mayalld
-
Posts
12,315 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
91
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by mayalld
-
-
27 minutes ago, Paul C said:
Its not complicated there will be a transition period then they'll enforce it - anything more than a trace of red would need to be explained.
Have you ever done the maths on how long it would take to eliminate the red from a boat tank?
If we assume a 250 litre tank, and use as an example a leisure boater who does;
- 10 weekends in the early part of the year (say 15 litres per weekend)
- A 2 week trip in the summer (say 120 litres)
- Another 10 weekends in the later part of the year (again 15 litres per weekend)
As a sensible chap who wants to avoid diesel bug, he fills up on returning to the marina each time, and he fills up mid-week on his 2 week cruise.
At the end of year one his tank is nearly 17% red.
It will take 2.5 years to get to 1% red (which is I suspect rather more than a "trace")
-
6 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:
I'm talking in general, not this specific case.
Hope that helped.
So was I
You're welcome
-
1
-
-
On 02/09/2019 at 20:16, NB Caelmiri said:
With the exception of “bucking the system”, what is wrong with the preference to simply have a “floating flat” and not being interested in boating? Everyone who owns a boat, whether it be for living, for pleasure, for exploring the network, or whatever else has their own reason for being on the water. Who are you or I to determine what reason someone has for being on the water? As long as they’re abiding by the rules,
They aren't.
Hope that Helps
-
1 hour ago, frangar said:
A situation probably not helped by the new build houses. Sounds like a problem to put back to the water board.
I found this online.
Water suppliers’ statutory service standard level of mains water pressure is 10 metres/head (or one bar). This means there is enough force/pressure to push the water to a height of 10m.
This is measured at the point where the water leaves the water suppliers pipework and enters yours (usually the outside stop valve or property boundary).
As a guide, if you have a suitable single service pipe, the first tap in the home (this is usually the kitchen tap) should be able to fill a 4.5 litre (one gallon) bucket in 30 seconds, with all other taps and appliances turned off. Another way of putting it is enough water pressure to fill a cold water storage cistern in a two storey house roofspace.
The situation was long before the new houses, but it is entirely possible that the new houses resulted in an improvement, and that CRT simply haven't removed the restrictor
-
11 hours ago, Goliath said:
I found the tap at the top of the Bosley flight is one of the fastest I’ve every used.
( There’s also a tap behind the service block which I failed to notice first time I came up that flight)
Thanks for heads up on slow Marple tap, I’ll make sure I fill up at Bugsworth before going back down the Macc.
the tap at the back of the service block at Bosley is for the pump-out.
I wouldn't want to fill the water tank from it!
16 hours ago, frangar said:I gave up a few weeks ago....then there was a queue at Poynton.....ended up at the CRT yard at Macclesfield which isn’t much better! Considering both of them are quite close to civilisation I’ve no idea why they are so slow....I even looked for any stopcocks at Marple.
Basically, the water pressure round there is pants.
I believe that there is a flow restrictor in the line, because without it the neighbouring houses were suffering complete loss of water when the WP was used
-
1 hour ago, dmr said:
They are good people in a good boat and sadly the increased enforcement has forced a number of good boaters off the canal (which might or might not be the case here) whilst the bad'uns are willing to brazen it out.
Good people, in a good boat, who imagine that the rules shouldn't apply to them because it would cost a lot more money to play by the rules.
They might complain about gentrification. Others can complain about an overbearing sense of entitlement that says they should be allowed whatever they want, and if they can't afford it, they should be exempted from paying for things.
-
3
-
-
7 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:
How are they going to achieve that? A significant proportion the K&A is canalized river, where the adjoining offside landowners have historic Riparian Rights, which precede the building of the canal. There are also Riparian Rights which were granted to agricultural landowners within the enabling Acts when the canal was built. Whether current landowners have inherited those rights will depend upon whether they were transferred when the land was sold.
I believe that the operative word is "new"
-
19 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:
Isn't that between the CRT and the boat owner? What I see here is a load of curtain twitchers.
The boat owner has chosen to go public, inviting us all to sympathise.
It is, I would suggest, open to us to sympathise with either the Boater or CRT, as we see the rights and wrongs of it.
In my view, it is entirely proper for a boater to hold an opinion on how CRT conducts enforcement.
The extent to which people get away with breaking the rules directly affects CRT income, which affects what CRT want from the rest of us, and a lack of enforcement can only lead to ever more people ignoring the rules.
-
2
-
-
26 minutes ago, carlt said:
Fair enough.
I am merely commenting as someone who rented an EOG mooring from a landowner with BW's blessing.
Either times have changed or it varies from case to case.
I believe that times have changed.
CRT are less than keen on on-line moorings, and their policy is that they won't give permission for EOG Moorings unless the owner of the property is the moorer
-
15 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:
I think that there is some caveat to this :
"unless they have intentionally made themselves homeless"
Extract from a Housing lawyer 'help line' :
If the local authority decide that you made yourself homeless or that you don't fit into any of the list a - o (at the top of this page), or that you have a connection with another local authority, they can refuse your application. You may then have to leave the temporary accommodation that they have found for you.
I really don't see the problem - if they are a 'low income family' they will get support from the LA.
We managed to get a Residential mooring, the boat licence and the insurance all paid for by the LA for a friend who had problems.
I'm sure the Baton-Twirlers would have told them how to go about claiming.
Legally speaking, they are already homeless.
Anybody who lives on a boat is for these purposes "homeless"
-
15 minutes ago, nicknorman said:
Could you tell us who you sent the complaint to /what email address? I have still received no reply to my complaint about Wigan volockies which I sent to the NW office in mid-July.
Sent it via the contact form on the CRT website
-
5 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:
Ripple and Lutine both suffered with drive belt squeal - sooner or later the squeal would stop permanently when the drive belt snapped! It tends to be a sign the belt isn't quite as tight as it could be, and I guess that can also be a sign the belt is near the end of it's life.
Daughter's boat suffers perpetual squeal, and destruction of belts.
It became almost a ritual - Start engine, belt squeals, stop engine, re-tension belt, start engine, all is well.
Belt alignment is perfect.
Then I discovered the issue - User error!
When he re-tensioned the belt, he tightened both the mounting bolts, and he tightened the slider bolt. He wasn't tightening the bolt that fastened the arm to the engine. The result was that over the course of the day, it was acting as a little hammer to slide the bolt along the slider.
-
18 hours ago, NB Caelmiri said:
For a lifestyle/hobby/interest/whatever you want to call it that is supposed to be calming, relaxing and a way to unwind, there sure is a load of grumpy buggers on the cut.
Perhaps being grumpy IS our hobby!
BTW, I have had a phone call from CRT regarding my complaint.
The Volunteer engagement co-ordinator fully agrees that the volunteers MUST ask first, and that the issues reported are not the way that volunteers are to act.
He has details of those involved, and they will be spoken to.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, carlt said:
It depends whether the boats are wide or narrow beam.
NORTY STEP!
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, Traveller said:
Has anyone experience of the above company? They have some 110ah batteries on offer with free next day working delivery but theirTtrustPilot rating is low and they appear to have vanished from Ebay.
Many thanks
Colin
They are superb.
Never tried their delivery, because I always drive to Stockport and collect.
The web site is MUCH shinier than the premises!
-
6 minutes ago, Eldog said:
Just finished this years extended cruise and have encountered numerous Volockies on our travels and must say overall IMHO they provide an excellent service.
There are two ways in which the service can be excellent;
1) You wish to use that service, and it is provided well.
2) You do not wish to use that service, and it is efficiently ascertained that it is not required.
Otherwise, it is just the same as politely and efficiently helping old ladies across the road who wanted to be on the side where you found them
-
3
-
-
21 hours ago, john6767 said:
That is true, but as we know it is not how it always works, they go ahead and do stuff without your permission, it’s not easy in practice to stop them always and sometimes easier to let it go.
And there is the issue.
They are supposed to ask, but asking means they could be told "no", and they really want to play with the locks, so it suits their ambitions for the day to not ask, and instead rely on you going out of your way to say no.
Of course, saying no when they have already started means either shouting to them, which you don't want to do, or leaving the helm in a lock which you don't want to do, so refusing is rather difficult.
What follows from that is that they assume consent, and very few people explicitly refuse, or complain (they may not have wanted help, but easier to say nothing now), so they justify to themselves that it is OK to do this.
That is why it is important to challenge incorrect procedures.
-
10 hours ago, john6767 said:
I did not give them permission to do that, there were 4 of them one on each gate, and the two at the top just opened both top paddles without asking. As you know it is very difficult when they just go ahead with what they want to do when you are on the boat. Perhaps I worded it badly, in that I was not asked what I wanted them to do, they just when ahead before my wife had arrived at the lock. I guess I could have just waited outside the lock until she was there, but I would bet that the guy on the offside would have opened the paddle irrespective if what she said we wanted. Having this “help” at one lock in 21 is NOT help. Having said that on a different occasion we have had good help at Hatton even though it is only ever on the top half of the flight.
You acquiesced to their actions.
They have absolutely zero authority to require the lock to be done in a particular way. They have absolutely zero authority to even touch the lock without seeking your permission.
If they didn't ask for permission, and you said nothing, you accepted the situation. You could have said "excuse me, I do not require your assistance, please leave the lock to me"
-
3 minutes ago, nicknorman said:
No I think it just depends on what sort of boater you are. For me, locks are a challenge and a big part of the fun. For others, they are a chore. There is no right answer except to say that whilst I can accept that some people enjoy the services of volockies, they should not be forced on those who don’t want their services (or advice, or tut-tuts). Especially when the actual encounter varies so much from very pleasant (see my post 615) do the downright rude and obnoxious (see Adam’s post). Good volockies - the category in which I presume you reside - should be vocal in their objection to rude “little Hitler” volockies just as much as I am, for it risks to giving you all a bad name.
Well,
if I were to see Birdseye at a lock dressed in blue, I would be unworried, because I actually know him, and know that he knows what he is doing, and isn't about to do anything without saying hi.
Sadly, the overwhelming majority of volunteers that I encounter are not of his calibre.
-
1 hour ago, aracer said:
You guys are being very absolutist. I've maybe not done a huge amount of boating compared to some of you, but way more than the average leisure boater. I have encountered plenty of vlockies, but they've universally been helpful and I don't recognise at all the behaviour others have mentioned (apart from the one I mentioned ages ago, but I'm fairly sure he was actually a CRT chugger getting above his station rather than a vlockie - certainly haven't seen him around here again anyway).
However I suspect it also depends a lot on where you go - I've had a fairly limited range so far (and did a lot of that out of season). I do wonder whether there are specific locations which attract those who are a problem - interesting comment above about it being something suggested to people by their counsellors, maybe these are people who find social interaction difficult.
I do wonder a little about some of the attitudes on here though - for a start the first sentence there is a complete strawman, nobody on here is saying vlockies are good even if they're bad. But maybe some of you are also the opposite of an excited spaniel and ironically very similar to those you're complaining about - personally I welcome the presence of vlockies for the social interaction - it seems some here really don't want that. It's also really easy to deal with the minor stuff - yes I've been told to stay on my boat, on occasions when the vlockies were clearly going to work me as quick as I would myself I've complied, on others I've just politely said "no, I'm used to single handing, I'll get off and help if that's OK". Lack of eye contact may just signify poor social skills, but that certainly doesn't make somebody incapable of being a good vlockie, not so long as they are prepared to listen. I also note the attitude of wanting to work the locks - well maybe such people haven't done as much concentrated boating as me - after 30 locks in a day single handing I'm bored of working locks and happy for any assistance ?
Look, if you want a volunteer to help you, then it is entirely up to you. Your boat, your lock, your choice. If you are prepared to accept sub-optimal working of the lock as a price worth paying (including downright dangerous practices) for a less energetic life, or quicker passage, then nobody is trying to stop you.
When I'm going through a lock (My boat, my lock, my choice), I don't consider what I get from the volunteer to be worth the cost in terms of creating danger, preventing me from taking much needed exercise, irritating me by issuing instructions when I go away to get away from such things, etc. etc.
Quite apart from not wanting them interfering at all, I particular am not asking for them to be sociable. Passage through a lock is filled with potential hazards, which we avoid by NOT socialising in the process. Volunteers shouldn't be having a natter, but they must communicate. Boating is enjoyable, working locks is enjoyable, but you need your wits about you.
You mention being told to stay on the boat, and you politely responding that you won't "if that's OK". My polite response is "No thank you, I will be working the lock". Whether it is OK with the volunteer or not doesn't enter into it. I do not need the volunteer's permission to work the lock myself, and I do not need him to agree to step aside.
My main beef is volunteers imposing their help without a word. They must ask. The onus is not on the boater to countermand a preconception of consent (he is 70 feet away, I don't want to shout to him to stop, and I cannot safely walk to him to tell him "no" if he might just wind a paddle whilst I am making my way to him.
-
9 minutes ago, Jim Riley said:
While the top end of the C&H has everything spruced up and tidy, the number of broken paddles along broad cut is atrocious, the working ones could be eased with a bit of grease. So why put Volockies on a push button lock where they aren't needed when there is other maintenance to do?
Because volunteers don't want to do things that might be useful. They want to play with locks.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
12 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:There have been many threads here about volly problems, this is not the first.
I suspect you don't do much boating to have never encountered a bossy and awkward one who doesn't like you doing the locks yourself.
Or maybe you just aren't that aware of the problems that crop up when you want to work the locks for yourself and you resist being told what to do a volly. For example I got told to "STAY ON YOUR BOAT" a while back when I always get off in locks, and I got off. Volly turned his back on me and stomped off in a huff back to his hut when I started to explain why I got off (odd that I should feel obliged to). Fine with me as I got what I wanted, but I'd rather not have this sort of shyte from vollies. Its not a big deal but this sort of thing makes my heart sink a little when I see the blue shirts bobbing around at a lock in the distance as now there is a degree of stress and uncertainty about how its all gonna go. I'd rather they Just Weren't There.
Not all boaters perceive what you see as as 'help'. Some of us perceive it as 'interference'.
What is actually slightly MORE irritating than volunteers doing something to "help" (when I have never sought their "help" and the "help" that they purport to provide is often not actually helpful) is the fact that when I dare say so, people pop up and berate me for being less than gracious to people who have given up their time to help me.
According to the JWs at the door today, they too are there to help me, They too are giving up their time to do so. Their "help" is of no use to me.
In both cases, the help offered is actually more about the putative helper's wants than about what I want.
We are told that they are trained to offer help, yet repeatedly they impoise their assistance without asking. They are there for a day out because they enjoy operating locks. CRT clearly understand that there is a small army of people out there wanting to volunteer because they enjoy operating locks. Why can they not understand that a lot of boaters enjoy it too,
Why can they not understand that for many boaters, introducing an additional body into the operation who isn't a part of the boat crew has one main effect; It means that the steerer doesn't know how the lock will be operated as he would with his own crew, and that passage through the lock now becomes more stressful because of having to watch a volunteer like a hawk rather than rely upon the symbiosis with his own crew who he KNOWS will do it right. Not really very good for a charity that is now all about welbeing.
-
8
-
1 hour ago, Jerra said:
I notice nobody has attempted to enlighten me over my queries in #153
1. Cost
2. Production emissions basically negating the advantages of the cell.
OK;
1) Fuel cell cost is primarily driven by the use of precious metal catalysts. As significantly cheaper catalysts become available (and the development here is using iron catalysts instead of platinum), the cost of fuel cells will fall.
2) There isn't any actual evidence here.
The main issue with fuel cells today is that Hydrogen production isn't clean.
When fuel cells will come into their own is when hydrogen production shifts to electrolysis, using renewable energy.
You ask "why not just use renewable energy". The answer is all about how to get that energy to the point of use. For fixed installations, that is simple. For moving ones, it is less so. Somehow, you have to take all that renewable energy, and store it for later use without being connected to the grid.
You need to find a medium that is available, energy dense, capable of being transferred onboard rapidly, and at convenient intervals.
Now, let us consider the options;
Batteries - nope. They are energy dense, but there are issues around sufficient supply, and around speed of energy on-boarding, and around the provision of infrastructure that will conveniently allow boats to charge.
Batteries plus solar - a little better, but doesn't fix the availability issues, and solar is never going to be the complete answer.
Fuel cell - yes.
A fuel cell is simply another battery chemistry. The big difference being that rather than recharge on board, the recharging happens on land, and you load the charge at suitable intervals.
The technology isn't there yet, but it will be in a relatively short time,
-
12 hours ago, peterboat said:
It's a joke speak EV have ridiculed it for its total lack of safety and its huge cost to buy and its running costs. Hydrogen is expensive and available in only 10 stations in the UK, one of which is in Sheffield, it's produced by a wind turbine so you might as well miss out the expensive and dangerous middle man (hydrogen) and just use the electricity to charge cars at home, work and charging stations
You rather miss the point
there isn't enough lithium in existence to make enough batteries to power all these cars
battery technology is here now. It provides a power source now to allow development of the electrical drive train, but it will not scale
ultimately fuel cell technology will need to work
Goodbye Red Diesel?
in General Boating
Posted
Actually, HMRC like to catch people, pour encourager les autres.
In that respect, they are far less keen on the easy life than other agencies.
Not that far from where I live, there is a quiet cul-de-sac. It is adjacent to some warden controlled housing (although the warden is now remote). The demographic is such that few of the residents have cars, and those that do park them (for reasons that will be clear) on the other side of the complex.
The cul-de-sac in question has become the haunt of drug dealers. The street lights are regularly interfered with to allow them to ply their trade unseen, and the residents at that side of the complex live in fear. The police, I regret to say, have other more important things to deal with. and do not trouble the dealers.
A couple of months ago, the dealers expanded their range. No longer do they just supply weed, cocaine and heroin. Oh no! They have started supplying..... (you may want to sit down for this)…..
Smuggled Fags!!!!
Naturally this major escalation merited a response. Within 2 days of the word getting out that people could get cheap fags from the drug dealers (who had been left unhindered for 18 months before this). HMRC and the Police swooped, and they were arrested.