mayalld
-
Posts
12,315 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
91
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by mayalld
-
-
14 hours ago, Ray T said:
dixi188, one of the issues that CRT have, to a certain extant, be seen doing something to pacify the Health & Safety at work brigade. If people insist in falling off bridges / viaducts, whether voluntarily or otherwise , what do CRT do - nothing?
And you would assert that people insisted upon falling off Marple Aqueduct?
Do you have stats on the number of people in the 200 years that it was unfenced?
Of those, how many would have been prevented by the fence that has been erected?
How many will fall off in the next 200 years as the fence induces people to jump the channel because it is now "safe"
-
2 hours ago, PeterF said:
Huddersfield lock 5E paddle failure
The offside head paddle of Lock 5 has failed, therefore the lock cannot be emptied and passage is not possible. The local team is currently assessing the issue and we will update this notice when we have further information.
Aaaaaaaagh. I was just about to start a trip from the Calder & Hebble through to the Shropshire Union. With lock 49 on the Rochdale out of action due to a blown cill (see here) and the repairs at Burnley going into mid June we currently have no open cross Pennine routes. My wife will not countenance the Tidal Trent, so I hope it is sorted soon, I will just have to start out and hope it is sorted quickly.
Failed paddle should only take one day
-
5 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:
Te CRT web site still says 16.00h today, so not yet, I'd imagine!
Was still fenced yesterday.
Will drive up later!
-
I understand that I was having my nappy changed
-
On 02/05/2019 at 16:51, Alan de Enfield said:
But there would be 20% to add on (rather than 5%) as it is not a domestic property.
So 13p would become 15.6p add 2.5p per unit for the service charge and its up at 18p PPU
The marina would reclaim the input VAT at 20% and pay the output VAT at 20% so a nett effect for them.
They would pay input VAT at 20% but charge output VAT at 5%, so they should be charging at the 5% rate
-
Due to circumstances occupying the entire family (my Mother-in-law had a stroke before Christmas, and passed away a month ago), it has been a late start to the boating year for us. Never before has our first trip of the year been in May.
But May it was, for the post winter shakedown cruise. My Vetus started first time, and no engine troubles are reported (just a failed shower drain pump for me).
Not so for Stepdaughter and Son-in-Law!
Last year, he removed the high output alternator, and returned to the original, because it was shredding belts. On start-up, got the tell-tale screech of a slipping belt at anything over tickover. Cured by disconnecting the battery management system and reconnecting after an hour. Permanent fix installed by way of a switch in the magic lead, to stop the BMS deregulating the alternator until the battery has been charged a bit, and the moisture is gone from the belt and pulleys.
But I get ahead of myself. Starting was a problem in itself. Turning the key produced lots of thudunk thudunk, but no whirr whirr.
In time honoured "take your life into your hands" mode, a big screwdriver was deployed across the back of the solenoid, and lots of whirr whirr ensued. We even avoided accidentally earthing the screwdriver and welding it in situ.
So, feeling pleased with self at having diagnosed the issue as the solenoid contacts. Doesn't actually help with engine starting during weekend out (screwdriver too dangerous in hands of Son-in-Law).
No chance of a solenoid on Saturday Morning, so thinking caps on, and box of spares out. Spare battery leads and spare isolator switch look just the job, and duly fashioned into temporary contactor. In fitting, use multimeter to discover that main isolators do not isolate starter feed.
Battery off and temporary contactor added. Battery back on, and by jove it works! Turn ignition key, insert red key, and engine turns. Works like a dream on Saturday and Sunday.
So, this morning, poised at the ready with red key in hand. Turn ignition key, and it turns over without the temporary switch being actuated. Alleluia, the solenoid has been healed, or has it....
Release key, and starter continues to turn. Bugger, the knackered contacts in the solenoid have not only found an electrical path, the have welded themselves on. Mad race to disconnect battery.
Thinking cap on REALLY hard now, and eureka moment. If we remove all the positive connection from the feed side of the solenoid, and bolt them all together (including the cable to the temp contactor, the welded solenoid contacts won't matter.
It works, the engine starts.
So, on return remove solenoid, and marvel at the fact that aftermarket replacements replace about 10 different Lucas Models. What was different about the 10 Lucas solenoids that got them different numbers?
So, Auto Electrical Spares say that their "131786 Starter solenoid replaces Lucas TOB128 , 2M113 , M45G" Is also good as a replacement for this 77021. Time will tell. Really hoping that it is internally compatible, so that I can fit it with the plunger from the original solenoid still in place so as to avoid having to unship the actual starter motor.
Fun weekend all in all!
-
18 minutes ago, Beki Turner said:
We are not hand-to-mouth, I just don't feel its fair to my horses to kill 'em off just because they are no longer rideable and are still enjoying life. We rent our land - it's not expensive. I do just want to off-set some of the costs of a canal boat by letting it out when we can't use it. My experience with Airbnb has been overwhelmingly positive. I have not had a single person who didn't respect our space/posessions and my rules.
Don't you every find yourself moored up against some complete f*ckwits that own their boat/mooring but behave appallingly?
Yes, we have had neighbours that were a PITA, but with long term moorers in a marina, they either toe the line, or they are asked to leave, so the problem vanishes, and you end up with neighbours who are fine who stay for many months.
A constant stream of airbnb users wouldn't have the same checks and balances, and if the marina I am in allowed it, I would move to a marina that doesn't allow it.
You make choices about security risks to YOUR property, but when you airbnb in a marina you are making choices about your neighbours security too, and it isn't just your clients that are at issue. As soon as you start having random people in the marina, strangers don't stand out like a sore thumb any more, and people start to assume that the guy who is looking to break into boats is just one of your airbnb clients.
If people seem unenthusiastic, it would be because however good it may be for you, it is bad for your neighbours, and we've all heard the same idea hundreds of times before.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
I think you have misunderstood.
The failure highlighted by C&RT may be nothing to do with a BSS checked item, there fore getting a BSS examiner to re-check would result in the same result, a BSS 'pass' and a C&RT 'fail'.
How would a BSS examiner 'address' the issue ?
As far as I am aware the BSS examiner is just that - he is not a 'fixer' making things comply.
Surely you would need a person competent to resolve whatever the issue is - it may involve welding for example - that would not / could not be resolved by a BSS examiner.
I suspect that the point is that even if the safety issue isn't a BSS checklist item, it will be within the scope of a BSS examiner's competence to inspect it and confirm that the issue has gone away.
If it is not, then I would expect that CRT would offer to inspect the work once done.
-
1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:
I did not say it was simple - law never is! However, I was really challenging the apparent assumption that planning issues were not law. Since the planning permission (eg for a marina) will have been obtained by the owner/operator the they probably have the primary duty to comply and to ensure that the use of their facility complies -which would mean taking reasonable steps etc. If the LA decided to pursue the matter then the marina owner would have to show that they had exercise due diligence. For example, they might be able to evidence taking copies of documentation that showed that the moorer has a permanent home elsewhere, but would not be liable if the documents were tendered fraudulently.
The first page returned from a quick Google was this https://www.darlingtons.com/blog/breach-of-planning-enforcement-and-some-severe-penalties the headline of which is that "the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which gives them powers to confiscate any financial gains which are made as a result of breach of planning control."
The point is that breach of planning enforcement is a serious matter, but not having permission isn't.
If you have been told "no" you must not do. If you haven't been told either way (and indeed if you haven't asked), you can do, but at the risk that you might be told no down the line.
So, if you moor to a farmers field, and he has never applied for planning permission for a mooring, no offence is committed.
If the Local Authority then notices, and decides to say "sorry, but you can't have a mooring here", then carrying on mooring would be an offence.
If they don't notice, or notice but don't care, then eventually you can get deemed permission because you've been openly doing it for years
-
13 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:
It may well be the way C&RT work, but it not a legally enforceable requirment - there is no requirement for a boat with a home mooring to 'bona fide navigate.
The judgement in the case of CaRT v Mayers states that repeated journeys between the same two places would be 'bona fide navigation' if the boater had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal. HHJ Halbert also stated that any requirement by CaRT to use a substantial part of the canal network was not justified by Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 because the requirement to use the boat for bona fide navigation is 'temporal not geographical'.
6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.
The key thing here is that the mooring must be available.
If the OP is no longer paying for the mooring, the mooring owner will doubtless let it to somebody else. It has ceased to be available (both in practical terms because somebody else is there, and in strict legal terms, because the owner isn't going to let the OP return and use a mooring he doesn't pay for).
As CRT know how many boats a mooring can accommodate, they will soon notice that the mooring has more boats registered than can moor there, and can ask the owner what is going on
-
15 hours ago, nicknorman said:
I think with Facebook etc people have forgotten how to disagree. This is of course a current theme in itself! I have no problem with PD taking a different view, eg that volockies are great and why shouldn’t they stop me using a paddle. As you say, we should be allowed to disagree! However when that disagreement takes the form of a personal attack, ridicule etc., that is not good.
On this occasion, I would agree wholeheartedly with your view of the Volunteer, and of the sarcasm that drips from certain posts here.
Both are wrong.
Might I suggest, however, that upon the second point, there are times when you yourself are less than well behaved in this respect!!
-
2
-
-
35 minutes ago, PD1964 said:
A lot of people on here complain about the Volockies but at least they are volunteering and trying to help the boaters using the canal.
No they aren't.
Some may be doing it for that reason.
Some may actually BE helpful.
Unfortunately, some have the desire to help, but lack the skills to do so. It is not incumbent upon any of us to be grateful for the imposition of unhelpful help.
Still others just want to play with the locks. I can see the attraction (I want to do that too). Should I be grateful that somebody wants to volunteer to do something that I actually want to do myself.
And finally we have the failed traffic wardens, who just want to boss other people around.
-
1 hour ago, BEngo said:
The centralised watter wasters started with a full reservoir system last year, but in several areas had still managed to tip it all away by mid-August. Unless CRT change the way the water is controlled I have no doubt they will be able to do that again.
A cynic might say that is a CRT aim, since it eliminates boat movements and provides an excuse for ignoring the CM problem.
N
But surely not!
After all, last year they emptied most of the upper pound of the PF/Macc onto the playing fields in Bollington, when the temporary repair failed again.
After they made another temporary repair, they said that a permanent repair would follow, and over the winter they have.....
Oh yeah, that's right, they haven't done a permanent repair, so it will probably happen all over again come May.
-
On 23/02/2019 at 10:01, aracer said:
Hmm, I was hoping for replies from somebody who actually knew
Sounds like you were hoping for a reply that says they can't charge you, and you aren't happy with responses that say they can.
-
4
-
-
3 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:
That's a moot point that would keep the lawyers busy - it doesn't say railway property, it says...
or if any person shall wilfully trespass upon any railway, or any of the stations or other works or premises connected therewith
To me (and I have some experience) this doesn't mean anything the railway owns, it means anything connected with "the railway", which means what? If parliament had wanted to mean land owned by they could have said so, but presumably they saw the risk in all the adhoc bits of land that railways did (and still do) own.
The distinction of "the railway" and "stations..." would suggest parliament meant the permanent way and associated works.
Lawyers need to eat too!
I suspect that it would indeed be a moot point, but they would have a go to pile the pressure on
-
2 hours ago, magpie patrick said:
Edited to add - "Trespassers will be prosecuted" is a statement with no legal weight behind it at all, at least in England and Wales
In general, this is true, but there are some limited circumstances in which trespass is a criminal offence, and trespass on railway property is one of those
Section 16, Railway Regulation Act 1840
-
9 minutes ago, tree monkey said:
You've offered to scrap it for £50 and a bag of pork scratching?
Damn, looks like I'm going to be outbid!
I thought I'd get it no problem for £1,74
-
1
-
-
All this negativity!
I've put in a very good offer for this boat.
-
24 minutes ago, Phil Ambrose said:
OK Tony, I've altered that to "a spanner that fits correctly"
I didn't think it had to be spelt out as a spanner that does not fit correctly cannot be described as a spanner that fits.
Phil
I am always reminded of what my dad said when I was young, and he asked me to pass him a half-inch spanner.
I looked through the metric spanners, and asked which one was nearest to the right size.
He responded "half inch - use the correct spanner, not a nearly right one"
-
26 minutes ago, johnmarshmanagain said:
HI All
Canal location of video for song concerning weaving mills...
Easy one I'm sure, but cannot swear to it..
https://mainlynorfolk.info/lloyd/songs/theweaverandthefactorymaid.html
Regards JOhn
Looks very like various locations along the Ashton Canal to me.
Would certainly fit in with the opening shot of Stockport Viaduct.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, Calranthe said:A lot of you thought I was crazy and wasting money last year on the boat Kathleen, after all we got only 48 hours on the water at a cost of £4500, a boat we sold for £750, last year both me and Paola knew things were getting worse, the money didn't mean anything, we were desperate to have one last bit of fun and for Paola to do things she never had before, Paola had never been on a boat, we had never owned a boat and it was worth it.
To actually own a boat even though it fell apart, it mattered, to travel those few miles of the Trent and onto the canal it mattered, the people we met while broken down, the community, it all mattered.
As I said in my last post here, things were getting worse, her kidneys failed and we went on dialysis, dealt with it all at home, no problem, I was trained on all the medical stuff and we got on with life, walks and pushing the wheelchair became less frequent, Paola was hurting more often and more fatigued.
All was going well or so we thought, dialysis was tweaked and things were beginning to look up unfortunately it was not meant to be, seems whatever had killed off her kidneys so quickly was also damaging her heart.
Day after her 2 monthly appointment she had acid reflux and nausea seems a woman can have a heart attack without any of the normal signs, its called a silent heart attack, she ended up in the coronary care unit.
Here is the story of what happened.
https://imgur.com/gallery/JSggx0v
Now the universe seems to have a sense of humour because, 7 days after she died (20th November) I was diagnosed with bowel cancer, I went into hospital on the 3rd January to have part of my bowels removed an I am back home now, I go to see the team to find out the prognosis and how much chemo I will need.
Life has little meaning for me now, Paola was my world and please unless you have personally had this kind of loss do not say "time heals" or any of the other platitudes, I have no family, no friends, no children, no career, I have probably had 1 visitor to the house since November 20th that was not to do with my illness or the funeral.
I spent 21 amazing years with Paola, 18 hours a day not one hour away from each other as her carer, no respite, no pub visits or time away, we were a couple in the truest sense of the word, I may just never get over this.
Why is this in the boat section, because that time spent on here planning, that time spent making friends and on the water was the most special time me and Paola had, that 48 hours was worth millions not £4500, not one second of it was a waste and the memory of her sitting on the back of the boat taking pictures as I piloted us up the river will never leave me.
Don't listen to anyone who tells you its not worth it, don't let anyone tell you not to experience now because me and Paola were just a normal couple of students when we met, we had plans and dreams, you could lose everything tomorrow and ask yourself what would you regret? what didn't you do? what did you put off till next year?
Hi Jason,
I'm afraid that I missed the shenanigans when the forum was (rightly and wrongly) telling you that you must be mad. Rightly because your project was a hopeless case, and wrongly because given your circumstances it was absolutely the right thing to do to pursue the hopeless case.
The reason that I missed it, is the reason that I am exempt from your restrictions on what people can say, namely that I had recently lost my Wife to Cancer after 17 years together, and wasn't following the forum as avidly as usual.
Time doesn't heal. Time cannot make your life what it was before. Time can and does slowly carry away the worst of the grief, and enable you to go on with your life and to build a new life within the new reality.
The point to make is that whether the hand that we are dealt in life is good or bad, it is what we have. It is the new reality, and we can only try to make the best of it.
When Bev died in August 2017, this wasn't our first trip on this particular roller coaster. We'd been there before in 2010 when her son was killed in Afghanistan, and in 2000 when her first husband took his own life.
Bev and I had the pleasure of owning a boat for 15 years, and making many happy memories, but the happiest memory is the last one where she overcame kidney problems for long enough to join us on one final trip to Ellesmere Port before the Cancer took hold and she had to leave part way through for what proved to be a final spell in hospital.
I'm not in the same situation as you, as I have a job, I'm not ill, and whilst I don't have children of my own, I do have a stepdaughter, son-in-law and two grandsons. I count my blessings there. I also make sure that I get out of the house. Friendship won't find you. You must find it. Go looking for things that you can do out of the house.
I also have every intention of continuing to boat. Bev and I enjoyed it together. It sounds like you an Paola did too for the limited time you shared it. If that is still a dream for you, then go for it. If it is a dream that isn't constrained by the timescales of a terminal prognosis, do try to do it sensibly :-)
Anyway, I know that I'm not the first to offer, but if you fancy a trip out for a widowers' cruise, I'm not a million miles for SoT and I would certainly try to make you welcome for a mix of sad tales and forced merriment.
Dave
-
11
-
7
-
On 18/01/2019 at 23:19, zenataomm said:
Come on admit it ………… you just want the MG badge don't you?
Stepdaughter and Son-in-Law have a BMC 1.5, which came with a spare rocker cover.
Despite my words of encouragement, 7 years on it has not been fitted.
This isn't an MG one. Oh no! This is a Chrome Plated Wolsey rocker cover.
Complete philistines they are.
-
4 hours ago, Cheshire cat said:
It will probably be down to local authorities to enforce. They haven't got the staff to do it.
My defra approved stove also comes in a non-approved version. The only difference is the slide that cuts off the air supply. On the approved one you can't cut off the air supply to the extent that the fire just smoulders. It's impossible to keep it in overnight but it's no hardship to build a new fire each morning.
One imagines that whilst the sale of the non-approved version will be banned, it might be possible to buy replacement parts for the non-approved version?
That could mean that some NORTY people convert approved stoves into useful stoves....
-
On 30/12/2018 at 12:43, Graham Davis said:
Stop stirring!
Why you have to bring up an old story I do not know, other than to be troublesome.
Give it a rest.It isn't troublesome.
It's just teasing another forum member who can take the joshing, and can hand it out in equal measure.
It isn't even as if anybody mentioned the best way to operate a moveable bridge.
-
1
-
Hacking is not funny.
in Technical & Account Support
Posted
No they don't.
They may SAY that they come from the hosting company, but I could say that I'm calling from Buck House.