alan_fincher

Better do it on foot, not by boat though..... Alledgedly if you go by boat, you are unlikely to be able to moor up near any of the pubs!

If you want to find the man you might do better at the "Three Locks"! EDIT: Serious question John...... Anybody can see that you have very much "lost the faith" on trying to work pro-actively with CRT, after your enormous optimism early on in the process. I can understand that, and more and more can see the same in other early supporters who now feel regularly frustrated. So what do you think we should do? Do we simply stop trying to influence them at all, or, (assuming we are not completely worn down by the process, and are prepared to try), do we keep chipping away at it by whatever corridors of communication we still have. As I say, serious, honest, open question - I don't know the answer myself, but the one thing I personally genuinely believe is that if they wear us all down to the point we all withdraw, it certainly isn't going to be good for inland boaters and boating generally.

No, Unfortunately these groups are not open to being observed by those not members of them. I recall that it was asked in the past if people could observe the main partnership meetings, and it seemed that overall CRT were not minded to allow it. Someone may be able to find the thread where the whole idea was mooted? I imagine CRT's attitude towards a partnership sub-group would bbe no different from the main partnership meetings, but you could always try asking them.

John, I not disagreeing with your thoughts, but would point out that there has been an advertised vacancy on this sub-group specifically for someone who cruises without a home mooring for many months now. If someone were recruited, (and I suspect it could be two people, as there were initially two CC-ers on the sub-group), then there is a very good chance that they will either be in the category of having purchased a winter mooring themselves, or at least being in regular contact with many who have. I have actively pursued personally a couple of recommendations of people that others had said, (and I agreed), would be good CC-er members, but unfortunately in each case their personal circumstances have changed, and, although living aboard, they are now on permanent moorings, so don't meet the CC-er criterion. Both the SE Partnership chair, and the current chair of the sub-group are keen to improve CC-er representation, but nobody I am aware of has applied. It would be great if someone suitable would come forward - is there any "qualifying" person reading this prepared to apply ? As it happens, I don't think I'm expecting more than a possible "state of play" update on the topic of winter moorings. I don't think the sub-group has any remit in what I would expect to be national decisions. Anyway the feedback I have heard is that the final decisions about 2015/2016 are not going to be taken for a while yet - is that your understanding, please? You may be surprised to learn that there is strong support within the sub-group the winter moorings be retained in much last years form though, from people not always supportive of the CC-ers cause. The fact that winter moorings have generated significant revenue for CRT is seen as a very strong positive, and seems to go some way to placate those who seem to feel that CC-ers are "getting for nothing what we have to pay for". (I stress the latter is not a view I can ever get my brain around, but, as you know, it is a regularly stated opinion).

There has been some comment on CWDF that people do not know what is being discussed in this sub-group. This is the agenda I have recently received for the meeting next Monday. (Before anybody asks, I don't yet know what "Trade Boat Exemption" refers to - perhaps someone can enlighten me before the meeting?) AGENDA Title: South East Boating Sub-Group Date: 22nd June 2015 Attendees Members – John Best (JB), Lynda Payton (LP), James Griffin (JG), Alan Wildman (AW), Alan Fincher (AF), David Daines (DD) CRT Staff - Matthew Symonds (MS), Vicky Martin (VM), Hannah Roe (HR), Sam Anderson-Brown (SA) Apologies David Cook (DC), Judy Clegg (JC) 1. Welcome and introductions – Vicky Martin, David Cook & Cathy Court (joining in September) LP 2. Declarations of Interest 3. Vicky Martin – an opportunity to meet the new South East Waterway Manager VM 4. Notes from the previous meeting/Matters arising LP 5. Trade Boat Exemption SA 6. South East Waterway 10 Year Plan JB/VM 7. Visitor Moorings updates MS - Existing sites (Thrupp, Foxton Locks, Stoke Bruerne) - New sites (Oxford, Banbury) - Other sites being monitored (Batchworth, Berkhamsted, Braunston, Cowroast, Marsworth) - Changes to trade boat conditions - Soulbury Three Locks 8. Giffard Park Quiet Zone Proposal MS 9. Winter Mooring 2015/16 MS 10. Customer Service Standard Update VM 11. AOB All 12. Dates for future meetings:

But on most boats don't the wooden gunwales just bolt on to steel/iron angles on the top of the hull-sides that project inwards nearly as much as the width of the gunwales? I genuinely don't think you could accommodate a pod that was significantly wider below gunwale level, even if you went to all the rigmarole of taking the wood off, and reinstating it - a massive jub, I would have thought! Quite!

Some more pictures of our busy weekend in our blog post here. (Note: There will be duplication with some pictures already seen on CWDF).

Morris Oils can often be bought significantly cheaper if you don't but them direct from Morris. EDIT: Classic Oils of Aylesbury has been one members recommendation, though I have not yet used them personally.

Can we assume you are referring to the tragic accident with Drum Major ?

I can't help with pictures, but have a couple of snippets about this as a carrying butty with the GUCCCo. Cowley lock keeper records show that in 1946 it was paired with "Letchworth", a boat we now own, (although it is currently carrying it's later Willow Wren name of "Flamingo"). On 9th Feb 1946 it was carrying grain from Brentford to New Ground on the Tring summit. On 21st Nov 1946 it was carrying beer from Park Royal to Sampson Road, Birmingham. Perhaps somebody can confirm if that is likely to be the famous "Guinness run"? Steerers names are not recorded in these records.

Yes, my understanding is that this is the Dykes family who I believe still own Fenny, and used to own Cow Roast until they somehow managed to sell it to BWML for £££silly£££. I have not heard any recent updates about status.

Not the one pictured in this thread, I think..... That would look decidedly odd under sheets!

I'm still torn here, because I am receiving a lot of different advice, despite people seeming well informed! Off the forum several people have suggested the 20W/50 route, which I was previously tempted top follow, but somewhat deterred by some of the comment here. This includes the last person to do serious work on the engine, and who uses 20W/50 in their on HA. So can I please ask again, "why not". Remember I have a very good oil pressure when cold, but not a particularly high one once fully hot. Would the multigrade not help with that?

Indeed you did not, but another James did!.........

It hasn't just changed hands, I believe, but the trip boats have ended, and are sold off or being sold off. This was a separate business anyway. I have spoken to them about moorings. These were dependant on new floating pontoons they said would be in place by May, but last time I pssed there was no apparent action on this. It is potentially cheaper than other pontoon moorings in that area, (Grove or CowRoast), but IIRC not massively cheaper - certainly a great deal more than we are currently paying for a serviced mooring in Northants.

Unlike James, I'm not a fan of the lift out "pod", idea. I haven't done the exact maths, but unless you are going to desecrate the original gunwales, I very much doubt if the lower half of what has to be craned in can at any point be much wider than 6 feet externally. One of the beauties of a converted working boat, particularly if it has a deep hold, is the massive feeling of space that comes from the 7' width. If you reduced that by probably approaching 1 foot to make a "pod" that will fit between the proper gunwales of the boat, that will still need insulation and lining, and I stuggle to see how you could achieve more than about 5' 6" between the internal "walls". To me this would be a massive disadvantage, and certainly things like cross beds are no longer a possibility. Also unless you have your own canal-side wharf with a large crane and wharf available, it is going to end up not exactly lifted out very often! I think there is a good reason why although this idea has occasionally been tried, it is in fact only very occasionally. How many ex working boats have an actual pod in use right now? I'm not sure I could now name one. Question.... If you have a "pod", where does all the rain water that will land on it end up? Instinctively I feel most will generally end up in the hold giving you a "wet bilged" boat?

Yes, I tend to agree this one looked well OTT. That said, I do think it would be no bad thing if a new marina of two were constructed in this area, as currently lack of choice versus overall demand means what do exist can charge very high prices. Try asking about a berth at Grove for a full length boat, for example - it made my eyes water, but as they have a longish waiting list, they can easily get away with it..

Mind you "whenever there is a risk of the vessel striking against any other vessel" could surely mean you need to deploy side fenders between two narrow boats sharing a broad lock side by side. That's exactly what one is recommended not to do, so do you make sure you are never in disregard of the bye-laws, or do you actually apply common sense where it is the better option?

Many of you will know that we successfully reverted to owning just two narrow boats when we sold "Chalice" earlier this year. However, although we have owned "Flamingo" since late last year, it has taken until now for us to actually get our two boats "Sickle" and "Flamingo" together. So I took the opportunity of some pictures. Both are 1936 boats built for the Grand Union Canal Carrying Company by W J Yarwood and Sons of Northwich. However "Sickle" is a "Middle Northwich" "Star Class" boat, whereas "Flamingo" is a "Large Northwich" "Town Class" boat, ("Flamingo" was originally named "Letchworth" only becoming "Flamingo" in 1962 when purchased by Willow Wren). Apart from the obvious 31' 6" removed from "Sickle" in 1942, when she was converted to an ice-breaker, these pictures give some idea of the detailed differences between the two types. Also in some of the images is "Purton" yet another 1936 Yarwoods built boat, but in this case a "Town" that has been shortened to about 60 feet.

For anybody interested, some photostreams of the event here..... "ShepherdMoon's" Stream "Towcester News'" Stream Kathryn Dodington's Stream Cath with New Moon morris [Photo ShepherdMoon] https://flic.kr/p/urMBuo Us as Vikings [Photo ShepherdMoon] https://flic.kr/p/uJCTFt Sickle as Viking Boat [Photo: James Rudd] https://flic.kr/p/uDWZ2H More Vikings [Photo: James Rudd] https://flic.kr/p/tGThB2 Flamingo at her first event in our ownership [Photo: Kathryn Dodington] https://flic.kr/p/uzYSjL Sickle returns after Viking "raid" completed [Photo: Kathryn Dodington] https://flic.kr/p/uDvKud