Jump to content

alan_fincher

Member
  • Posts

    37,846
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    81

Everything posted by alan_fincher

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 I know that in some cases they have been challenged, and CRT have withdrawn the charges in certain cases, rather than try further to force payment.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!
  4. 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!....)
  5. To try and give some balance, (and certainly not looking to start an argument), however observant and cautious the steerer, if the narrowboat is 72 feet long, with a cabin or cratch at the front raised well into the air, then there is actually a very considerable length ahead of the boat where it is impossible for the steerer to see the water, or anything floating in it near water level. The simple geometry of the situation makes this inevitable, and the shorter the steerer the worse the effect. There is nothing you can do that changes this fact. Also usual advice is often to have tunnel lamp pointed to the right and/or upwards to avoid blinding oncoming steerers, so directly ahead of your boat and low down is often not well illuminated, (although if the steerer can't see that bit anyway, it is kind of irrelevant!). I would not guarantee that I might not hit a canoe or rowing boat in a tunnel of any length, if no attempt had been made by those in it to show any kind of forward facing light. I would hope any sensible ruling in the case of an accident placed the blame 100% at the door of the canoeist that chose not to use a decent light!
  6. Hmm, Give me good old Oracle, and I reckon I could tell you what was wrong quite quickly, even a decade after I last did it for a living. I don't know MySQL though, so unfortunately can't help'.
  7. If that is a typical Hudson rudder, it looks to my untrained eye to be a pretty sensible design, with a sensible amount of balanace, and not, I would have though overly large. It is probably significantly more substantial than some "Clonecraft", but not as big and heavy as a working boat rudder. Much what I would expect given that Hudsons are fairly heavy and deep draughted boats, but that said, I would not expect that type of boat to ever have particularly light steering. As an aside, with a heavy rudder and a heavily raked rudder post like that has, some effort would need to be expended just to swing the tiller away from "straight ahead", even if no engine power was on, and the boat was not moving. This is because as you swing the rudder, it is actually rising up, and you are therefore raising its centre of gravity, (let go of the tiller, and I'm guessing it will swing back to "straight ahead"). The amount of effort expended to cause the rudder to raise is probably small though, and I suspect not enough to add any significant amount to the heavy steering.
  8. FWIW, I'm not finding things radically different than from before the big restore. Most things OK, "view new content intermittently very slow. As a former database administrator the "VNC" thing seems horribly like it could be an issue with how the underlying database chooses to "optimise" access to the underlying data for the actual SQL command that the forum software is issuing. I would love to see that SQL, and what something like an "explain plan" makes of it. What is the underlying database used for the forum, please?
  9. Thanks - I now feel educated! I did think it probably was not the whole Thames flowing through there, but with several of you tugging like mad on a long rope to try and retrieve a boat jammed between the bank and the factory opposite, it starts to feel like it! Anyway I wish we had been forewarned, (plenty of warning about the low bridge, but none about the difficulties mooring!), so it seems worth bringing to the attention of other first timers.
  10. Correct me if I am wrong, (I have not done the Thames that much), but the main difference at Osney to most others seems to be that the others usually have a significant weir well before the lock, so that by the time you are as close to the lock as you are on those Osney moorings, there is little or no flow, because the flowing water has largely been diverted before that point. It always seemed to me that at Osney the issue is you get caught out because most (or possibly all?) of the flow of the river is passing through a channel not even 50 feet wide at some points. Hence the flow is a lot faster than other places you might wish to stop at the bank. Or does some get taken around the lock long before you get that far, as at other locks?
  11. Yes clearly why I said "many are", which obviously implies some are not. If you have 4' 2" sides that is broadly similar to a "Star" class boats, but this was I suggest unusual in a new build, even when yours was built. I guess many a Springer probably has a similar hull depth, as they are actually "more hull and less top" than many other leisure boats, but I don't think I'd want to use one as a carrying boat. "Chalice" I think was a fairly typical "Clonecraft", probably of similar proportions to many built in the 1980s and 1990s. Its hullside was 3' 10" deep, so actually only 4" less than Helvetia. If trying to carry with it, I think a 3' draught would have been a reasonable maximum number to work to. ...... except that the exhaust would have been several inches under water at that stage, and any attempt to remove the weed hatch quite disastrous - two further things for OP to consider if they intend to load a leisure boat hull down well beyond what was originally intended.
  12. Well obviously 3' 6" sides would not allow you to load to anything approaching a 3' 6" draught, as any narrow boat built for carrying should be easily capable of. With 4' hull sides it would be possible if you were brave enough to only leave 6" showing, but I think if I were going to do that I'd be more comfortable with a 70 foot boat than one of (say) 50 feet, which is going to rock more, and hence more likely to have the gunwales go beyond a critical point.
  13. That link gives My point was not that there is nowhere along the length that you can turn, but tat there are certainly loing lengths there where the channel is not even 50 feet wide. This I think is a reasonable challenge to the statement..... There may well be somewhere near you can turn, but there are definitely places where you can't unless you travel some distance further on.
  14. Keith & Jo have not sold solid fuels for a good many years now, I think. They did use to.
  15. The problem can be that CRT minutes, (or as they seem often to insist calling them meeting notes), for at least some of their meetings can be very scant, and it seems there is almost a deliberate intent sometime to make them look like there was total consensus, even though there was a robust debate in the actual meeting, with objections could have been recorded. I have repeatedly challenged the scantness (and on occasions the accuracy) of meeting notes relating to the South East Partnership Boating Subgroup, and not always been successful in getting them updated to reflect my objection to specific items which the rest of the group have unfortunately been happy to rubber stamp. However I found it interesting that when the person who now chairs missed a meeting she said she was not able to work out from the meeting notes what had been covered - that tells me they are not detailed enough to justify to those outside the group what it is actually involved in. The meeting notes from this Subgroup still do not fully reflect my contribution to it, and particularly where I believe I have successfully opposed something for which I can see no evidence that it needs to happen. If I genuinely felt I had no influence I would by now have stepped down, but at the moment I still feel I have a role in trying to give some balance to a meeting where the spread of those attending hardly reflects the make up of the whole boating community. Obviously I can't know how much Council meeting notes accurately reflect the input of all those on Council, but I would not be at all surprised if there were people on Council who are participating far more in the meetings than the notes might actually reflect.
  16. Didn't you effectively suggest elsewhere that even if he gets on Council he is unlikely to actually be able to change anything? Or did I misinterpret what you were trying to say?
  17. You cannot turn even a 50 foot boat in the channel immediately above Osney lock, where there are good visitor moorings. These moorings are "interesting", because unlike at most other locks, the inlet weir around the lock is only just above it, so the full flow of the river is passing through a channel that is maybe no more than 48 feet wide, making it much more rapid than most other places where there are formal moorings. If you are coming downstream from Oxford with a narrow boat of any significant length, then you have to moor with your back end into the flow. Unless you get off pretty smartly with a rear end line, and get it secured, your stern is swept across to the other side, and it is then very hard to get it back to the bank you want it to be on. You tend to only make this mistake once, as you look a complete prat in front of an inevitably large audience(!) Great moorings to be tied up, but you have to think how to achieve it safely with no drama. Unfortunately if you have just joined the Thames at Isis lock, and successfully navigated the low and infamous Osney bridge with no incidents, you do not end to be thinking too hard that you are actually in a fast flowing channel quite unlike just about every other lock you will subsequently come to.
  18. I can't find details of the original pricing of Mecca, but seem to recall £80K. That would have put me off viewing, frankly. As Matty says, shaving it down to £75K starts to bring it closer to reality but it still seems top end. That said, I have not viewed it - maybe it is particularly special if you do? The HB3 engine might be overkill, I think, though manageable.
  19. My preference is to do that ring anti-clockwise, because it means that the flow of the river is added to your normal speed through static water, and you make good times overall. Going clockwise you would need to subtract the rivers flow from your normal narrow boat speed which by my estimation means it takes considerably longer to do certain parts upstream rather than downstream. The only downsides I can see, (assuming you are using Brentford as your way of joining to the Thames), is that you need to think about how you moor up on bits of the Thames where the flow is quite fast. Unless you are actually going to turn around each time you moor, to face into the flow, (not always possible with a long boat in a narrower part), then it is best to get your back in against the bank first, and secure that - then the flow will normally just then bring the front end in for you. If you attempt to land the boat "front end first", as you might on a non flowing canal, in a narrow fast flowing bit of the Thames, (the part above Osney lock probably being the worst), then there is a chance of the flow getting hold of the back end, and pinning you across the channel, (but please don't ask us how we know this! ). Provided you do it at the prescribed time, and river conditions are normal, turning into Brentford to rejoin the canal system isn't a major issue. In the past the parades of historic boats at the Braunston show have enforced delays of maybe 2 hours on normal canal traffic - not ideal if historic boat owners wish to live in harmony with those just wanting to pass through. More recently reduced numbers attending/parading, coupled with rather better organisation have reduced these delays. However, to be confident, I would allow that you could get delayed up to two hours if it is the morning or afternoon of either the Saturday or the Sunday. You probably will not be, but if you allow that you might, and are not, then it is a bonus.
  20. Yes, I have heard good feedback that he has.
  21. That's the only bit I don't agree with. You might find yourself unable to achieve much, because nobody else actually wants attitudes to change, but that doesn't mean you have to change and become one of them. The reality though, is that I think it is rather academic, because with nothing really having changed substantively from the way it operated last time, I think it would be equally difficult for a genuine "independent" who still thought they might achieved something useful to actually gain enough support to find themselves elected. The one thing that might alter that is how the IWA decide to react to the fact that they now get one automatic nominated place on Council, not linked to the "Boater Representative" role. What will they decide to do this time about the latter? Frankly if they again put up a slate of candidates, and actively back them, then the result is unlikely to be very different. However good a case "Joe Smith, independent candidate" is able to put forward, he is going to struggle to get enough people on board, particularly as the campaign will again be run at a time when the vast majority of the electorate probably don't go near their boats or the canals. People are far more likely to say "ah, so he is an IWA trustee, and [say] branch chairman, so must be a safer bet than Joe Smith, about who I know nothing more than his 150 word election statement". They are unlikely in many cases to know of some of the poisonous, divisive and invariably inaccurate stuff the IWA people actually spout, because unlike some of us, they will be unaware of how they actually behave in reality. Sorry - that all sounds a bit negative and depressing, but I fear it will be the reality, and can't see how you change that. [EDITED: To change one word to better reflect the point I'm trying to make.]
  22. Actually spelt Hankook, should anyone wish to search. With a cold cranking amps of only 450, this is really rather smaller than ideal for many narrow boat engines. It will probably be OK on most, particularly small ones that start easily, but for most on a cold morning, something with a considerably higher CCA rating would be better. I suspect this battery is more suited to dealing with the considerably lower compression ratio of a petrol engined car, rather than a boat diesel.
  23. Yes, but I think that is more or less verbatim what was said last time around. Although it makes reference to a "constituency" and "gathering views", it seems to make this an optional activity! The implication is very much that you can ask for views if you want to, but are not obliged, and that it it is largely one way activity. This is very different from you as a representative making yourself fully accessible to all, and letting them know what business council is currently involved in, so that they can approach you in their own right, if they wish to do so - something the current incumbents appear to have made no effort to do To seriously be a "representative" my view is that you have to make some considerable effort to know that what you are carrying forward reflects the views of your constituency. If you never engage with them in large numbers, you risk just putting forward your own view of the world, assuming that is what benefits boaters in general, and that you know best. As some of the currently elected "representatives" have shown themselves willing to pontificate a load of drivel about things they clearly have no real knowledge of, they are in my view not actually "representing", and are actually working against what many of us want.
  24. Well I have tried all those,((and a few others), but unless I'm missing something, I can't fond anything that gives a "job spec" for what they see the Boater Representative role as being. Can anyone find a direct link to such information, please?
  25. That's me definitely done for then! I'll not give them the pleasure of providing a link, but the following is cut and pasted.... Bizarrely Pam Pickett, who wrote this article, has since sent me a Facebook "friend" request. You couldn't make it up, could you? (Oh, hang on, they do all the time).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.