alan_fincher

I'm not aware of anybody associated with the Brinklow Boat Services operation called John. so I rather doubt it is them.

Simply buy a boat where t is easy! Ours is (internal measurements) 183 cm (wide) by 60 cm (deep) by 90 cm (high). 183 * 60 * 90 / 1000 = 988 litres (or about 217 UK gallons). For the other boat, I know what these hold!

This is cheaper, and is exactly the same grade and API spec, but note the price is for 4.5 litres, not for 5, so you need to look at the (still loerr) "per litre" price. It is not a recommendation - I have never used it, personally, but I see no reason why it should be any less good quality than the Wilkinson supplied oil.

[Pedant alert] But surely many boats hold far more than the 300 to 500 litres that your post implies? We consider the tank on our latest boat somewhat small compared to the last we owned, (and I suspect many other more modern boats), but still estimate it to be about 1000 litres total capacity. [End Pedant alert]

Quite - I don't think we do, do we? Rather relevant to the debate as to whether a non tow-path side barrier would have made any difference!

Edd, I know you are fully aware of the incident we were recently involved in with a volunteer lock keeper, because as well as sending the report through the usual channels, I also ensured you were copied in on it, because to me it is specifically a volunteering issue. We have refrained from further public comment on the specifics of the incident until I have received feed back from CRT. We have also just declined providing further details to a waterways journalist for similar reasons - I think CRT should be given the chance to come up with answers first. However I remain concerned that as far as I know this has only been passed around within CRT as a general incident, and I have seen nothing yet that suggests it is being specifically addressed as an incident where the volunteer refused to do what was required in an emergency situation, and hence put us and our boat in considerable danger. How much time would you personally expect to elapse before I have any feedback on that specific point, please?

Thanks. As I said the forum search is no longer working for me as it used to, and I'm currently struggling to find reliable ways of looking for things like this.

Do you mean a truly genuine continuous 4mph? If so on what canal, and how deep at the point you are trying? 4mph is a maximum speed on most canals, but not all narrow boats can achieve it, and many will come nowhere close if the canal is narrow and shallow. On a practical note hand held tachometers are relatively easy to come by at low cost. You could use one of these to double check the RPM the engine is at, (by measuring rotation of the crankshaft pulley), then also that that the prop-shaft is rotating at. Then if (say) you have a 2:1 reduction on your gearbox, (it will be marked on it usually), but the prop-shaft is not achieving 1000 RPM, when the engine is doing 2000 RPM, you know that the box must be "slipping" in some way, and this could well be exacerbating the problem. However if you establish that the speed the prop-shaft is rotating at is correct for the engine speed and the actual stated reduction ratio of your box, then I'm rather struggling to see why replacing the box is expected to cure the problem. Others with more experience may wish to comment on that logic, though! FWIW, the boat we recently sold, (50 foot) that had a BMC 1800 engine and a PRM box wsith a 2:1 reduction probably needed to be at over 1,500 RPM to genuinely make 4 MPH on a deepish canal, (so prop at 750 RPM). If it was shallow, then winding it up to that or above would have been counter productive, but I doubt even if run the engine at 2000 RPM for quite a while that the coolant temperature would ever have risen much above that that the thermostat opened at (82 degrees in our case).

No, I don't know Ron's marital history, but I think that Mrs Withey is Jan or a Janet. They are going up the Braunston flight.

"Sickle" in its current guise has been used for cover photos on both NABO News and the HNBC Magazine, and has appeared as historic photos in rather more mainstream publications, (books as well as magazines). It has also recently featured as a painting, from which prints have also been made and sold. (We have subsequently fallen in love with and bought the artists original). "Flamingo" in her Willow Wren years was a much photographed boat, and appears many times in magazines, pamphlets and books, and also on a series of postcards. She is on the cover of this book, pictured in 1970 in what was her last year as a long distance canal carrying boat. The chap winding the paddles at the top is "Rocket" Ron Withey, weho still regularly attends hiustoric boat events, and often takes a boat around the parade. "Flamingo" also features twice in the video footage at the end of this..... Even our basic old leisure boat "Chalice" (now sold) managed an appearance in Waterways World.

Apologies if already posted - for some reason forum search is not working reliably for me. Manchester Evening News link

Autherley, possibly?

What do you mean by "a lot of corrosion"? Are there significant pits where there were none before, and, if so do you have any accurate way of measuring them? It is perfectly normal when you pull a boat out to black it to find lots of spots that are "rust coloured", which then expose a shiny surface when pressure washed. However if these are not actually resulting in significant new pits, there are nothing to be concerned about, even if the initial impression you get is not good. I owned our last boat about 10 years, during which it was regularly blacked. Each time it was pulled out I always thought it looked pretty horrible, but in all honesty I had no way of measuring whether it was more pitted or getting worse. I need not have worried - the purchaser's surveyor apparently found it in exceedingly good condition for a 20 year old boat, commenting on it as one of the best he had seen. I think you need to be clearer about what you are seeing. What causes you to believe it is galvanic?

The fairly popular Villager Puffin and Heron stoves are in 5mm plate, and I get the distinct impression things like the Boatman are similar, but have never owned one. Bits of some Squirrel castings are I'm sure not that thick. I've never actually seen a failed steel stove of any quality, nor seen many references to such. The only one I can recall discussed on the forum was one where the area the door seal should close on was corroded and damaged. I can only assume that was a failure to keep the seal properly maintained, or possibly use of fuels not recommended for the stove.

If it is not too late, I would also make a new BSS a condition of the sale. I suspect you currently have no idea how much (or how little) expense will be needed to get it through its next one. It would definitely be best not to have to try and get it through a BSS after so short a period of ownership. (Unless of course you are buying at a bargain basement price, and have factored this in as something else you may need to throw money at).

No they apply to Squirrels, one of the more expensive stoves, unless you are conceding they are poor quality cast iron. There are countless posts, here and elsewhere, about people needing to replace them at less than (say) 10 years old. You would struggle to say the same about (good quality) steel ones. Why does the thickness of the metal have a great part to play in the performance of a stove? Surely it is the mass of fuel and any fire bricks or back boiler that has a much higher thermal capacity than the actual body of the stove? Anyway, if you look at a failed cast iron stove or range, it is very surprising how thin some parts of the castings are. I'm definitely not talking about the Machine Mart end of the market!