alan_fincher

I must admit that that is how I thought we were told it would work the whole way trough the SEVM debate. I didn't think CRT people were generally expected to be involved in daily recording - I was expecting it to be volunteers, (or Jeff Whyatt, as it turned out!) (There was a statement that volunteers would have no role in enforcement, of course, but I don't think we are talking about anything to do with enforcement here.) Is it possible to know who that was plaese, so I can ask Matthew Symmonds why Batchworth is now apparently on the list when he said it would not be?

That's what I think he has implied, isn't it? Thanks - I'm now tempted, as I have at least one more here, I think, so 10 litres would be enough for a change.

Hmmm, From the oil container in the engine room when I bought Flamingo, it is probably already on an SAE 30 monograde. The idle oil pressure is excellent when cold, but fell what I considered alarmingly after a protracted period of working it quite hard. It certainly doesn't sound like I want to put a thinner monograde in, does it? From some of the earlier posts I was becoming tempted by the 20W/50 multigrade suggestion, because my limited understanding is that the oil should perform more like a thicker 50 grade when hot, and hence I though might show a greater pressure than with the 30 monograde. Is that a bad idea then?

Some slightly crossed wires with what the subgroup has been told for the South East, I think. From the meeting notes of the January meeting, I would add Marsworth to the "being monitored" list but Cow Roast didn't get a mention then, I think, and it is specifically recorded that "There will be no volunteer rangers at Rickmansworth", which I assume to mean Batchworth, so I can't understand why that is on your list. Irrespective of what the exact list might be, my impression is that the SE Boater's Subgroup is happy that any site deemed "popular" is being recorded. After all what many of us have been saying since all this began is that there should be no changes introduced without data to establish the need. So it would be hard, I think, to object to them gathering data. However, for me personally, I have argued that what is actually needed if you are making a case for restrictions being necessary is to collect data that records the free space available, rather than the boats actually present. I am not convinced that knowing what boats were there on a day gets you very far towards working out how many more could have been, or whether a site is regularly oversubscribed. There was some discussion about whether it might be possible to have some kind of web application that allowed anybody who wished to to voluntarily enter data about free space available, but I would not hold my breath about something like that being developed. What is NABOs view about the additional sites being monitored, please Mark?

I really despair here, if I'm honest, but refuse to be bowed by those I feel are trying to do little more that point scoring. If I was a sensitive soul, (fortunately I am not!), I could feel that I am being personally blamed for far too much of what CRT is deciding to do off it's own bat, without looking for any consultation or validation. Some of those attacking my involvement are saying, (or have said on other occasions), that this is a culture that CRT seem unable to step away from, so why blame one lone voice for the fact that it is regularly unable to change the behaviour, when people with far more clout than I have are also failing. I am tempted to say that if the combined might of an organisation like NABO, with many dedicated souls giving voluntarily of their time, and with a huge wealth of experience of dealing with BW/CRT is not able to put the brakes on what many of us probably all feel are bad ideas, why do you possibly expect one person sat in a group that only considers boating in just one of the CRT regions to be able to achieve what many others are also failing to do. Lets face it, the "super group" of the many combined associations that at one stage we were told had reached consensus and would now be able to sort this little lot out has steadfastly failed to do so, to the extent that on occasions some of those participating have felt it necessary to make their own statement alongside anything that has been jointly agreed or published. You all know they are pressing ahead with more and more £25 overstay charges, and so far nobody has been able to reverse that behaviour, have they? The idea the the South East group operate in a secretive manner is frankly ridiculous. Agendas for meetings are published by CRT, and meeting notes produced afterwards, and published. I am not about to trawl through them all to see exactly all the times I have specifically asked for it to be minuted that I am not in agreement with something, or that I am unhappy how something has been handled. However I do do this, and if you care to check, I am really the only member of the group who does. Just to give a flavour here are a couple of minuted points from the last meeting. and (Of course the actual debate went far further than those one liners, but that is the nature of the beast). Finally, this group actively wants to recruit CC-ers, and has been advertising for them for some time. Perhaps if someone suitable would come forward, (even if they have reservations about the group), we could do something to redress the balance. It seems rather daft that I as a non CC-per find myself regularly trying to defend their corner - comments and concerns might actually attract greater attention were coming from people who actually are CC-ers? It would be nice to be able to be there for once offering support to somebody else, rather than trying to garner it myself from others, but finding none forthcoming!

I was under the perhaps a misguided impression that the agenda is publicly published in advance of the meetings. Isn't that what CRT do with most meetings? To put this in perspective though, I have just checked, and for the most recent two meetings the agenda was published to us less that a week before the relevant meeting. CRT are very clear that they own the agenda, and although we can ask to have it modified, or added to, there is no guarantee this will actually happen. (Though there is always an AOB, which is where I try to raise things not covered by a fixed agenda).

Very considerate of you - no doubt that must save the real moderators huge amounts of effort! (You still need to be tougher on yourself though! )

But I am quoting from a 1965 published manual, so if you are correct about that date, it should/could have been an option.

I'm failing to see any difference to the meetings that you and other have with CRT, other than that all the South East Boating Sub Group meeting notes are routinely published by CRT, whereas I generally have to look at the NABO site, (assuming NABO are involved) to see any record of some of your meetings. Rightly or wrongly, (and you may well disagree with it - I'm not sure I'm comfortable with it myself), the protocol we are asked to follow is to wait until the meeting notes are agreed and published before openly discussing anything more widely. Occasionally I have asked permission to circumvent that, but it is discouraged, and in this case hard to see what it would have achieved. The reality, if we are honest, is that none of us, by whatever means available to us, have actually been totally successful in stopping them just going ahead on certain things. I think we have all had some success in moderating that behaviour on occasions, (I know I have), but it is an uphill struggle. Probably my biggest problem with this group is not people rubbishing it from outside though, but the fact that I have almost zero support from anybody else on it when things like this are discussed. Even the full time residential boater on it seems little interested in throwing up specific objections. What the group desperately needs, if it is to have more balance, is some genuine live-aboards that actually go boating. As you know both the CC-ers that were on it have stood down, and so far there has been little interest from anybody else in filling the vacated positions. I personally have followed up two suggestions of CC-ers who seem like they were good candidates, but in each case they were at the point of taking permanent moorings, so didn't qualify as CC-er reps. The vacancy remains on CRT's website, so anybody unhappy with the performance of the rest of us can apply, and see if they can do any better. You have given me different views at different times as to whether CC-ers should be involved in this group, so I no longer know your current position on this. However, even if violently opposed to it, surely, whilst it carries any influence at all, it makes more sense for a wider range of reps on it, to give more balance. If the vast majority of those on it generally approve of what CRT is doing in these areas, it is very difficult for one lone voice like me to actually try and convince them that there are actually very large numbers of boaters that think it is a bad idea.

Or of course I might have other things I'm doing like cutting hedges, lawns, and going to the local tip. Despite your question mark, as the answer is in my post that you quoted, I don't really understand why you need any clarification, though. If I have said "CRT told us it was happening", then of course I knew, (but only at that point). As I said, it was presented as a done deal, not something anybody could influence.

You need to use the right examiner, who can correctly understand what exemptions are allowed in an historic boat. Not all can, it seems - I certainly know of others where external venting has been insisted upon.

I reckon EmmaB would have been the perfect candidate! (It's apparently her birthday today, as well.)

Which one Tim, please? The 10W/40, as suggested by Marine Engine Services, or the 20W/50 some are suggesting above? Flamingo's engine is a bit of a mystery, as it is supposed to have had a lot of bottom end work done recently, and has a very good oil pressure when cold. However after a longish thrash the pressure can be really quite low, so I'm reluctant to put anything too thin in, in case it makes it even lower!

I'm sure there are old threads, (I may have even started one), but I thought it worth starting anew. Both our boats have HA engines, (HA3 in Sickle, HA2 in Flamingo). Under advice from Marine Engine Services, I have been using a 10W/40 (API CC) oil in Sickle since I first changed the oil. However a couple of people have suggested to me recently that this is "modern thinking", but that Lister's original requirement was for a monograde oil. (One suggesting to me that an SAE 30 is correct, and a multigrade not good advice). Having checked an original manual, it does indeed say a monograde, with no mention of a multigrade as an alternative, but SAE 20, not 30, seems to be specified for typical UK temperatures.... So what do people actually think, or use in practice these days, please? What are the advantages / disadvantages of a monograde versus a multigrade. Would using a 20W oil actually be the way to go? Morris, for example, who can supply it actually say on the information sheet shared by their 10W, 20W, 30, 40 & 50 oils that "SAE 30 and SAE 40 oils are ideal choices for lightly loaded diesel engines used in canal boats, watercraft, older generators (e.g. Lister, Perkins, etc), where they can dramatically reduce the prospect of bore glazing" They don't mention use of SAE 20W in canal boats. All thoughts welcome, particularly from those who have used a variety of oils in an HA or HB engine. Thanks.

Back to being serious, and specifically about Three Locks, that prompted the thread. This is what the CRT web-site says about the trial arrangements at Three Locks.... My understanding is as above, that there is no checking by volunteer rangers, but also that CRT staff only visit fortnightly, normally. So very hard to see how they can gather data that indicates a boat has stayed more than 2 days. Can anybody please porovide definitive infoirmation on whether there are now £25 signs at Three Locks or not? I wasn't expecting there to be, and last time I looked, I don't believe there were any. If there are, I would like to raise it with Matthew Symmonds, particularly as this is only supposed to be a trial continuing for less than a further two months, and then subject to review. Are you in favour of CRT just being able to create short stay moorings, with no return or "max days per month" limits, and with penalty charges, with no data gathered that establishes the need, then? Apart from issues about whether they have the legal powers to do so, my principal objection still remains that any change needs to be "evidence based". That is what the new framework should at least be requiring. Something like the Three Locks trial busts right through that framework.

Actually £82.50, presumably, as CRT normally take an extra £7.50 for any payment made by credit card.

Errm, That was about a month ago, wasn't it?

Surely you are mixing up two things? (1) The appointment of Joe Sammon. (2) The ongoing improvement of tow paths by external funding by whatever means. I can't see they are that closely related. (2) has been happening for many years now, (long before CRT). (1) can still take place, even if there was no (2).

No - CRT simply told us that was happening - there was no request to "sign it off". My understanding is that the time limits are unaltered, so this is not a case of introucing a new short stay mooring. (I would be interested to hear if anybody knows different). (If it were a new restriction, I presume it would now have to go though the new visitor mooring framework process, but I assume they think it doesn't need to because the restrictions remain the same). 19 sites? South East, or the whole country? Is there a published list? - I've certainly not seen one, and that number surprises me.

It can only work, (and CRT acknowledge in meetings that it can only work), at a site where volunters monitor all he boats every single day, (which is claimed to be the case at the three pilot SEVM sites - Foxton, Stoke Bruerne, & Thrupp). If it is 2 day moorings, yu are allowed to be recorded there 3 consecutive days, (because they actually mean nights), but if recorded there 4 consecutive days, then the assumption is that you have stayed 3 nights, and hence one day's worth of £25 applies. I cannot see they can possibly apply these charges at a site which does not have all boats monitored daily, (The trial 2 day moorings at Stoke Hammond Three Locks being such an example). If they are putting up the £25 signs there, then I think they are heavily into bluffing, as the last I heard these are only monitored by CRT staff every fortnight. It is a bloody mess frankly, (but an entirely predictable bloody mess!).

Unless they change their mind (again), CRT have at east been very clear up until now that although the signs say 2 days, what they actually mean is 2 nights. Some of us argued strongly that if 2 nights is the intention, 2 nights is what it should say, but we lost that one I'm afraid. The reason it really means "nights" is to do with the fact that there are no guarantees at what time on any days the boats will be recorded, and it could well be a different time each day.

But we generally are not the mugs paying (or at least not to CRT). Nearly all these tow-path improvements are externally funded by bodies other than CRT. This is why it is often not the worst bits of tow-path that get improved, (e.g. Leighton Buzzard, where the local funding is only available if used in Leighton Buzzard, otherwise not on offer). The Sports Participation Manager, Joe Sammon, is from my understanding a fixed term contract post funded by something like (from memory) Sport England, so again not funded I think from CRT coffers. The article is the usual anti CRT spin from Allan Richards - why are CRT encouraging speeding cyclists by such an appointment? They are not, of course.

I'm not familiar enough with Thrupp to pass valid comment, but know Stoke Bruerne intimately. What I have found there is that even those broadly supportive of such initiatives have all freely admitted there has rarely been any significant overstaying of the limits, including the old arrangements before SEVM. If you think about it, Stoke Bruerne is in the middle of nowhere, with no shops, very limited public transport, and almost zero car parking. It is simply not the kind of place that attracts significant numbers of CMers, and I have never known it to ever be. (They are at the road bridges a couple of miles to the South, where you am leave a car on the verge!). The SEVM arrangements still seem to be causing genuine "cruisers" who might have stopped there for a couple of days previously to instead put two fingers up at the £25 signs, and to decide not to bother. So have they successfully freed up VMs for fairer use by all, or just created a place where there are now often only handfuls of boats, and boat length upon boat length of empty tow-path? I know what I think, and I wouldn't wish to be a business that was based there.

Leaving aside the rather bizarre specific case and not concentrating particularly on Thrupp, the last I heard CRT have tried levying only a very few of these £25 charges across the sites where they have now applied them. I know that in some cases they have been challenged, and CRT have withdrawn the charges in certain cases, rather than try further to force payment. The attitude has seemed to be that some people will just pay, and, if they do CRT will collect it, but I think CRt know they are on unsound ground if they try and pursue any particular case of non payment. The intent has always, I think, been to scare people into compliance, with no real view that it represents any great revenue stream. I actually think that if a cast iron case came up of somebody being heavily pursued, who did not think the charge was justified and/or legal that at least one of the associations might be happy in supporting them, if CRT actually try testing it in court. I wouldn't like to predict which way it would go, but I think you could be confident that once again the main winner would be Shoesmiths!

Fascinating - thanks for posting. It does kind of put into perspective asking prices of £70k to £80k once such boats are converted, doesn't it? (I do realise quite a bit of extra money has been spent on them by then, though!....)