stort_mark

I love the way 'environmentalists' is used as a (somewhat derogatory) term as if people concerned about the environment (or any aspect of the environment) were all totally homogenous. Love also the way the word 'environmentalists' is often put between quotation marks, presumably as some form of suggestion that environmentalists are worse than ordinary folk (and reading the rest of your post, that obviously is the way you feel). fwiw the tragedy of former railway lines is one that many 'environmentalists' would agree with you. (I assume now that the 'quotation marks' are mandatory, so that we don't confuse 'environmentalists' with people who deny global warming and who are the true environmental saviours of our planet). Having just been along the A120 between Stortford and Braintree - a former railway line - it still saddens me that we are happy to build new roads and not reopen or build new railway lines and canals. One of the funniest aspects of these kinds of threads (on environmental issues) is that the most reactionary anti- 'environmentalist' types actually present their distaste of environmental issues by forcefully expressing how much MORE environmentally-friendly they are personally than the wicked, hypocritical 'environmentalists'.

Why would you think I was referring to you, exactly? (I wasn't) But seeing as you mention it, what you actually said was "But what I do know is that the bigger and better liars among us generally rise to become senior politicians". And in fact, you certainly do need to name more than three to be able to say "QED". There are crooked politicians, just as there are crooks in most walks of life. Equally, these are greatly outnumbered by those who do their work with integrity, trust and dedication. Problem is that slagging off those with whom we disagree, or being intolerant of that which we do not practice ourselves, and sweeping generalisations based on limited personal experience has become the norm these days.

I did wonder about the 'converted lifeboat' style that seemed to be popular back in the 1950s. I would be reluctant to take a narrowboat out on the lower reaches of the Thames. I have seen the videos and read the stories of mad dashes across the Channel or the Wash, and I am sure one day, someone will take a 58' semi-trad up the Alaskan glacier coast, but it's not what I would feel comfortable like. What are those GRP cruisers like in estuaries? I know more about NBs than the white jobs, but as it is most likely that the boat will be based on the Nene-Ouse-Fens network somewhere, I suppose I ought to learn.

We are in the sloooooow process of identifying and then buying a boat ....probably next year rather than this..... but we really want to get something that is as at home on estuaries as the waterways. Now I appreciate that coastal waters are not for the inexperienced, but I don't want to buy a boat then find a few years down the line that the type or functionality is totally inappropriate for where we want to go. I also appreciate that pretty much any boat will go pretty much anywhere in flat as a pond waters, but I want to have a margin of safety built in to be able to cope with choppier waters of the todal Thames, Humber, etc. We want....for example...to be able to get down the tidal Nene and across the Wash....down the tidal Great Ouse.....use the whole length of the Trent and Severn in "comfort". Good examples would also be being able to make it to the Medway, the Chelmer & Blackwater, etc. Any thoughts on type.....features.....etc that would be important or essential? A marine boat that can be used on canals....or vice versa?

Really sad to hear that "that might be it". It would be nice to see some of the bigger waterways boats restored and actually working (maybe occasionaly) on their original turf.

Anyone know how many are left now.....in original or converted form? And would it be possible to work the oak at the bow now? Do any yards exist that can do this kind of work?

Quoting the Great Global Warming Swindle documentary as a serious commentary or contribution to climate change or gloal warming is somewhat unusual. It is a programme that even some of the contributors then repudiated because it misrepresented them. It has been trashed all over the place; check the Wikipedia entry for a summary of some of the many issues with it. The GGWS website page on the consensus has as its fundamental point that there is no consensus on global warming and is fully dismantled here. Using the Great Global Warming Swindle is almost as good as citing the Telegraph as an important scientific commentator. Meanwhile the whole sea-level rise controversy (as opposed to Morner's other scientific work on....errr.....water-divining with sticks) has been challenged in a number of technical papers including, especially, 'Comment on “Estimating future sea level change from past records?"' by Nerem, Cazenave, Chambers, Fu, Leuliette and Mitchum in Global Planetary Change and 'Sea-level rise at tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean islands' by Church, White and Hunter, also in Global Planetary Change. There's absolutely no point tackling the Adam Smith blog at all because it's just silly. The story is really a complete non-story, not - as it suggests - highlighting a devastating message at all. There have alsways been discrepancies between different computer models. The key, though, in the context of this forum, is that the initial thread was about environmental issues that may have had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with climate change or global warming, but we collectively scared Helen away. There aremany environmental issues that are probably important to all of us - maybe in different amounts - from biodiversity (70% decline in the number of sparrows, for example), food additives, litter, water cleanliness and quality, preventing oil and fertilizer spills into the canal (are you really happy to see oily sheens on the surface of the canal), Dutch elm disease, modern farming, modern transport and a host of other issues. These are surely worthy of discussion and debate without jumping to the conclusion that: a ) Helenv represents the devil and is out to destroy all our boating pleasures b ) Anyone was going to mention anything of relevance to the Health & Safety Executive or risk assessment or c ) That it had anything to do with global warming or climate change. It has been noticeable in many threads, that we seem to love hating and deriding others, whether they are politicians (many of them have worked hard down the years to support the canals and waterways interests), businessmen and corporate types (ditto), environmentalists (as if they were a homogenous reincarnation of Damien from The Omen), anglers, cyclists, walkers, etc. I used to love the special bond with and between people on the Cut, but reading many threads on this forum suggests that there is a mean, bigotted, nasty streak that is a bit too present with a fair number of people these days. Hmmmmm.

Errrr....she tried to.

Tell you what...you produce a single shred of evidence that can begin to match the work of the IPCC. Errrrrr.....the work that defines most of the global warming science is from the IPCC....basically climatologists and related scientists. Perhaps 'most of the people' are content to believe in the science.

Rubbish. Sorry. Don't like being so emphatically blunt as this normally, but that is simply rubbish. There has been substantial research conducted in many countries (in various disciplines) over many years; it is noticeable that most of the people who rubbish global warming are not climatologists (such as Lomborg at one end of the scale and the pub bore at the other end).

Ha ha ha. Brilliant. Individual weather events used as example that global warming is "over" or "solved". Where on earth did you get the idea there is no comment from the global warming lobby?

Jim, I'm with you on this and I am disappointed that Helen has been chased away; some of the comments (admittedly after her departure) were fairly shameful as well. It would have been interesting to discuss the environmental impacts and get some different perspectives. I happen to agree with the general sentiment of many observations (especially the general uselessness of solar panels) but it seems a missed opportunity to maybe put some of the boating views across. As to what organisation...who cares...she could have just asked lots of questions and started threads and not even said she was writing a report or working for an NGO and everyone would have been belting out their opinions.

Received the 1971 article about the staunch on Bottisham Lode through the post, so a little more information, but not a lot - as the afrticle isn't very good!! It seems that throughout the nineteenth century, traffic on all locla waterways declined dramatically (presumably because of the arrival of the railways) but did revive after 1850 because of the coprolite mining in the area. In March 1871, the local drainage comissioners moaned that the boatmen "threw off" the entrance doors to the Lode to scour the navigation enought to get their boats up. (I've wanted to do that on the Huddersfield). The commissioners then arranged a survey, when it was found that the whole navigation was in a poor state because the local boatmen built their own staunches to impound water; the surveyor blamed the poor design of the sluice at the entrence to the lode. Later that year, the unhappy boatmen threatened to take the coprolite to Fulbourn Station by traction engine so the commissioners resolved to repair the sluice at the entrance, and then charge a toll to cover the cost. Coprolite, almost the only goods then, was rated at 8 pence per ton. The staunch was finally authorised in 1875, and - true to form on the waterways - the commissioners rejected one quote, preferring a cheaper one to build the staunch for 200 pounds. The staunch survived until around 1967 before being demolished in 1969. Now only the chamber survives. In some respects, this was an early canal restoration as the building of the staunch reopened an existing navigation. Given the very pleasant scenery, especially around Anglesey Abbey and Stow-cum-Quy, it is a pity that Bottisham Lode slowly disappeared again.

(Thanks Chris...for the link to an earlier post of mine) I have managed to get a set of WWs from a kind person, in return for a donation to charity. It wasn't an absolutely complete set but was moreorless complete from the early 80s through to around 2002 with a fair number from the 7os as well.

Either that, or you are.

Given that Bottisham Lode is now barely a foot wide for much if its length, I'm getting quite fired up about it. Also, I am finding more sources of information. The 'flash lock' is referred to more commonly as a staunch, it seems. It has been written up in Industrial Archaeology: the Journal of the History of Industry and Technology in 1971. Further references are on someone's blog here, in which there is mention of the Swaffham and Bottisham Drainage Commissioners being authorised to charge tolls and build staunches. The blog states that one staunch is still visible and one basin at Lode. The same source states that the lode was used until around 1900 although it was considered too narrow (at 22 feet) for lighters, and that smaller boats were used. 22 feet width seems laughable now, and only the first few hundred metres is wider than about 12 feet now. In the online History of the County of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely: Volume 10 (British History Online) for Swaffham Bulbeck, there is a section on the local economic history which includes little snippets about the (Swaffham Bulbeck Lode) navigation. "In 1376 the villagers asserted their immemorial right to carry merchandise along it by boat against obstruction by the bailiff of Bottisham, while Cambridge men were using boats on it c. 1435. At inclosure ½ a. at its south end was allotted for a public wharf." Further on there is specific additional mention of private staunches to raise the water level for navigation. On Swaffham Bulbeck Lode, the trade was significant enough for the local business to part-own the ships that were used from Kings Lynn for the subsequent export of the agricultural produce. This wasn't just local farmers sending a few cabbages out, but a very substantial trade. Apparently one old barge lay decaying in the terminal basin ("The Fishpond") until 1955; perhaps it is still there! By the 1970s, both the old and new lodes at Swaffham Bulbeck had been filled in. Sadly, the section on Bottisham makes very little mention of Bottisham Lode. However, it does make various references to both brick-making and coprolite mining in the area alongside the lode: maybe the pits in the area near Vicarage Farm are connected with one of those two activities. An article on coprolite mining in Cambridgeshire refers to the Swaffham and Bottisham Drainage Commissioners and correspondence in 1871. At that time, Bottisham Lode was in a fairly disgraceful state and there is some mention of a staunch being constructed in 1872. So perhaps the staunch we see at the end of Lug Fen Drove today is the one built in 1872. In the period from around 1850 to the 1880s, the whole area between Lode and Clayhithe seems to have been dotted with coprolite pits, with tramways taking the valuable cargo to the Cam.

Yes. That's it!!! I wish I could see a photo of it...but that's definitely it, with the rope being somehow looped either side! I feel such an idiot for forgetting how to do it!

Actually, that would have been a better (and less embarrassing) way to get the same information!! What knot do **you** use to hold your boat against the lock-side?

Liam - Your blog is excellent reading as well!

I don't think it is, but thanks for the link!

OK...this has been bugging me for ages. After really messing up a lock on the Calder & Hebble a few years ago, a nearby boater showed me a brilliant knot to use with the mooring rope to keep the boat secure against the side of the lock. It was really easy and quick to tie (blindingly obvious!) but could be released in an instant. For the rest of that holiday, we used it....conscious that probably everyone else on the Cut had known about it since birth....but now I am embarrassed enough to say that in the meantime I have completely forgotten how to tie it. Any chance anyone knows (from this rather poor description) what the knot is and can explain how it is tied?

No......attacking someone simply for their spelling and grammar is puerile and condescending, and you deserved that response.

While not necessarily agreeing with the sentiments stated by Malarky, I've always felt it wise not to criticise people for their grammar or spelling online. There may be many reasons why someone cannot write as well as others. It is unkind and disrespectful, I suggest, to be quite so derogatory. After all, some of your own posts have both spelling mistakes and incorrect grammar. I don't know. Those who couldn't spell Oxbridge properly? (Noting your own criticism of others' spelling earlier)