alan_fincher

Originally on many Grand Union motors the engine room roof was riveted on solid, I think, because the arrangements to remove the engine involved unbolting a panel off the front of the engine room, rather than removing the roof. Some, (possibly many??), have since been modified to make the engine room roof removable, but it would not necessarily have been so originally. The Grand Union ones I'm familiar with use nuts and bolts, not tapped holes, but other modern build boats, such as CTS built ones, seem to use tapped holes sometimes with no nuts. I can recall what Grand Union types originally had front removal of the engines, and which (if any) always had removal through the roof, but I seem to remember Steve Priest did a detailed post on this at some stage, should anybody wish to go into that level of detail. Not that this helps someone with a Hudson (!) For the OP's boat I would have thought it pretty obvious though if it had any of the following... 1) Nuts, 2) Bolts, 3) Real rivets (highly unlikely, I think), or 4) Fake rivets, (possible I suppose, but why?) Once you know that info, how easily it could be removed should be relatively easy to determine, I would have thought.

Pedant alert..... 4) Bolt through into tapped holes, (no nuts).

And justifiably rewarded by then getting the chairman role, which, I assume, carries a very large pay cheque with it? I realise you are being flippant Mike, but if someone takes on a role, even unpaid, then they need to demonstrate commitment to it, IMO, or they should not have taken it on.

Presumably the same Allan Leighton who was one of no less than 6 CRT Trustees that did not attend the last meeting of CRT Council? You do have to wonder just how seriously some of this is actually being taken, don't you!

You clearly haven't been paying attention, Rob!

No thanks, it seems it keeps falling over....

Surely you can't be serious? You have either only boated on very shallow draught boats, or really haven't boated that extensively. If you have a deep draughted boat you get used to the idea that it regularly will not come to the side above or below locks, and learn how to avoid needing to do so. Even our relatively shallow draughted "modern" boat often failed the test, particularly where it should have been deep enough but pounds were 6" to 12" or more down on weir level. Like George I'm usually very happy to find a CRT work boat at these locations, that I can use as a landing stage if I need to, and hence stay far enough from the bank that the boats still float freely. My only proviso is that it is one I can scuttle across quickly, rather than one filled with dredgings of other detritus, so I can't easily cross it.

Yes, pedant alert, but Tony is correct - wheat to Whitworths ended in April 1969. I know this because the very last load was delivered by the "Flamingo", (which we now own), pared with the "Beverley", and operated by the late Ken Ward & family.

Hello, Are you the current owner, please? I ask, because I think I have had a "conversation" with someone about the boat fairly recently, but I can't for the life of me remember when or where! I'm not aware of much except those posted in this thread by my brother (Antar Mike). I've a sneaking feeling that there was a picture postcard of Raven's Lane lock in Berkhamsted with a full length BWB Town class motor from the maintenance fleet on, and that this was probably Cambourne. These occasionally turn up on e-Bay.

I feel a "win win" emerging situation here! It's in line with CRT's stated objective of promoting use of the canals for all kinds of sporting activities. Moreover if the abseiling lines are attached to the top of the new railings, but then taken across the cut, and over the stone parapet on the tow-path side, then that also includes Laurence's device for beheading speeding cyclists at absolutely no extra cost to CRT. One downside of course is that these ropes would also prevent the passage of boats across the aqueduct, but actual movement of boats now seems fairly low on the list for future use of our canal system, so perhaps unimportant in the grander scheme of things? And anyway, no boats means nobody stepping off of them on to the wrong side, so yet another win..... (Coat please!)

It is not actually a narrow area at all - it is probably 5 or 6 feet wide, and probably at least as wide as the tow-path on the other side. There is actually no danger at all to anybody who chooses to walk on that area near to the canal edge - the danger only arises if you get close to the drop. I can't imagine what "device" could prevent you from stepping off on to it that would be significantly less obtrusive than whatever railings will get erected. In fact the railings don't have to be, (and indeed may well end up not being), erected on the furthest side just before the fall - and, of course, if they are, it is far more likely that people will stop their boats on the aqueduct, and step off to take pictures, or to admire the view! I've no idea what is currently in CRT's their heads, but maybe railings somewhere in the middle of the wide area is what they will do - gives a fair separation from the fall, (unless people climb over them), but doesn't place an obstruction close to the canal, and risk any kind of incident with people on boats getting mixed up in them.

Or perhaps "The Raikes Progress", because if she has been donated a rake, you know you are in danger of having it sold to you......................

I guess what irks me is that increasingly CRT seem to say they are being balanced by having a consultation about something, but if the majority of responses to that consultation fail to support what CRT want to do, more often than not they go ahead and do just what they wanted to in the first place. In which case I would argue that the consultation is a fiasco, and just wastes time and money. We might as well go back to how BW operated, with no consultation, because time and time again the end result seems to end up exactly the same!

All Jan says above is of course true. However, my understanding is that they do like to have an idea of what historic boats are attending, even if there is no formal form filling, payment, providing insurance details, and all the "noise" that tends to go with other historic boat events. They normally fill just about every inch of available space effectively, whilst still making it possible to let boats move. In my experience Lawrence usually has a plan of what boats he is berthing where, so that he can put shorter ones in appropriate locations, to give maximum space for full length ones. - although they clearly have a flexibility that if some turn up regardless, a spot will be found for them. So, anybody visiting with an "historic" should, I would say, at least give Lawrence a call with some idea a of their intentions. (Which, being my usual organised self, I have yet to do, of course!........)

James still feels very strongly that not only should this be the case at Three Locks, but also (as you know) has a list of many other sites on the Southern GU where he would like to see the same, many of them canal-side pubs within easy cruising of his Linslade base. He firmly believes that for much of the year his hire fleet makes up the majority of the boats moving, (I know you have heard him say the same). Clearly there is a huge gulf between what some would like to happen, and what many of us believes neither needs to happen, nor should happen. I don't think this will go away, and I'm not sure even if several of us continue to oppose it through whatever channels are available to us, that we will necessarily be able to hold back the tide. I do appreciate that some, not just hire boat operators, are in favour, but I believe CRT are not getting the message from a large number of people who are not in favour. I would urge people to keep letting CRT know their views, or I still fear tha tthe GU may end up littered with short stay moorings in a bid to stop hire boaters having to walk 100 yards to the pub. I'll repeat what the landlord at our local award winning canal-side pub said to me a while back - generally the hire boaters go to the supermarket, and stock up on beer, and have a canal-side barbeque - they rarely visit his pub. Most of his canal based trade comes from the moorers that CRT seem to want to discourage from mooring near to his pub.

The following answer has been received from Matthew Symonds by email, and additionally he phoned me to discuss...... So the volunteer should not have told Betty what he did, as the information he gave was incorrect. Fortunately on this occasion the volunteer could be easily identified, but in the case of the one at Whilton Locks CRT have still been unable to do so. Can I please therefore please ask yet again that whenever someone is reporting something that a volunteer either did or said, that they make sure they have noted their name, so we are able to follow it up when what they are doing exceeds what they are supposed to be doing. (No need to post the name publicly, but needs to be available privately, if follow up is to be effective).

I see see Steve has beaten me to it with an extract from the South East Boating Subgroup meeting notes, (where I'm pleased to say they seem to be taking on board requests that they contain a meaningful amount of detail!) Here is a relevant part again without the extra line feeds.... The highlighted bit clearly shows that Matthew Symonds has effectively stated that the volunteer ranger in Berkhamsted had no basis for telling Betty what he did about £25 charges if they exceed a 14 day stay in the Berkhamsted area, (whatever constitutes "the Berkhamsted area"!). I will take this up yet again. As an aside please note the comments about the Soulbury Three Locks trial . Can I please ask that anybody who has a view on whether this should continue after August ends their feedback to CRT? There will certainly be strong input from the hire boat trade and the pub that it should continue, and this would no doubt then result in the £25 overstay charges - the only way I can see it not continuing is if enough people send CRT a view that it should not, and that these measures would be overkill at a location like Three Locks, (still my own personal view!). If you do not feel happy communicating directly with CRT on such matters, please sed me your views by PM, and I promise to pass any received on anonymously, (whether you share my view or not!).

And there was me thinking that your butler would be under firm instructions to only "park up" where there was an uninterrupted satellite signal..........

Surely cruiser stern narrow boats regulalarly make this passge where the height of the deck above waterline is no higher than your engine room doors? I wouldn't have thought it was going to be a lot different, (although equally I'm sure on a rough day it will not stay completely bone dry either!)

........And if there is a bloody great warehouse in the direction you are pointing it?....................................

No, but it is obvious from the pictures that OP has left it open for the canal Boat Club boat approaching from the opposite direction. It would have been rude, and bad practice to close it in the situation pictured!

To be clear, I don't think it likely that the person Betty has encountered is a fake. He is, however handing out a message different from the one given to some of us as the official CRT line. So I would love to know if he is doing this off his own bat, or whether "somebody" in CRT is telling him that £25 charges do (or will) apply in Berkhamsted. Someone, somewhere must be being "economical with the truth", and this is a difficult enough topic to try and bring some sense to, without dishonesty being added to the equation. If anybody can get a full name, I'll follow it up, although I'm starting to think nailing jelly to a ceiling is far more likely to succeed.