly drive the main roads round here including the A37 - I'm not saying they're perfect but given I also regularly drive to Manchester, Chesterfield (sometimes crossing the peak district) and Lincolnshire I can say they are not noticeably worse and I don't recognise your description - I don't weave to avoid potholes on the A37 and no-one else I know does either. I think you're exaggerating.
That's not to say we don't have concerns about our local roads, but it's the A361 Frome Bypass that is foremost - from Nunney to Beckington and then the A36 to Warminster has had an appalling safety record of late, mainly due to excess speed, I don't mean a few mph over the limit I mean frightening speeds. Last week two young sisters lost their lives when their car hit by an unlicensed driver doing the best part of 100. Two Christmases ago it was a teacher at the local college - that ruined Christmas for most of the town.
In a way this shows the problem of allocating resources - in a vote between potholes and stopping the carnage on the Bypass the latter would win hands down. We might even give up the Showground for that.
Which rather suggests that we are simply getting used to having crap roads. I don't own a car so when I'm driving one it will be a hire car, and the insurance does not cover damage to the underside of the vehicle or the tyres, so I tend to make a point of not hitting potholes, and on the A37 there are a lot between Podimore and Shepton. It is possible to see some of them on Google street level but the images were taken in 2021 and they are a lot worse now. I particularly noticed it because whilst I am now used to most of the roads around town and also country lanes all being crap, that is a fairly fast A class road with the sort of potholes that could cause a motorcyclist serious concern if hit at night without seeing it beforehand. So no exaggerations here, if I were still riding my motorcycle I would certainly avoid that road.
-
1 hour ago, magpie patrick said:
You've got two completely different road issues there - only one of which is lack of maintenance
If I draw a comparison with the town in which I live, we have two formal-ish parks and a large green space known as the showground (because many years ago the annual show used to be held there) - the roads aren't great but losing the parks would have a far bigger detrimental impact on the "feel good" factor of the town than could be created by fixing the roads, if I had to chose between keeping the parks or fixing the potholes I'd keep the parks
Interestingly I travelled to your town back in March, up the A37 from Podimore up to Shepton and the road is nothing short of a disgrace. Why am I weaving all over the road, am I drunk? nope, I'm steering around the potholes which were numerous. What could have been improved 8 or 9 years ago with top dressing (yes, I know it breaks windscreens) can now only be fixed by completely re-surfacing the road. Is that going to happen any time soon? not that I can see so the disgraceful condition of the road is simply going to deteriorate further, probably until a motorcyclist get killed at night hitting one of the potholes (and other than the usual 'lessons will be learned' probably not even then). This isn't unique to your area, pretty much wherever I've gone in recent years the road conditions have been dire from anywhere in the South West (the bus I was on in Cornwall felt as though it had run over a breeze block when it hit one of many potholes) to the Midlands all around Birmingham to the East of the Country around Lincoln and up through to the Wolds. The only place I've heard have reasonable road conditions was in the North East, but that is anecdotal.
Whilst I do get your point about the 'feel good' factor, the state of our roads is now becoming a matter of public safety. I've said before that as a cyclist I have now ceased using hand signals to indicate my intentions because if simply isn't safe to take one hand off the handlebars to do so any more.
-
1 hour ago, Stilllearning said:
On the subject of UK roads, I will hold my comments until we are in the country next month. Canals are a priority too, of course.
I should come in a Toyota Hi-Lux or Land Rover if I were you, that is what you need on our roads now given the state of them.
How do Watford Staircase locks work?
in General Boating
Posted · Edited by Wanderer Vagabond
With a normal L&L staircase, such as Bingley 5 rise, you have to make sure all of the locks are full before you start up them, if they aren't you will run out of water and be unable to get over the cill to the next lock. If you had to do that at Foxton you'd be filling
109 locks. As the other poster suggested, the side pounds at Foxton serve the same purpose as the pounds between locks on non-staircases. I don't know what the limit is for boats going up in convoy, but I've gone up in a line of three without running out of water, there will however be some limit (obviously no limit to coming down).