alan_fincher

It's not an issue if you buy a sensible boat, with a sensible shallow draught. Unfortunately I have just sold the only one of those I had! Unfortunately we couldn't do the 2015 one, or I'm sure we might have "rescued" somebody! Nick should have come to the Braunston show - he could have photographed me briefly stuck on the off side with Flamingo, (boats were moored 3 abreast on the tow-path, not leaving heaps of depth in the bit of canal that remained), but so far, I have not seen anything that suggests photographic evidence of that "happening", so perhaps I imagined it!

Yes, They look particularly butch, particularly from a lesser boat called to the aid of the boat the boat that is "streets ahead in terms of solidity and handling, smoothness, quietness, systems functionality etc"

I would like to see a proper answer to this, particularly as since typing my piece above I have just found the following in an email bulletin received from NABO, literally within the last hour or two...... Taken at face value, and without further explanation given, this is most disappointing, as, at the very least, it implies NABO have not sought to oppose the scrapping of the general tow-path permits, something I consider to have been a great success. I certainly do not immediately recall as a NABO member being asked to comment, but that is not to say it never occurred - I have been fairly pre-occupied with a whole host of things, and it is not impossible I missed such a request. Depending on what has actually happened here, I'm starting to think it possible I may not be renewing NABO membership next year.

I'm intrigued by this latest twist in the discussion, as I'm a NABO member, and don't recall seeing anything from them that would suggest they opposed the general tow-path permit, and were keen to see it revert to a system based only on fixed sites. So if that suggestion is apparently coming from Allan Richards, why is he saying that, please? Sorry if the answer is lying in here somewhere, but if it is, can somebody please explain, (but not simply by using a link to NBW, though, please!). EDIT: Can we also please clarify whether the NABO response that Mark refers to was recent, or, in fact truly "around the time they were announced in 2014", as he has stated, because if the latter, it is too long ago to be pertinent to the latest decision, surely? EDIT AGAIN: Just re-reading, this is surely nothing more than a bit of Allan Richards' attempt to make a story when none exists, isn't it? Although he says NABO "has been saying for some time that" he has presented no evidence that they have said anything in a time-frame that has affected this decision, nor offered any proof that they have given open opposition to the general tow-path permit. It's NBW - why let the absence of any facts stop you putting out a story anyway?

Not all references agree, exactly but something like.... "Systemanalyse und Programmentwicklung" translating to "System Analysis and Program Development". I'm fairly sure someone more trained in this software monster will issue a correction to that, though! However, I thought it was because when I did a course on it, it sapped away my will to live!

There are now suggestions on FaceBook that this pair also somehow were jammed in Hatton Top lock, but whether this is serious or not, I'm not quite sure!

On either of my boats it would never make itself heard over the Listers. .......................Unless I had purchased an old sound system from the Who, and I doubt I have the electricity generating capacity to power one of those!

But you have no idea how big this particular dog is do you, how willing to be picked up, nor how physically able it's owners are to pick it up and move it about, even if theoretically possible. (I've carried 30Kg of very amenable and willing Labrador up flights of stairs, but it's far from easy, and many dogs wouldn't let you). I'm happy to accept their explanation - I imagine they must be fairly fed up about the situation, and I think this isn't helping them, frankly, if they are seeing this. OK in my view to say on here "I like the boat" or "I don't like the boat" or "It's a bargain" or "They will never get that much for it", but even though they have raised their personal reasons for sale, questioning them makes me feel uncomfortably intrusive, and I think they deserve a break.

According to a further reply just received.... So it seems a volunteer collecting boat data at this location would not be able to enter it into CRT databases. I have passed the date this occurred, and the description given of the person back to CRT, and they are continuing to see if they can work out who he was, or why he was doing it. I'm keeping an open mind, until we have any facts - there's little point in guessing, I feel.

If it took more than a year between order and delivery, perhaps the dog could get into a similar boat when ordered, but not by the time theirs was handed over to them?

It's a woman's name. Why?

This has been posted by the owner on the CWDF FaceBook pages. For completeness, I have said I will cut and paste it to here, as it refers mostly to the discussion that has taken place on the main forum, I think.

It may be my worsening eyesight, but I'm struggling to see this as Stroudley's "Improved Engine Green". To me it is almost half way between that and the Umber colour used on LBSCR locomotives at other times. However IMO both sit well on a steam locomotive, but not, I feel, a modern leisure narrow boat.

Well in the Facebook post I linked to, where it was priced at £125K, there is also a post that says.... so if that is true, the initial attempt was to try and market it at an even higher figure!

I suspect it is more likely they tried and failed to sell it through Wilton, and are now trying another broker. This also refers, which seems to confirm it.... More bizarre though is this.... If it was really licensed by CRT as long ago as 1st May 2014, claiming it to be the last complete Hudson built is clearly a nonsense!

A P3, (not a modern engine), could have just about anything. I had one with a Parsons manual box, but a PRM might be equally possible. Two very different beasts, so, as I said earlier, to give sane advice, we would need to know more, I think.

I have never been more ripped off by anywhere selling diesel than I was there some years ago, The displayed "base" price was not one they can sell at, and included neither fuel duty (even at the lower non propulsion rate) not the VAT on product or duty. Far from being apparently cheap, it was by far the most expensive we have ever bought, and my protests fell on deaf ears, as the fuel was already in the tank before I discovered what they were doing. Of course they may have changed since then, but ask before you fill!

Unfortunately I'm sure CRT have no real IT systems development capability of their own, and any new system they evolve would therefore doubtless have to be put out to some very expensive third party to develop. (To be clear I am not talking about things that can theoretically be achieved by adapting lumbering great packages like SAP, which they use for many things - I'm talking about specialist needs that need specialist solutions). Evidence of where this can lead no doubt exist in just about every major concern that has gone this route, (NHS, anybody!), but can already be demonstrated in some of the smaller systems CRT already inherited from BW. As an example, for anybody who tried to use it in it's early days, the moorings tender/auctions system was a complete can of worms, despite being a "customer facing" application. Despite no doubt costing a heap to develop, it lacked even basic checks like making sure someone was not entering a bid of a million pounds for a year's mooring. This is the kind of stuff that can be got right in minutes by people who know what they are doing, but tends to fall through the cracks when it is contacted out to a third party, with nobody left in the organisation who can ensure the value for money, effectiveness and accuracy of the system being developed on their behalf. I have no confidence at all that if CRT do invest hundreds of thousands of pounds in replacement systems for those being discussed that what they end up with will be any more fit for purpose than what it replaced. Rant over, but I've seen this over and over again in my working life, (including incidentally spending millions trying to make SAP a poor fit for an application where a major new bespoke development could easily have been a far better solution, provided it was done by people who actually knew how to correctly analyse what was needed, then design, build and test software to suit).

It is none the less entirely possible that this is someone who is legitimately a CRT volunteer at other times, (or who has been one in the past, and not returned the T-shirt), operating somewhere they are not supposed to be, and without CRT's knowledge. I'm not in the game of calling anybody a liar with no supporting evidence to that effect. I would like to get to the bottom of it though, so strongly suggest that anybody who sees somebody recording boats at Whilton asks for that person to give them identification, (or takes a picture of them, if they will not provide any).

No doubt limitless free "proper" coffee was on offer whilst specifying the boat of your choice. Or did they use to have an issue with chancers who were never even going to buy an Aintree boat coming in and getting the "freebies"?

I have no idea, nor am I in the habit of guessing. Any number of things are possible. For example, it may be somebody who is genuinely registered with CRT as a volunteer, issued with a uniform and badge, but who has decided to go and carry out an activity CRT know nothing about. For example a "mooring ranger" from a site where CRT do have them, acting without authority at one where they do not. I'm not saying that is the case, but it is one of many possibilities. It seems worth trying to nail it to me, because I would prefer those doing this were doing it with CRT's knowledge. (I would prefer even more that they were not doing it at all, but that is a different issue!).

The new owner needs to budget to replace the engine hour counter, itf it really has recorded only one hour! I think the pictures are flattering of the actual colour used(!).

Whilst I think there is nothing wrong with injecting a bit of humour into this topic, I am uncomfortable that people are carrying out activities claiming to be CRT volunteers, but CRT seem not immediately able to work out either who those people are, or what they are supposed to be doing. As it is not just me that is uncomfortable about it, but also some of those encountering it, I think it is worth trying to establish what is going on, and whether it is "legit" or not. If CRT don't actually know someone is doing it, but they are "badged" as CRT, this has toi be wrong, surely?