alan_fincher

Interesting, because Whilton / Buckby is not as far as I'm aware an area that they have indicated they intend to recruit rangers. It has also never made it on to the list of moorings they say can be hot spots. I'll try asking who this might have been and what they are supposed to be doing, (without saying who encountered it).

Out of interest, where was this please Martyn, (sorry if you have already said!), and were they definitely identified as a volunteer, rather than permanent CRT staff?

But the intention is not, I believe to inhibit cyclists - it is to keep motor bikes off. Forcing cyclists to dismount at those barriers was a consequence of trying to keep motorbikes off, but not why they were put there in the first place. If a cyclist can get past, just slowing them at the occasional pinch point is hardly likely to impact their progress elsewhere. As an aside, many in the approaches to London were supposed to be able to allow you to dismount, but then push the bike through a hole that was made broadly "bike shaped", so clearly the intention was you could pass without massive hold up. Unfortunately, if you had any or all of upward extensions on your handlebars, panniers, of low down derailluer gears, then the bike fouled, and you ended up having to carry it over the water around the end of the barriers - a very dangerous activity, sometimes. This may be why some of the gates that used to use Radar keys, for people in wheelchairs or mobility scooter then got removed. Unfortunately, at that point the motor bikes again got full access

Well, open to question, I think....... Large parts of Berkhamsted are definitely being monitored by volunteer rangers, but when I asked CRT for a view of how much of Berkhamsted they actually consider to be a formal "visitor mooring", Matthew Symonds came up with a map that only included a small part of it, (and not the most obvious part!). So I would question whether the answer you have just been given is 100% accurate - rangers are monitoring an area that CRT have said are not currently formal VMs. Also, certainly at other locations it is just volunteer gathered info that can cause the £25 charges to be raised, with no permanent CRT staff having needed to record the boat, so I would still say the reply attributed to Peter Palmer in an earlier post is at best misleading, even if not deliberately trying to mislead.

Are there many "cycle barriers" that are actually intended to stop cycles getting through, though? The original intention of virtually all towpath barriers I have ever seen, was surely that cycles could pass, but motor bikes or other powered vehicles could not. Admittedly the fact that many of these gates are incomplete means cycles can now pass without all the "faff" that their original design forced you to go through, but I don't think many were ever intended to ban cyclists from a particular length of tow-path, were they?

It's not an assumption - it is the names painted on the front ends(!) Delivery dates for the 38 "Large Northwich" boats range from late June 1936 to Late April 1937, I think and are almost in numeric sequence, but not totally so. I guess the one at the back is less complete than the 4 in the foreground, but there is no reason to assume it is the next one numerically, surely? (That would be 167 Saltaire, but 168 Seaford was delivered the same day, and both 169 Shirley and 170 Slough less than a week later - there are lots of possibilities!).

Probably a far more objective one is that Mr Parry is trying to listen to everybody and keep them all happy, but in the end the old BW status quo still largely wins the day So if the IWA grandees tell him there is a major problem to be solved with visitor moorings at popular locations, and keep repeating that mantra, even if others of us challenge it in quite large numbers, he is actually probably thinking he is being even handed by doing so much listening, but ultimately lets those with the track record of saying how things should be getting their own way, because he can't please us all, and going the IWA route he thinks will cause him less issues. Frankly it seems increasingly that however many of us try to put a very alternate view, and however much support we can gain in other boaters for that view, the eventual outcome doesn't actually seem to be very different from had we not tried at all. However, despite often feeling beaten down, I still can't quite force myself to give up the fight - there are far too many people who do not like where things are heading for me to feel it is not worth trying.

Yes, I myself have wondered if people clear off from these moorings on hearing the news I might be about to arrive there!

Assuming data in the "The George & The Mary" is reliable, all four delivered within a week of each other..... 163 Reading & 164 Renton 7th Oct 1936 165 Renfrew & 166 Rufford 13th Oct 1936 Looking at the one in the background, cabin towards us, I find it fascinating how high off the ground they seem to have done the builds.

Pehaps worth reminding ourselves of the terrible problems that CRT are trying to solve. I have recently sat in a meeting completely out numbered, when I tried to claim that the measures at Stoke Bruerne were over-kill, and have done nothing to improve the place. I was told by several other members of the group that whenever they personally, or their hire boats go there, it is virtually full. This was the view from our back cabin in Saturday night (Saturday 4th), as we were moored only a few boats away from Museum Green, in the top pound. Perhaps I just only turn up on those very rare occasions where it is like this, but this is a Saturday in July on one of the best weekends of the year to date..... This image has NOT been "Photoshopped!" EDITED TO ADD: Where I think CRT has lost the plot, is that these kind of initiatives are literally costing millions, when taken across the country. I would far rather they spent some of those millions trying to avoid things like this....

Some images

Can't disagree with any of that. But what can many of us acting as individuals actually do to protest, John? Do we all need to be contacting Parry directly for example, on the basis that answers given throughout his organisation are inconsistent, and frequently ignored or subsequently contradicted? Even if we do, "Three Locks" still springs to mind(!)

Well if you want to challenge it, I think you can insist on seeing ID. Some of the volunteers wear CRT sweat shirts, but many do not, and are not really identifiable as such, unless challenged. Mark, Will NABO be taking up with CRT what the total remit of a "towpath ranger" is, and what a boater should do when they exceed their authority? It seems to be becoming an increasingly hot issue, but not one easily taken up by individuals, particularly if they are to be fobbed off by answers like the one it is claimed Peter Palmer gave.

And of course they are recruiting volunteer rangers at sites that currently have nothing but 14 day towpath moorings, but where they seem keen to make a case for short stay times, and overstay charges. Berkhamsted is one of an increasing number of sites where this applies, but as far as I know, the volunteers only remit at these places is to record data. They should not be engaging boaters on any matter relating to stay times, or how far they need to go to have been considered to have "moved on". Only CRT employed enforcement staff should be doing this. The wrong data is being recorded anyway, in my view. If you wish to establish a case for shorter stay times, or overstay charges, you need to record not what boats are at a site, but how many useable mooring spaces remain available at times of peak usage. It doesn't actually matter that (say) 50 boats are at a site, if there is always room for 20 more, does it? However they seem intent only on recording actual boats present. There is an agenda here I still really can't get my brain around - they seem setermined to introduce further restrictions at locations where I can see no evidence oif need.

If Peter Palmer seriously said that, he is in my view deliberately trying to mislead. The enforcement team, specifically may not consider volunteer data gatherers to come under their personal remit, but very definitely CRT are using volunteers to gather data about boats at a growing number of sites, and Palmer will be very well aware of that. What we are told is that those volunteers will not have a role in enforcement, only in data gathering, but from some of the stories now emerging some seem to be overstepping that mark. If a volunteer is telling you you may not moor somewhere, or giving you a deadline for moving on, then it my view they are either overstepping their remit, or CRT has misled us about how much they are supposed to get involved in. It's hard to take this up weith CRT though given that much of what people are saying seems to often be anecdotal, rather than accurate personal experience, but if I personally found myself in these situations, I would certainly protest, simply because I have been in meetings where we have been assured volunteers will not be used in this way. I'm increasingly disgusted by the way things are going - not the canal system I want to be boating on.

This isn't entirely a tongue in cheek remark, Dan. Surely the way this engine was treated by its former owner could be a large amount of any problem you now have. When I observed him, he seemed to think it only had two speeds - stop, or flat out, (in one direction or the other).

Yes, Looks similar, though it is a bottom gate this time, with a much heavier beam. I have some photos, but not easy to post from the boat - if no others appear, I'll put them up from home this evening.

One of the few I hve dseen of us actually with the "new" boat out on the parade..... Linky.

Belated thanks to Ian and Becky for assistance through Braunston locks on multiple occasions, including yesterday with "Sickle". I look forward to any remaining pictures of the event - we don't seem to have taken many ourselves.

No, it is the offside bottom gate. The beam is very visibly badly rotted, but the worst is under one of those screw on non slip walkway surfaces. Seriously though, I go to these meetings where CRT make great play of a regular inspection of their assets. It seems that process has failed them here + looking at the state of the wood, I think you could reasonably have predicted this failure.

Presumably at some stage a full stoppage will be required to sort the following mess out...... The beam has literally broken through, and is now temporarily supported just anbove the ground - I would not like to have been trying to use it when it did! Quite scary. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Date: 1st July 2015 at 16:00 To Date: until further notice Type: Navigation Restriction Reason: Structure failure Description: A beam has broken at Lock 12 on the Grand Union Canal and one of the gates is no longer in use. Narrow beams should not have a problem using the lock with only one of the gates but wide beams will need assistance from staff or volunteers at the Canal & River Trust. This must be booked 24 hours in advance of when you'd like to use the lock. It will not be possible to provide assistance outside of normal office hours or at weekends. Please contact us on 0303 040 4040 or enquiries.southeast@canalrivertrust.org.uk.

I think I'd just do what you want to do. If you have been below the "Riser",and now wish to move up to the town, then just do it. As long as neither stay exceeds 14 days, I don't think they have any authority to do much about it. You will be one of a great number all doing something similar, and they ain't going to go after you all. This really is getting daft, isn't it. (Berkhamsted resident, fed up with all this nonsense).

I can see no reason not to go with the BMC / Leyland figure of 150 hours. I don't think I ever changed ours at any shorter interval than that, and, if I'm honest, sometimes it was a bit over that.