alan_fincher

You definitely need to establish contact with Jeannette Smith Harrison, who posts on here, but is not exactly a regular any more. I worked with Joe Harrison when I did a Saturday job for a hire boat company in the early 1970s, and I know Jeannette is related to, but not directly descended from him. She has all the family history, including the many links to countless other surnames from families who worked the boats.

Tongue in cheek, but a working boat represents potentially least possible number of customers for the pub for maximum amount of mooring space used up. Potentially 72 feet of moorings occupied by just 8 feet of living accommodation. I'm not suggesting that was their reasoning but you can't sell drinks or meals tro fifty plus feet of hold occupied by bagged coal, diesel and calor gas!

Which also actually has permanent offside moorings in it!..................................

Mooring in the pounds above and below Nelson lock is a normal practice these days. I wouldn't unless in an emergency, because I have seen how fast the levels fall, but there are never not boats moored there overnight in Summer these days. I'm not sure if this Google maps linky will work or not. EDIT: It seems to, I think... About 4 boats moored on the toe-path above Nelson lock, (with further permanent moored offside), and about 6 in the pound below Nelson lock. FURTHER EDIT: I'd also question a blanket statement like "you don't moor in lock flights", because obviously this has to be tempered by the lengths of the pounds and also volatility of water levels. Elsewhere on the GU, as examples, both Buckby and Stoke Bruerne flights have visitor moorings designated within the flights themselves, but obviously these are in the longest pound in each, not in the much shorter ones where relatively small losses of water can cause big changes of level. I happily moor in either of these, but I'd think twice about mooring in the much shorter pound above Nelson lock, because I know levels can quickly fall in that flight.

It does depend on the age of the paint, (obviously!), and no doubt the brand and how well applied. We painted Chalice in 2010, but, being us, had never done more than wash the paint, and certainly not polished it. It was looking decidedly jaded by the start of this year (so approaching 5 years with no proper maintenance), but by using Farecla colour restorer, followed by Craftmaster wax, I was amazed to get it restored to much like it was when first applied, and without huge amounts of labour. When the new owner brought Chalice past our new mooring after purchase, both of us honestly went through a though process of "that looks like a shiny version of Chalice", until we realised it was Chalice!). The process worked as well on the maroon red finish as on the green. Paint was "Narroe Boat Paint", which I understand to be very similar in formulation to Craftmaster, and blended by the same firm. However Flamingo also has red and green paintwork, (with colour panels and border reversed over Chalice), and we hoped a similar process might smarten her up. However after far more effort than we put into Chalice, it has made a bit of difference, but not a lot. However in this case we neither know when it was painted, or with what paint. My assumption is it has been on a lot longer than the 5 years for the paint on Chalice, and that is why it will not respond well to the same treatment. It's a shame, as the paint is well adhered, with few scratches, and almost no rust around portholes or windows - so it's doing its job still - just doesn't look very photogenic, (unless recently rained on, when it looks fine!).

On reflection David, you are, I think correct - the two permanently moored boats I'm thinking of are probably opposite ends of the pound above Nelson lock, (the third lock pound as you ascend). However, on looking at Google Earth, and measuring from top gate mitre of one lock to bottom gate mitre of the next, the "Nelson" pound seems to be about 182 yards long, whereas the first pound, (the one with the dry dock in) is about 178 yards, so the statement I have highlighted in red above is not at all correct. In fact, there seems to be just 4 yards difference, (no more than the length of a small GRP cruiser), between the total length of the first pound, and the total length of the Nelson pound. So they are so close in length, that I struggle to think of any reasoning about boats passing in the pound that should disallow mooring in the "dry dock" pound, but should freely allow it in the "Nelson" one. Either of these pounds has the lock gates separated by more than the length of 7 full length boats - surely more than enough that even passing a pair passing in opposite directions should not be an issue?

Yes, I'd be interested to see any old pictures of the boat. It is one I remember well as a local maintenance boat, although it seemed only my brother photographed it - I don't seem to have done. Good luck, and if, in your searches, you find anything of either "Sickle" or "Letchworth"/"Flamingo", I would of course love to see it. As maintenance boats "Sickle" and "Cambourne" would regularly have been tied up at the same locations as each other.

But people do moor in some of those short pounds, even overnight, and whilst you or I would probably choose not to, how would they be aware that such a rule existed? I have never until now been told by anybody there (permanent or volunteer) that these are no mooring areas, and if boats are not obstructing lock landings, and there are no signs, if somebody decides to accept possible issues with falling pounds, why shouldn't they. Any way, according to the poster before mine, the reason given was not falling water levels overnight, but problems caused if there just happened to be four times 70 foot boats trying to negotiate the pound - a different (and probably far more "spurious"!) reason. But as has been pointed out, several of the shorter pounds at Braunston have permanently moored boats on the offside. If these are acceptable to CRT, why should people not moor between the lock landings in those pounds? (To be clear - I would not - I have seen how badly the levels are controlled these days - but if that is the reason, then make the lengths no mooring, rather than leave them as unmarked tow-path, but then tell people who have already moored up there that they must move on).

Here's hoping for you, but what an absolute bugger they did not take suitable action on the first report they got. At least they have apparently managed to have enough of a system to link what is probably a stolen bike to somebody who has actually reported one stolen, so there does seem to be someone involved with at least a few brain cells, hopefully!

I am reluctant to post on this again, because I know I'll fall foul of those who are unhappy if I say that I have been asked not to make an answer public. However I have followed this up with CRT, and was given an explanation, but when I asked if I could post it on here, (which I assumed they would agree to!), I was told that they would prefer me not to. As I have asked, and they have said no, I feel deeply frustrated that I can't pass it on. However what I am prepared to say is that the decision to try to stop people mooring in the shorter lock pounds at Braunston has not come from the volunteers themselves, but from permanent CRT staff responsible for enforcement. Apparently they are not seeking to stop people mooring in the longer lock pounds, but are certainly seeking to do so in short pounds, such as the one between the bottom two locks. So please don't blame the volunteers for trying to pass on this message. I can only suggest that anybody who wants to know the background to this does as I did, and asks for an explanation. Maybe if enough of us ask they will decide instead that if they are going to come up with these rules that perhaps they need to publish that they are doing it, and the reasons why.

Yes, this a typical difference between many modern boats with engine rooms, and the carrying boats from which a feature is copied. It would be highly unusual, i would say for a carrying narrow boat to have had any lining at all to a steel engine room. The surface you look at on the inside, is the other side of the plate you see on the outside. However, in a modern boat, the engine room typically inter-connects with both the back cabin and the main accommodation cabin, so is often insulated and timber lined like the rest of the boat. I can only guess at what that might mean if you need to get an entire engine out. I have even seen them with central heating radiators or "Finrads" in the engine room - not something you found on working boats, (a bit like the Kelvins often found lurking in there as well ).

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!