alan_fincher

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.

Yes, There with new owner. Quite a few boats with new owners this year I think, and also quite a few boats probably attending for first time - one of ours in both these categories. Also some very recent restorations, (e.g. "Gorse"). Nice also to see the Rickmansworth Waterway's Trust's "Roger" on by far the longest outing I have seen it make, and also to see "Sculptor" continuing to make forays away from Stoke Bruerne.

Does anybody want to own up to buying "Dover". The price came down a fair bit, I think, and it now shows as "Deposit due". ABNB Linky

Yes, I'm sure they would not. However, it would be interesting where it went after that, although unless someone is going to bankroll me, I guess I wouldn't want to be the test case. This seems to be what their current strategy relies on, but I think it stinks.

Well I find it harder and harder to get inside the heads of those in the Department of Tinkering at CRT, so I'm not sure I would like to guess it. However, I'm supposing that for someone that has a home mooring, but CRT are unhappy with their use of the boat when not on it, that they would then refuse to issue a new licence not because you have no home mooring, but because (in their view of things) you are not complying with whatever the latest iteration of their Licence Terms and Conditions says. So we are in my view back to the same old chestnut of what CRT are allowed to do in terms of what they put in T&Cs, and the fact you implicitly agree to the T&Cs each year you re-license the boat. I wonder what would happen if instead of just accerp;ting what the T&Cs happen to say at the time you take out a new licence you instead returned your form and monies, but spelt out which bits you thought CRT had no legal right to have put there in the first place?

Yes, I was thinking that about Reg. I'm not sure I'd do Blisworth in it with nothing to split that exhaust. Although I have found the amount of muck you bring down off Blisworth depends very much on recent weather history. Having been through several;times with a pipe with no cutter, and by then thinking it OK to do so, I then had a trip where I emerged looking like a Black & White Minstrel. I now always use a pipe with a cutter on!

For what it is worth, (probably not a lot!), "Sickle", (a "Star", but a "Middle" rather than "Small" Northwich boat), which now has steel to replace the wood has sloping gunwales which, if anything, I judge to be at an even greater tilt than "Sculptor's". This is an uncomfortable angle when walking them, particularly as the short length and round chines means the boat tends to tilt further towards the side being walked on. However several have suggested that the angle isn't far off for replicating the original boat, and if you look at the original steel on which the wooden versions would have sat, (visible from inside engine room), they do seem virtually the same tilt as the new steel gunwales. Personally I would have made them more level, (even if not strictly replicating what went before), simply for safety reasons. (In just the same way as I would always advocate making Northwich handrails have a bigger gap under them than the originals had - the real thing just risks snapped off fingers). I've no idea though how Middle Northwich angle might have compared to a Small Northwich. Fortunately "Flamingo" (Large Northwich) has flatter gunwales, and as a result feels a lot safer when you walk them. I don't really care about that level of authenticity - safety seems more important - but of course in Sculptor's case there is probably a desire to be as accurate as possible.

Absolutely - and if it's Plank Lane, 10 minuts probably will not see your first break in the traffic, based on the only time we have tried it. I'm an enormous fan of CanalPlanAC, but was only stressing that if the timings matter to people, they need to do their own tweaking. Sometimes you need to tweak "regionally" as well. When we went both ways over the Pennines last year, on both the L&L & the Rochdale it is very much the norm for every broad lock to be about 10 feet deep, and typically often only have two working top paddles. We simply could not knock these locks off at the same speed as on the Southern GU, with average falls more like 6 feet, and often 6 top end paddles. Simply adjust the defaults to acknowledge your time per lock is likely to be longer. I could be facetious, and suggest it needs parameters like "typical queing time at Wardle lock", which you would then set to about 3 hours at the busiest times, but I realise Nick can't cater for people who wish to do macramé at every lock, and to only ever open one paddle by about 25% until the lock has nearly made a level. Wonderful piece of software, and constantly improving. I bet that doesn't work too well if you are going up through Tardebigge that day, though!

An FR2 is quoted as only slightly short of a 2 pot National or Russell Newbery. As the latter used to push along a pair of full length narrow boats, and over 50 tons of cargo in addition, it is hard to imagine an FR2 can't do a very adequate job on and "leisure" narrow boat, given a good match of gearbox and prop. In my world "twins" just sound right, with three pot engines OK, but often not really an authentic narrow boat sound. I have one of each, both authentic to the boat's working life, and I prefer the sound of the twin working hard, although people often comment favourably on the HA3. Once number of cylinders is greater than 3, (and it really doesn't matter what engine it is), it just doesn't cut it for me. No doubt why 4 cylinder Gardners, and the like come in at far less money than the equivalent twin?

Unless we hit queues at locks, we have always tended to get along faster than CanalPlanAC's default settings predict. We therefore use modified settings that mean our actual experience comes closer to what CanalPlanAC comes up with. In particular, we tend to do locks a lot quicker than their defaults. We couldn't work out initially last year why it was predicting a day on the Leeds and Liverpool would not see us getting anything like as far as we anticipated. Then we discovered it was set to 10 minutes delay at each moveable bridge, and we had (I think) something like 18 to do that day, for which it was allowing no less than 3 hours. We set it to zero minutes instead of 10, and suddenly things looked far more sensible. (We had someone on a bike doing most of these bridges, so they were not really taking any time out of our cruising day at all.....)

Just actually looked at the rest of the advert for "Mother Ida". 1982 build £65K ....... Yeah right!

In fact, I now realise I'm wrong too. It was "The Gaffer" it was pushing - the actual tug was "Growler".

If you are talking about "The Gaffer", I'm pretty certain that had an HA6. An FR6 is about 44HP, I think, but the HA6 will be 66HP. Either is totally bonkers for use on canals in my view. You would probably get fed up with it sooner than you think!

Yes but life isn't always quite that simple. If your prop rotation is such that the bow naturally slews to the left when you try to come to a quick stop, then having the un-braked weight of the butty to your right hand side further exacerbates this as the butty tries to continue on its travels forward, further turning the motor to the right. If I breast another boat to "Sickle" to tow through a lock flight, I often elect to put "Sickle" on the right, even though it has a greater danger of being in shallower water. That way, when you try to stop, the motor tries to slew left, but the continuing attempts by the towed boat to carry on as it was, counters this effect, as it tries to swing you to the right.

Details on ABC Boat Sales web-pages say it is a Lister FR6 (Just beaten to it - I see!)

Wouldn't this qualify you as one of those "nob" (or is it "knob") boaters you are always telling us about..... ..... Wait no - that is those with ex-working boats isn't it - it could never apply to a Hudson owner, could it?

Absolutely not! As has been said, it is amazing how many boats pass you with those things attached, which are clearly not at tick-over. One rule for me, a different one for you? I'm very happy to demonstrate what tick-over looks on both my boats to anybody who cares to watch. If you are on a narrow shallow stretch, and poorly tied up, I think that whilst you might accept me passing on tick-over on Flamingo, you might be rather less tolerant if I did the same on Sickle. Sickle already has its tick over adjusted down to the point where the engine can end up stalling, but still needs knocking out of gear in some situations to minimise wash - but I'm happy to keep it in gear for those that have signs that insist I do! Another urban myth I'm afraid. Snopes says it isn't true. Linky.

But are "thin boat" owners equally p155 takers when they are coming at you on the left hand side of the canal, but are supposed to be on the right?

Not a "For Sale" item yet, as such, but hopefully leading up to one. I have surplus to requirements a large Kabola E7 drip fed diesel boiler. It was working OK when removed from our boat "Flamingo", where I did not wish an otherwise fairly authentic 1936 engine room to be spoilt by something not in keeping. I believe it was bought new not that long ago by the boat's previous owner, at not inconsiderable cost. It also has the parts to make a cranked insulated flue through the room, plus the external flue, (these items were claimed to have cost a four figure sum), plus a large welded day tank that can be mounted on a vertical bulkhead to provide the drip feed. I can find no reference to anybody selling a similar item, so admit I have little idea of likely value. They seem to be no longer supplied, but parts seem freely available. Does anybody have any idea on what a sensible price would be please - I want to get it shifted, and don't have high expectations. This is the Kabola E7 model, and is a big boiler, rated at 7.1 Kw, and weighing in at 54Kg.

This thread.

I have been and looked again at your post to which I responded, and as far as I can see you have made your remarks about people with a home mooring, but have not added anything to those remarks about having one, but never using it. So if I have a home mooring that I do regularly use, but (hypothetically!) still sometimes choose to exhibit the behaviour that you have postulated above, would I then be a "piss taker" or not, in your view of the world?

Can you explain why, when the relevant acts of parliament, make no specification about "bona fide for navigation", except for those specifically without a home mooring, someone with a home mooring, who chooses to do what you suggest is "taking the piss". It would not be my choice, and obviously isn't yours, but it is entirely allowed by the legislation, so what right do CRT now have to prescribe otherwise, unless a new act of parliament overrides the current ones? I consider it unsatisfactory if CRT decide they can prescribe stuff willy nilly, with no legal basis for doing so.