alan_fincher

It is not necessarily the boat that is at fault, though. Whilst locks like these will no doubt easily still pass most boats built to the modern narrower width of 6' 10", or thereabouts, some may have had walls move to now be tight enough that a boat that hasn't actually spread beyond its original build width of 7 feet 0.5 inches may now struggle to pass. For a boat like Madcat is talking about, hopefully there will be no issues, but some of the same or similar type do struggle at Napton.

If it's the boat I think it is, are you confident it will fit through all the locks at Napton? By means not all do, I believe, although I think Marston Doles is no longer the problem it once was. I know "Pisces" proved to be too wide a year or so back. This is what the HNBC pages currently say..... Is your surveyor going to be measuring the widest bits for you?

We have recently sold a 20 year old narrow boat that we paid £30.5K for 10 years ago for £28K. Given the intensive use we have had of it for 10 years, I thought that pretty good, although we have spent much money improving it in the period we have had it. The numbers at the top are not quite as good as they first look though, as we chose to sell through a broker, and substantial brokerage fees, (on which you also have to pay VAT, unfortunately), meant we actually received rather less. I'm still happy with that outcome though, but generally you need to buy a boat that is already sound, and look after it well, if you are to see as little depreciation as we did.

This post says they are. (Or at least were in 2007).

Blimey, it looks even longer in the pictures that it does standing at the back end trying to "point" it in the right direction..... Can I add some of these to our blog, please Ian?

That's not "two heaters" though - it is "one heater with two elements". (:tongue_in_cheek:)

It was fairly obvious to me that this was going to be the outcome, and that those in the meeting knew this, but were firmly not allowed to say so. I don't think that was just because I was in the room, though! It is a very disappointing result, on a number of levels, and has further shaken my faith in trying to work co-operatively with them. All boaters will suffer, not just those who might have taken them, because CRT should be exploiting every avenue it can to gain extra revenue. It seems some things are more politically important than funding.

Perhaps I misunderstood? I assumed you meant "the prices for the winter moorings should be around the same as last year, for those charged for a fixed location", and if so those were very high, and a major deterrent for just booking a bit of muddy unserviced towpath. My understanding was the cost of the general towpath permit was significantly less. Do you mean they will be charging fixed locations at a similar level to that charged for the general permit? Doesn't that fall foul of unfair competition with private operators who are still wanting to charge inflated prices?

Can you provide a source that supports that please? I know this has always been a confused area, but the Cycling FAQs page on the CRT site do not seem to make any reference any more to permitted or non-permitted tow-paths. In fact specifically it says..... So, I think you are probably wrong about the current situation. I would suggest it is now always allowed, unless there is specific signage saying otherwise, or to ask you to dismount for particular pinch points.

Non intended to have a go at you Ray of course, and as you say this film is "freely available" there. My understanding, though, is that it should not be, and it has been put there without permission.

Whilst Oxford doesn't particularly love it's canals, I think people are harsh about the realities of the stretch from Isis Lock. There is nothing wrong with it, and if you want to stop in Oxford, it is not usually hard to find a mooring, despite what some say. The Jericho area is lovely, if you venture of the boat. I have never been abused by any live aboard boaters for trying to use that stretch of canal, nor have I seen anybody else be, on the several times I have walked along it.

Not when my boats were built in 1936 though. The many original plates in them are of steel rolled in imperial sizes, of course. You have a point in much of what you say, but road signs are still in miles, and road speed limits in miles per hour. I would suggest that even for people otherwise brought up entirely in metric, most think in miles when it is "how far is it to some place". Whilst I of course know the conversion factor between miles and kilometers, I really struggle to quickly conceptualise distances quoted in kilometres. As an aside, has anybody noticed that the many of canal-side signs around Birmingham that do attempt to use metres are completely wrong in the distances they show between locations? How did that happen, and why has it never been corrected? The bizarre thing is that if you go through Harecastle, the tunnel keepers advice is firmly "travel at normal cruising speed, of 3 or 4 mph", but where BW put an estimated transist time on a tunnel they often seem to assume only 1mph, or just over. To do only 1mph my boat has to be out of gear, at which point most of the steerage I need at such a slow speed is lost, and I'd be bashing into the walls if I didn't quickly re-engage gear, and travel somewhat faster.

BW's quoted passage time through tunnels seems to assume you are rowing the boat through with oars, though..... 329 metres is only about one fifth of a mile, so their projection of 12 minutes assumes you are doing it at just one mile per hour. Unless you are very cautious 3 or 4 minutes should be a achievable.

It says........

I think I give up! My understanding, having chatted to many who have taken the General Towpath permit in recent times, is that they like the continued flexibility of being able to chose where they moor, (subject to the restrictions imposed by the T&Cs), but lifted from the requirement to move after 14 days. They have indicated they would not want to stay at prescribed locations for fixed times. If the pricing this winter for fixed locations is as high as it has been in previous years, then I genuinely see no reason why take up will not be equally low. The only other thing that may increase take up is if CRT further ramp up enforcement, and continue to harass people because they have not moved as far as whatever CRT's latest dreamed up version of the "rules" now is. They will still have lost a lot of income though from people who would have bought a general tow-path permit, but have zero intention of buying expensive ones for fixed location(s). I'm confident I will not be proved wrong on that point, at least!

Is it though? Lots are in metres, and have been for many years, and for tunnels that have for some years had arrows inside showing distance to nearest tunnel mouth these are always in metres, from what I have seen. The one that really gets my goat is lock flights that say something like "Welcome to Toytown locks", and give the total rise in metres. They were built in imperial units, and converting it to metric seems meaningless to me. Also some canals have signs saying "maximum speed 6.4" or similar, meaning kilometers per hour, not miles per hour. That said, whilst both my sons, (mid twenties) switch freely between imperial and metric distance measurements, Cath reckons that many now have little or no knowledge of imperial. To be fair though, why should they? Schools have worked exclusively in metric for many years now.

"Hit", (which may just be glancing contact), is not the same as "ran over" though is it? It says "ran over", not "hit", and that is what I was questioning. I am not disputing it may not have been hit in a way apparently did it no damage.

How would you fit two immersion heaters to a Surecal calorifier? There is only a boss for one, surely?

Indifference? What do you actually propose CRT do about it? On London's roads a large police force, cameras, and loads more technology can't do much about the behaviour of the more reckless cyclists, so what on earth can an organisation that has fewer and fewer people on the ground do to police thousands of miles of often rural tow-path. The problem is those cyclists who would probably behave irresponsibly wherever they were, and not CRT's, surely? Is CRT negligent of it's duties because it hasn't erected barriers to stop people attempting to jump narrow locks, or to walk along the handrail at the side of aqueducts? As in most other categorisations of people, (e.g. anglers, walkers, dog owners, runners), some cyclists are plonkers, but a very much greater number actually act responsibly.

Have you looked at the list of proposed sites? There really aren't that many, and those there are often have a lot of locks in between. Presumably any particular site can only be booked for entire calendar month(s) (???) and, if so, you would actually be paying for either the site you have left, or the one you are moving to, for the days you spend getting from one to the other, thereby reducing any benefit you might get from having a mooring booked. As you say, lets wait and see, but I predict very low take up, unless priced far more cheaply than previously, (in which case they will then need to sell far more, to cover the costs of running the scheme). The truth still remains that they have capitulated to pressure from others to scrap a scheme that was so much better - a sorry day for boaters.

OK, I'll take the bait..... How many 11 week old kittens appear to be "OK, playing, eating and drinking" if genuinely "ran over" by someone on a cycle. Whilst in no way condoning the action of irresponsible cyclists, do you not think the term "ran over" a bit of an exaggeration, given the outcome? If truly "ran over", the kitten would be at least seriously injured, or probably dead, surely?

I think you are trying to hard to look for any good news here! Unless I am missing something obvious, in recent times they have successfully sold large numbers of the "General Towpath" permit, but continued to sell virtually no permits for specific locations. Prior to introduction of the General Towpath permit, only fixed locations were available, and take up had always been very poor, to the point they said it cost them more to administer than they actually made from it. They have just abandoned the one people were prepared to buy, and, it seems, reverted to the one almost nobody wanted, and which they made no money from. The only thing that could soften the blow is if they price them less expensively than they have insisted on doing in the past, in order to get more take up, but they probably wiill not, as that will upset private moorings operators, also looking to get some revenue off winter moorings where their marinas are not at capacity. However you look at this it is surely very bad news, and CRT have denied themselves a healthy bit of income by pandering to people who didn't think they should be offering the General Towpath permit. And still they come to us with a begging bowl asking for voluntary donations - they will not even take other money that is looking them in the face.

When you engage forward gear is the lever going all the way to the adjustable end stops on the box, or not actually getting that far?

Have I missed anything on here. I'm surprised not to have seen this the subject of debate. CRT Link. I think it is confirming worst fears that they are scrapping the idea of the General Towpath Permit, and reverting to only a few fixed locations. Am I wrong? If I'm not, this decision seems bonkers to me, and a good revenue stream has been lost.

Being pedantic, but 2KW is significantly less than 9 amps, and certainly not 10 amps.