Chris Pink
-
Posts
8,598 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
39
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Chris Pink
-
-
Hello Chris,
Thanks for the information - I've already asked Ben to look at the diesel tank fabrication job, but he's very, very busy at the moment. Is it Iolo building the Northwich shell at the Wharf? I had a look yesterday with Ben and she looked fantastic, loved the shape of the rear swims in particular and the bow looks very fine .......
Hi Jill
Doesn't she just look gorgeous! I am such a proud dad! you should ask Iolo if he'll do your tank, I'm sure he can do straight things too. And he wants it called a Small Bradford rather than a Northwich. We need to find a suitable star name for her now. I'm off there today with a list of classical star names to try and find the one that suits.
I did hear a while ago that it wasn't possible to use oil-fired Rayburns on boats because they used a levelled tray under the burner pot. Presumably now they're pressurised jets - is that right? I have a coal-fired Rayburn in my boat that this time of year hasn't gone out in 3 weeks so i think you should persist. They make the most wonderful biscuits.
Chris
-
Hi Jill
if you and your boat are around bradford-on-avon, then my son Iolo has a gas cutter at Ben's yard by the lock and Ben has a plasma cutter, I'm sure either of them would cut 'ole for you.
Interested: Carl how do you get 11' flue poking out of a boat?
When i lived in Italy the standard thing to do with with flues on woodburners there was to run them across the room and exit the other side, thus getting more heat from it as the smoke cooled. Does this horizontal run count towards flue length or is flue height the critical thing?
Chris
-
I was hoping I'd be able to change the bulb holder because the light fitting surround (round plastic wall light) that contain the festoon bulb holders on our boat are identical to the ones that take the BA9's in size, shape and everything. (Hence my surprise at finding a different lightbulb and socket inside some of them!) Do you think it'd still be a problem changing them over? Oh - and am I using the right terminology re: the holder (bearing in mind the new bulb was called a "dome bulb"... even though it's too all intents and purposes the same size and shape as a festoon bulb!??!?!)
'Festoon' is the term i've always been familar with, never heard the term "dome bulb" but they seem interchangeable and i always thought festoon (chain or garland in the dictionary) a fairly strange term.
If you can physically screw the holders into the fitting then they'll be fine, the wiring is identical and usually screws for both.
I have decided to go with John's recommendation and get some of the PL bulbs (about £30 for 4 from the German geezer looks like a Good Deal) because it's always seemed to me that the inverters that run strip lights are pretty low quality and a sealed unit will probably do better. Then the fun; trawling for matching fittings with a sense of aesthetic.
I've always quite liked the round 'traditional' boat lights with a brass surround and frosted glass, so if the LED warm festoon bulbs and holders can be fitted this would be pretty nice.
btw anyone remember 'bus-bulbs' 12V with standard bayonet fittings?
Davies the old-fashioned chandlery in Essex do a wonderful art deco fitting that looks lov-erly in my scumbled bedroom.Winter always focusses the lighting mind.
Does anyone know if Davies still exist? They used to do wooden boat supplies, moving from the East End of London to Essex. I can't find no trace in Google.
Chris
-
Hiya
Where did you find the festoon led bulbs?
These people do a BA9 led replacement;
http://www.ultraleds.co.uk/uba91w-white-bulb-p-562.html
but don't think it's warm white, is that what you mean you're having trouble sourcing?
I would think it very difficult to change BA9 festoon bulb-holder in most luminaires as one is long and pokey and the other wide and flat.
There as some rather nice replacements for 12V halogen GU5.3 fittings (shop-fitting lamps) about.
-
It's certainly a sign that the battery capacity is decreasing which may be due to sulphation. Have you ever left the batteries discharged for a week or so without recharging - the sulphate then hardens and it is extremely difficult to reverse the process? Which charger are you using, because a "proper" multistage charger will prevent any sulphation? If you have charged the AGMs at a higher voltage than 14.4v then you also may have damaged them.
IMHO, unless you require AGMs because they are going in a sailing yacht where they will be tipped at all angles, there is no advantage in using AGMs on a narrowboat but plenty of disadvantages compared to wet lead acid such as shorter lifetime, 3-4 times the price and a more carefully controlled charging regimen.
Chris
no, i haven't left the batteries discharged, but have been warned about leaving them partially discharged so when i am off for more than a week i'm quite careful so my opinion is that the deterioration is happening through not getting to 100% each charge. The manufacturers say the only way to deal with sulphation is to charge 15 minutes at 60V followed by normal charging for 2 hours cycling over 2 days, which is 1. difficult to find 60V battery chargers and 2. a bit scary.
The charger is a Mastervolt 35A into a 220 AH battery which i think is a bit low. Next year i will get some solar to put charge in when i'm not there.
I have to agree, through experience, that hard master, that AGM is not good for the rough n tumble of residential boatie life. Back to cheapies next time, hopefully not too soon, because although i'm not getting the voltage up to anywhere near 12.8V the capacity is still very good, something I also don't quite understand.
Thanks for your help Chris.
-
I have always struggled with my inclinations against regulation and the need for qualifaction to steer a boat, but I do think that being able to drive a car is dangerously close to a 'a little learning' when starting to steer a boat.
A car has completely different steering geometry, the way that a boat interacts with the water (roads rarely in my experience move sideways whilst you're going over them) the wind and, of course, no brakes.
For instance, the way to leave a mooring is to reverse off into enough water to swing the stern, i see so many people try and leave forward, often with success if the bows are pushed off enough but more often digging the stern into mud.
The most worrying aspect is when something unexpected happens and instinct kicks in.
I do think that canal boating must be intrinsically very safe given the thankfully few serious accidents, contrasted with the statistical danger of road use.
Chris
-
Chris
They're not based only on constant voltage charging. The first part, the bulk stage, is constant current ie: the charging voltage rises as the battery terminal voltage rises to ensure the current stays constant.
Once the charging voltage reaches 14.8v for a wet lead acid (14.4v for AGM & sealed) the voltage mustn't rise anymore or else the batteries will start to gas. Ergo, if one holds the voltage constant (at 14.8v say) and the battery terminal voltage keeps rising as it charges, the current must drop as a consequence of Ohms Law. This is known as the absorption stage.
There are some second-order effects as well during this stage because the batteries' internal resistance drops as they charge allowing more current in but the net effect of both processes (ie: rising battery terminal voltage and falling internal resistance) is to decrease the net current.
The length of the absorption stage is either set by the user or calculated by the charger's software depending on price and sophistication of the charger.
Once the charger has finished the constant voltage (absorption) stage it drops to a "float" voltage typically around 13.4v-13.6v which offsets the batteries' tendency to self discharge if left alone but doesn't result in any overcharging.
AGM batteries are fairly tolerant of high currents as you allude BUT to drive a large current into them needs an ever-increasing voltage (because the battery terminal voltage rises) and AGM's do not take kindly to voltages over 14.4v. This therefore sets the voltage limit and hence why the current cannot be held constant above this voltage level.
Chris
Thanks for that, Chris, a bit of the alchemical fog clears.
Taking it further, it seems to me that at some point in a battery's life (with my AGM battery not very long at all and maybe an expensive purchasing mistake) the bulk stage gets much shorter. Is this a sign of sulphation in the batteries?
I have a Waeco box that is supposed to help with sulphation but I am not convinced.
I think I am, after going around the houses, back at the 'cheap batteries replaced often' as best in a typical residential boat environment.
And following an earlier part of this thread, I used to use Elecsol batteries and found them long lasting and excellent, with the occasional exception. It's a shame they've gone, especially as i didn't have to ask very hard to get a good price from them.
Chris
-
Here's a bit of a 'does anyone know'....
why are battery chargers, the modern techno ones, based on a constant voltage model so that the amps drop as charging progresses? What are the implications of charging a battery at constant current, raising the voltage as the charge progresses. Or is there something about the chemistry of a battery that requires the current to drop as the battery gets more charged, or the charging voltage to be constant.
I have an AGM battery, not very old and a Mastervolt charger and the current, lively at first, drops quite quickly. I was under the impression that AGM batteries could be charged 'as fast as you like'. So it's very tempting to skip the extra hour or so 90-100% charge, but not good for the battery I guess. I'll probably fit a solar panel next year that at least will bring the battery up to float when i'm not aboard.
-
There's one on the K&A called RagCastle, with an inboard engine, car rear axle and (presumably) fixed differential box. I'll post a picture of it when i see it next. It is much loved and gets about, albeit slowly.
It must have been well useful when the canal was very shallow. I guess that's why they use them on the Missisippi (how do you spell that). Goes where no propellor will go.
-
Does that mean you are in the legal profession ??
No i am not in the legal profession nor do i have any hidden agenda, i have rubbed along with BW for 20 years now, i enjoy, yes, enjoy, paying my licence fee, i feel it is good value for money - and my boats cost over £800 per year to licence.
As you have noted i am pretty articulate and what really gets me going is minor bureaucrats bullying people and that is what I have observed over the last few months especially on the Western K and A. When it was managed from Devizes there seemed to a robust but fair management of the issues we are discussing and their wider relatives but recently I have perceived a change.
A small story;
Two friends of mine, (yes, it's a community thing, this boating lark) who have rigorously followed the 14 day requirement, never stop on visitor moorings, travel over an area of about 50 miles, in fact, do the BW thing. One has a very nice boat she built up from a shell, the other has a scruffy 70s boat. They are a couple and always moor and navigate together. She received a threatening letter from BW, a standard letter, saying she wasn't moving enough and that they would take action against her, her partner, he of the scruffy boat, didn't. Two weeks later the mooring tender signs go up. She firmly believes that she was targeted as someone likely to take up those moorings and that her partner wasn't. She is hopping mad, has stopped moving.
The article in Waterscape seems very loaded to me, am i the only one who feels this, that it is less a reporting of an event and more a veiled threat? (though continuous cruising is not my focus in this discussion). I am lookng for the court report, i would like to see some more, less biased, reports of this case.
I wasn't very clear, the signage pre-dated my friend's mooring there, but there are sufficient grey areas that the solicitor he has employed is prepared to fight BW in court should it come to that.
My contention;
British Waterways is a body appointed by a government elected by us to manage our waterways for us.
That's all i want. We all, yes all, use the waterways, almost all of us love them, for different but valid reasons, the kind of divide-and-rule i see going on is completely unacceptable. I restored this canal, many of you fought for the restoration of various parts of the canal system, when I came here it was a muddy ditch from nowhere to nowhere.
Now look what you've done - and i'd given up ranting.
My intention starting this topic was to find out if BW had successfully established a right to charge for visitor moorings, it would appear that they haven't... yet. What's next? Wooden boats?
-
Examples?
So I take that to mean people were mooring there for 14 days and the area has now been designated for a shorter time?
Not quite sure what your agenda is here.There are two specific examples of 24 hour restrictions on the Western K & A – at Bathampton and Dundas – that it is believed (no consultation leads to there only being rumour for substantiation) were put there to appease house owners who didn't want live-aboard boats moored outside.
And, yes, there is one spot, that provoked me into opening this discussion, where i have been periodically mooring for nigh on 20 years that was recently designated 24 hours and where a friend of mine has been presented with a £550 bill for 'overstaying' for 9 days.
There are some interesting points about his case and BWs actions that he doesn't want me to air publicly because he is going to fight the case in court and not really relevant to this discussion which, to me, is about other peoples experience and opinions.
If you don't feel that they have acted legally, why don't you take them to court ? or are you looking for boater feedback concerning instances of fining in order to build a case ?I cannot take BW to court, i have neither the resources nor the expertise, so it is down to them taking someone to court to establish case law.
This is why i am so interested to know of any cases where BW has successfully taken these charges through the courts. There is so much rumour about that the only thing is to try and find real examples.
I find it interesting that no-one so far on this forum has come forward with direct experience. Would appreciate more detail on the Gloucester and Sharpness case, i had already heard a rumour but nothing first hand.
I am preparing a case for the Waterways Ombudsman specifically about the consultation process. As much in regard to online permanent mooring sites as visitor moorings. There is also a class of mooring referred to by BW as 'transient' moorings.
Furthermore, BW are also under pressure to make more profit.Aha. A clue.
btw I am not sure why so many members of this forum think i am out of order to raise these issues?
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.as...amp;SortAlpha=0
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.as...amp;SortAlpha=0
-
Just a minor point here but I'm actually a bloke - 6ft 4 and a fraction under 19 stone. Not all Wyches are men and no a male wych is NOT a warlock.
Apologies my good sir, I have no excuse, as i am not a bird or a god i should know that boat names are no clue to a person.
-
I am in favour in general of the concept of visitor mooring, what i am concerned about, the issue raised by a couple of people, is the designation without consultation of such mooring sites. It seems for a variety of reasons.
The 1995 Act appears to assume that Section 17 (3) © (ii) (keeping up now, our David?)
" 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. "
is sufficient regulation of use of general towpath and offside mooring locations.
BWs 'visitor moorings' seems to me to subvert that and, whilst the majority of us may be agreement most of the time with bona fide designation of visitor mooring, with information and facilities for visitors at places of interest and natural stopping places and i don't know of anyone who would agree with long term use of such moorings simply as a way of avoiding mooring charges, there seems to me to be a recent increase of such designation in places for reasons other than visitor mooring.
The Waterways Ombudswoman has already issued guidance to BW that they must consult with users before designating any permanent online mooring sites. I do not believe they are doing this in regard to visitor mooring.
If the council want to change parking restriction in urban areas there is a well laid out planning (read consultation process) to in which we are all entitled to participate.
Slightly aside, BW are also now, in my area, reserving visitor mooring sites for paid for winter moorings. This seems to raise more questions about 'fair use'.
And I think Pagan Witch puts her finger on it with her comment about if it doesn't cause a problem, leave it be. To this i would add that the amount of new visitor mooring designation in our area a. exceeds BWs capacity to police leading to unfairness and b. encourages people to overstaying because of their objection to the policy or their accustomed use of locations.
An interesting corollary to BWs behavior is that there is nothing to stop them following this logic and charging tolls for use of busy waterways or locks (surely a service or facility), something i believe all of us would object to.
-
If you are familiar with the Waterways Acts, why do you need details of the legislation within them??
I am asking you what legislation you think is being breached in your comment.
-
You have either missed the point I was trying to make, or have deliberately avoided it. I just wondered why someone should join this Forum and immediately launch into an attack on BW without apparently having very much knowledge of either the Parliamentary Acts which cover the management of the Inland Waterways, or any real understanding of the provisions that enable BW to implement that legislation. BW do not need to have an "opinion" to run the Waterways, they have a Stutory Framework. We can have an opinion as to whether they operate within that framework, and where we believe they do not, there are proceedures which allow us to challenge them.
Gosh, David, not only rattled but positively foaming now.
Do i understand you right? That my short membership of this forum does not entitle me to an opinion, strong or otherwise. I have not attacked BW within this topic, simply canvassed opinion, and your assumption of my lack of familiarity with the various Waterways Acts is amusing. There is life outside this forum you know.
I completely agree BW should not have an 'opinion' or a personality but you of all people should know that if this particular quango is left to its own devices then the very nice 50-odd feet of water you bob about on would probably be a car park by now if not for you and me and others like us putting pressure on them to manage the canals how we want them managed.
I raised this topic because a search through the forum revealed no recent threads and I feel the issue to be relevant and current and whether or not i raise it is, quite frankly, up to me.
I am grateful for all opinions expressed so far, including yours, and very interested to see broadly how people feel.
As to the substance of your post, i find it interesting and would ask you for more detail, you say 'breaching the legislation', to what legislation do you refer? 'Many cases'? can you provide me with some more information on this please, i would like to speak to people with experience of this? Criminal prosecution? What precisely do you mean by this.
And can you point me to written reports of the NABO correspondence with BW (why do you assume i not a member of NABO?)
I would be interested to talk to anyone who has direct experience of BW prosecutions for this or any other mooring related matter.
For the record, and apparently yet again contrary to your assumptions, i am personally in favour of visitor moorings. What i do find dubious is the arbitrary designation of such places without consultation. I have asked BW what consultations they have made regarding the designation of these and more permanent moorings in my area, they have yet to have reply but I shall publish it once received.
There is one particular spot that i have been in the habit of mooring in for many years recently subject to 24 hour restriction for reasons that, i believe, show ignorance of the patterns of use at that location. Hence my questions to BW.
I ask questions because that is the way to understanding.
-
made four posts grumbling about BW and ridiculing a long standing member of this forum.
Well i certainly rattled your cage.
I take issue with ridiculed, i think it fair to ask someone who has made fairly harsh criticism whether they could come up with a solution, I would be interested to know whether John feels 'ridiculed', somehow i doubt it.
A touch off-post for this thread which is only a grumble in your eyes, it was simply a question to BW (should i not ask questions, sir?) and an answer pertaining to an issue on which i was, am, interested in the wider opinion.
And number 4, well spotted there, our David, is a less a grumble about British Waterways than a statement of my rights and expectations about a system of which i own 1/56,000,000th (ish) of.
I will try and find something nice to say about you though when i've read some of your 1,822 posts.
I think the question in this section is whether one interprets the phrase "terms & conditions as the Board shall think fit" as giving a right to impose charges.I think this follows if the visitor mooring is seen as a 'service' or 'facility'. That is the first thing to establish.
-
Hi Chris.
I suspect you may be wearing your rose tinted glasses, do you have an image of a bunch of robust, young, horny handed sons of toil, happily engaged in their honest work, transforming an old worn out boat into a sound craft with their skills, singing in the Pennine sunshine..
Hi John
I can quite appreciate your turn of phrase but i reiterate, if you think you can do better, get in there, join the WCBS, transform it into your vision of a dynamic and successful operation.
The serious point behind this discussion is what you believe should be done with these boats and others like them. I assume you don't want them. Should they be destroyed? I was at Gloucester Archive recently and the boats in the museum there are beginning to look sorry for themselves because of lack of funding. Should these be destroyed also?
These boats are in one place because that is the only place they can be left or stored. They will either be restored, one by one, by someone with a lot of motivation and energy (read young) or they will become un-sustainable.
It is also important to note that young people with not much money who aspire to boating life in one of its many forms cannot buy a Liverpool boat and paint it shiny red and that a run down old wooden boat that no-one else wants maybe the only in for them. Some will succeed, some will fail, only a brave or foolish man would predict which. I think either way they deserve our support or, at the very least, our tolerance.
-
Not BW's waterways, our waterways.It's about time BW started behaving like the Civil Service department it is and stopped bullying people into thinking "It's their canal, they're God."
British Waterways is a body appointed by a government elected by us to manage our canals for us.
As a corollary to this, the way we decide to use our canals, provided it is within the law as stated in the various acts, is entirely up to us. British Waterways have absolutely no right to have an opinion on the way we use the canals.
It is unfortunate that it seems necessary to remind them so often of these, to me, simple facts.
Rant over.
-
I have recently asked BW what laws they base the provision of visitor moorings on and the charging of people overstaying and received the following reply;
BW’s powers to manage the waterways arise from primary legislation (eg 1962 &1968 Transport Acts and various subsequent Waterways Acts) and from general property rights that we acquired from the original canal company owners of the canals. Other powers derive from simple contract law (e.g. boat licensing terms and conditions, mooring permit contracts).
“1. Under what law are you entitled to arbitrarily designate areas as visitor moorings.”
Transport Act 1962 S10(1) “It shall be the duty of the British Waterways Board in the exercise of their powers under this Act to provide to such extent as they may think expedient – (a) services and facilities on the inland waterways owned or managed by them “ …
“2. Under what portion of that law are you allowed to charge for overstaying on such moorings. “
Under Section 43 of the Transport Act 1962 the Board has power “to demand take waive and recover such charges for its services and facilities and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions as the Board shall think fit.”
I would be interested in anyone's opinion as to whether a visitor mooring is a 'service' or 'facility' or whether it is a restriction.
It is also unclear to me whether BW have successfully recovered any charges for overstaying other than by intimidation. What is your experience of this?
-
I was watching a bunch of clowns at Portland Basin last weekend trying to re-float a decomposed wooden working boat, Wooden Boat Society I think. They turned up with two petrol driven pumps, neither of which worked and they ended up recruiting a fire engine an crew to do it for them. One bloke was in the water (not the cleanest place that basin) stuffing bedding into holes in the planking you could nearly climb through.
They eventually got it floating but who knows how long for.
Well then maybe if you can match your opinion with skills you should have gone and helped them.
We would not be using the canal system at all at all if 'bunches of clowns' didn't put passion and enthusiasm into the saving and restoration of the canals and the boats that used them. The fact that not all of it succeeds is no reason not to try.
I am not quite sure why you feel the need to be so offensive about people. I would be interested to know whether you could refloat an historic boat or restore a derelict lock without getting filthy in the process.
If you are familiar with the Waterways Acts, why do you need details of the legislation within them??
Middle Northwich Re-union?
in History & Heritage
Posted
Just been on the website for the restoration of Sickle, a middle Northwich motor. There's a mention there of a gathering of the class at the Braunston Boat Show next year. But the email contact gu_sickle@yahoo.com doesn't work.
Does anyone have any more information?
or the correct email for Sickle's owner?
Chris