Phoenix_V
-
Posts
1,611 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Phoenix_V
-
-
6 minutes ago, Loddon said:
I prefer a wet exhaust so I wouldn't change to a dry one, mine is plastic waterlock and rubber hose, nothing to rust it doesnt get hot and its quiet compared to most boats.
Whats not to like.
until it gets blocked by weed and melts
-
8 hours ago, magnetman said:
The river Wey is a nice example but why do you think they have a lower budget than CRT?
One noticeable thing about the Wey, which I actually quite like, is that they have no cc ers. It's not an option. And visitors pay through the nose to use the waterway.
It's well regulated. I don't know what happens if you get in there and just remain there but I suspect they have it sorted as there are lenghsmen and lengths women and some of them are pretty scary. It would be interesting to know of any enforcement procedures carried out by NT for boats illegally left on the River Wey.
National Trust is not underfunded is it.
CRT needs to go and be replaced by a similar model to the river Wey management ie accept no parasites and get people to pay for their housing.
When this happens it will be interesting to see the effect on the second hand boat market.
I am sure I read somewhere that the operating costs were entirely financed from boat income. Obviously rivers cost less to run than canals but even a comparison with CRT Rivers only would I am sure be favourable to the trust. There management style with lengthsmen retained and lock cottages kept works well. CRT would need a change in the law which would now be impossible to ban ccers but there is a lot they could do to give fair access to all.
-
On 09/03/2021 at 10:32, IanD said:
I like to think that most people on this forum are canal enthusiasts, and would very much like them to be better than they are. Many think CaRT are doing a terrible job while ignoring the realities of what they are trying to do given an inadequate amount of money -- it's like blaming immigrants for the low-paid zero-hours poor-benefits no-housing overloaded-NHS situation, when the real culprit is government policy. Yes there's no doubt that CaRT seem to make some dumb decisions, but the simple fact is they haven't got enough money today to properly maintain a canal system which is hundreds of years old, and no amount of complaining about blue signs or cyclists is going to fix that.
I don't know why you keep defending crt, I know they have to cater for customers who want diametrically opposed outcomes, but their prefered solution generally appears to be to p**s everyone off equally and waste shedloads of money. You only have to look at the independent navigations, such as Wey, Avon, Chelmer to see how much better it could be on an even more limited budget.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Bod said:
Warstock bearing, can they be cut?
I'm looking at replacing our warstock bearing, if I can unbolt the housing, an lift it up enough, the old packing can be cut away, but can a new one be cut/split open enough to go around the shaft?
Bod
I think you may have to be the pioneer and let us know. I am quite taken by the warstock idea does anyone know if the bearing split or otherwise will fit into a standard bearing housing - or if the housings are different?
-
A bit late for the original poster but you can get rubber bearings to avoid rust problems https://www.midlandchandlers.co.uk/products/warstock-1-1-2-dia-std-unit-sg-027
Our last narrow boat simply used a bit of steel pipe welded to a square plate, never gave any problems
-
1 hour ago, David Mack said:
the power plant can be expensive though
-
or you could even try solar water heating!
-
We had problems like yours, couldn't heat the calorifier and radiator at the far end of the boat, even after endless bleeding and different combinations of radiators switched in and out of circuit, in the end we installed a supplementary pump in the circuit at the far end and it has sorted the problem. One like this https://solarproject.co.uk/page2.html cheaper are available on ebay or amazon, worth a try?
-
41 minutes ago, matty40s said:
I cant find drip loops on Midland Chandlers website.....?
aren't they next to the round tuits
-
47 minutes ago, magnetman said:
Some of the rowers on the Thames have finally worked out what mirrors are for.
Obviously as they are product of moneyed males and dumb blondes they have quite a lot of evolution to get on with but the recognition of mirrors after however many years it is now since the invention must be a Good Thing overall.
Installing brains and removal of the attitude problems will take a bit longer me thinks.
it is in living memory that they were persuaded to carry a light when out at night
-
I was last there a few years ago but remember there was a nice butcher
2 hours ago, magnetman said:Hampton Court is nicer than Kingston if you don't need the shops,
-
13 minutes ago, IanD said:
ome "proper" boaters will get caught in the backlash of rule changes aimed at roping in the cowboys. This doesn't make CART wrong or the NBTA right...
What doesn't make crt right is the lack of evidence base for their proposal so why shouldn't those caught in the backlash complain and look to fellow boaters for support?
-
23 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:
I have now tracked down the post and the rowers were from Broxbourne Club.
hmm thanks, can't quite see how moored boats would have made a difference whatever the width they seem to have been cutting the corner, never mind
-
9 minutes ago, IanD said:
I'm not stalking you, just that you're pretty much the only person on the forum protesting so strongly and repeatedly about this and using phrases like "discrimination", and this suggests you have an axe to grind.
I don't, apart from perhaps not seeing CART as the devilish boater-persecuting organisation that some make them out to be, and that maybe they try and do their best under difficult circumstances -- hampered by poor management, as is unfortunately not uncommon, but not deliberately malicious. SInce this is a forum about the canal network that they run, this is a point of view just as valid as yours ?
The "thin end of the wedge" argument ("First they came for...") is nearly always put forward when CART try and make any changes -- composting toilets, CC rules, widebeam supplements, home mooring rules -- where there are bound to be some people negatively affected, even if the result of the change overall is positive or removing unfairness. Conspiracy theories rule the internet, and the one that CART are trying to destroy boaters lifestyles one small step at a time (the "boiling a frog" argument) seems to me to be just another one.
Like I said I do not support NBTA, my club have their moorings on the Broxbourne pound and the restrictions will affect us albeit indirectly. I don't hold to the conspiracy or any other theory about crt, I do believe they propose restrictng widebeams as it will show they have done something albeit ineffective and there are too few widebeam owners to object rather than because they have any evidence that it will serve any effective purpose. Supposing there is a problem then they will start removing narrowbeams. Any removal of moorings will affect all boaters what is there to like about it.
-
I think I did answer your question, my main boat is currently elsewhere many members of my club have widebeams I am not a member of NBTA or a supporter. I just think that any reduction of mooring space is against the interests of all boaters and those who are happy for them to discriminate against one sector of the boating community should reflect on whether that is just the thin end of the wedge and maybe they will come for them later. What is your interest since you seem to be so keen to stalk me?
-
2 minutes ago, IanD said:
Are these photos of the stretches where CART plan to restrict mooring, or just random photos of nice wide bits of the Lee?
The top picture show opposite the rowing club where all mooring will be banned, narrow will be allowed where the widebeam is in the photo. The bottom picture is a no mooring part in the distance (presumably as it is on a bend) narrow only in foreground
-
I venture to suggest that the channel is not narrow and 2m wide or 4m wide would make little difference I do not currently have my widebeam here but many friends do, they will no longer be able to moor
-
7 minutes ago, IanD said:
To point out the obvious, boats with sticky-out oars need a lot more channel width than narrowboats (or wideboats), and it's undoubtedy true that the rowing clubs were there long before the recent explosion of moored boats on the Lee.
Whether this is genuinely seen as a safety issue or is an excuse by CART to persecute boaters and make them move on to somewhere else -- or at least, spread out -- is a matter of debate.
But before invoking the CART "drive 'em off the canals!" conspiracy theory promoted by the NBTA, it's worth asking the obvious question -- why would CART do this when it would reduce their revenue from licenses without replacing it with anything else?
I think it is just a case of someone in head office with little to do satisfying some moaning rowers, the restriction on mooring is not that dreadful there is not much double mooring on this stretch at the moment so requiring single mooring only is not dreadful either, what is unacceptable is the discrimination agains widebeams but imho, why would we support any reduction in mooring space.
The degree of thought that went into this is illustrated by the fact that they forgot to show any lock landing lengths in the Broxbourne plan.
-
1 minute ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
In answer to how many reports of incidents at the two locations over the last ten years, CRT say seven. Four of these were near misses.
They have not made any analysis of how many where moored boats were a factor let alone wide v narrow, many incidents are rower on rower or noddy boat on noddy boat
-
12 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:
Perhaps I misunderstand the CaRT argument but I thought it went sort of: Too many rowers collide with navigating boats because the available width has been reduced so much by moored boaters.
Maybe, but in your real world example what in your opinion did/would moored boats contribute and what difference whether if narrow or wide.
Which section did it occur in, the only part to be allowed for widebeam is bizarrely one of the narrower stretches
imho this sort of thing often involves new rowers and reflects incompetant training rather than presence of moored boats
-
12 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:
No, it means the least it could be - in this case it could be 0%.
In this case it means well below what 'I' want - rather than need.
BTW. the last time we came down the Lee Navigation (I forget exactly where without going back over the blogs) and it was perhaps 6 or 7 years ago - we had an incident with a couple of chaps out rowing. They took notice of what was ahead their boat (ie behind them) and I could see that they were a danger to others so I came to a stop. Despite issuing an audible warning, they continued towards us relentlessly. One of them caught their blade on the bow of our narrowboat which tipped him into the water. We assisted with getting him out but he was quite shaken as he had not really appreciated how difficult it can be in places. I have no idea how frequent their are 'incidents' but I do know that at least it can happen.
And what difference would
1 moored narrowboats
2 moored widebeamboats
made/would have made
7 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:Not so sure as land is only entered on the register when it changes hands and CaRT just inherited from BW via legislation. (SI?)
It was never on the register BW were the navigation authority they did not own the track, as you say it was assumed to belong to the riparian owners in the same way that house owners often own up to the mid point of their road, when it becam crt they started registering such land without telling the riparian owners. In this cae LVRP were the riparian owner and got in before them.
-
7 minutes ago, noddyboater said:
Thanks, I'll look into it.
Unfortunately already in his favour is that he applied for change of use when he originally bought the place around 15 years ago, and got it.
The rules have changed since then, the main thing is you need local support and someone willing to take it on as a pub or a community group
-
10 minutes ago, matty40s said:
It's funny you should say that word, when BW tries to sneak that plan I mentioned above in mid Feb(with less than 6 weeks notice) in 2011, the main area of concern was that BW could provide NO evidence to substantiate their plans reasons, need for or possible outcomes, other than the fact that a couple of people had sat innan office, decided there was a problem and come up with the solution.
They were forced to extend the consultation to an proper period, forced to admit they hadnt actually got any evidence, and overwhelmingly forced to shelve it as it would have become a disaster environmentally for the river, lost all the fish, made it impossible for rowing to take place(as most boats would have to move on Saturday or Sunday).
In fact, the only research carried out, and a lot was done, was by boaters, going out along the towpaths, speaking to locals, rowers, cyclists, greenies, etc
The classic moment of Sally Ash shrieking at a Stanstead Abbots church hall completely rammed and standing room only" I've never had to deal with people like you before, we are NOT a housing association"...thus completely missing the point is a moment that will last long in the memory of those who attended and forced the climbdown. London Boaters was essentially formed from that.
BW and then CRT's problem was, they never re-looked at it for years, thus missing the chance to stop the influx of new boats, or control anything, until it was too late.
.
They tried though one of the main speakers on behalf of the boaters was offered a residential mooring a couple of weeks after which he took and was never heard of again, unfortunately for Sally others took his place.
-
1 minute ago, magnetman said:
Ok so that one has already been done.
I remember CRT or was it BW doing a land grab about 12 years ago perhaps a bit more. I think it was BW actually.
They claimed a lot of land which was not obviously theirs but probably would be default.
Seems sensible.
Thats what LVRP did but they got there first, originally it would have been like a road and noone should have owned it
wet exhaust replacement or modification?
in Boat Building & Maintenance
Posted
the rubber hose tends to give off a burning smell long before serious damage (don't ask me how I know this) but I am suspicious of plastic filters and water traps. There is definitely much more to go wrong on a wet system.