Phoenix_V
-
Posts
1,611 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Phoenix_V
-
-
29 minutes ago, matty40s said:
Work with the rowing clubs (and they dont actually want boats moving on certain practice days) and they will support the boaters.
Pi€€ them off and double/triple moor on their practice reaches and they will go the way they have to CRT.
to be fair I don't think the rowing clubs are that bothered, they would like the boats gone but as they havent got that will be content to let crt and nbta battle it out, just banning widebeams isn't going to make much difference to them, I am not aware of much double or triple mooring at Broxbourne
-
10 minutes ago, Jerra said:
I admit I don't know the area, which is why I am asking questions. However if we look at Matty's paot above and consider the sections of the public who feel they have a right to want things to fit their idea of the way thing should be I can think of a number of people/organisations who may have objections.
Environmentalists worried about the amount of grey water being added and the potential for other pollution.
Locals who would prefer a clear view of the water and the chance to get close to the wildlife (ducks).
Cyclists who would like fewer places and people suddenly appearing off boats to get in the way.
Possibly CRT licence checkers who find it difficult to see the outside boats details.
Possibly CRT themselves who feel the infrastructure elsan points etc may be put under strain.
There are of course others if you sit and think about it but I am sure you can see where I am coming from.
The reason given by crt is safety on the water - therefore none of the above apply. The 2 sections chosen for this are both where rowing clubs row. They row on these sections because they are wide.
doesnt help the environmentalists as these are river sections which flow taking away polution, which much benefits Luton whose efluent goes into the Lee
Doesnt help the locals as nbs still block the view
cyclists, maybe but why here
licence checkers, maybe but why here
elsan points under strain, well there is a boatyard here so not the ideal place to stop mooring
-
14 minutes ago, Jerra said:
However if a simple "there is evidence " or "no it is just my belief" is too difficult fair enough.
Why would I say either they do not reflect my view but to expand as you do not seem to have followed what I said. There is no evidence but if you "follow the money" who else would expect to benefit?
-
3 minutes ago, Jerra said:
Is there evidence this is the case or an assumption?
can you think of any other reason?
4 minutes ago, Jerra said:Taking the number of boats on the system (canals capable of taking them) do you think there are more or less than 20%?
No idea, rather more than 20 % locally, it's a widebeam river
-
Just now, Dave123 said:
This shouldn't really have become a debate about liveaboards and boats not moving enough/wanting to stay in Hackney forever. This is about the removal of general towpath moorings for all and any boats. And its a good thing it is getting some publicity as CRT really shouldn't be caving in to demands of rowing club when there is little evidence it's needed. Losing these moorings will make the situation worse for visiting boats as well as london based boats so i dont see how any users of the forum can't be supportive of what London boaters are doing to try and stop the loss of these moorings....?♂️?♂️?
divide and rule we suck up every time
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Jerra said:
I wouldn't call just over 20% minimal (which in my experience is used to imply negligible).
but it is not 20% reserved for widebeam it is shared with narrowbeam but if you like I will change it to derisory
-
-
First they came for the wide beam owners and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a wide beam owner.Then they came for the continuos cruisers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a continuos cruiser.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
with apologies to Martin Niemöller
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, IanD said:
and 2279 vs. 4529 in the Lower Lee.
Could this perhaps because the river at Broxbourne is narrower, and currently clogged up with too many widebeams and double-moored boats?
Maybe somebody who actually knows the area (and who isn't an NBTA member) can comment?
I'll explain it to you, like it or not there are now a large number of boats without mooring in the London and outer London area this creates pressure on towpath moorings and means the ability to cruise and stop somewhere congenial without worry has disapeared for the rest of us. Tough but there it is. Now without producing any evidence CRT propose reducing mooring on 2 popular pounds. I can see why reducing moorings might be popular with rowers and noddy boat hire companies but can see no obvious reason why it would be popular with boaters. There is clearly a divide and rule scenario going on here with the wide beam owners being discriminated against which seems to be agreed as a bad thing. Now since you have asked I moor at Broxbourne at a club. Some of our members are partial to taking a short trip on an afternoon without going through locks. Some of our members have widebeams (not all big fat narrowboats but a fair few river cruisers 8' beam or so) they will be unable to to do so. There is no length reserved for widebeam, a short and usually full length as it is near the station and pub has been allocated to wide and narrow, chances of getting a mooring there will be zilch. The Lee is a widebeam waterway and is generally about 15-20m wide on this pound, trains of wide barges used to pass each other at speed years ago. I repeat we have seen no evidence to support these restrictions particularly the discrimination against widebeams.
I have not studied the restrictions proposed on the other pound but again it is a wide stretch of river and there is no reason to reduce mooring options for everyone and none to discriminate against widebeam owners.
-
11 minutes ago, IanD said:
ou seem to have an interesting definition of "minimal" -- here are the actual numbers:
"Although there will be some restrictions on where boats can moor to ensure that a safe navigation width is maintained, there will still be lots of mooring space.
- In the Broxbourne water safety zone, there will be 1824 metres (5984 ft) of mooring space including 338 metres (1108ft) for wider craft.
338 vs 1824 minimal
-
9 minutes ago, IanD said:
Not making excuses for CART but people should read the CART release and make up their own minds, not just listen to the NBTA:
Your comments are relevant but why quote from my post. I have read the crt proposals for Broxbourne at least and there is minimal space allocated where widebeams (and crt ususally defined that as anything more than 7'6") can moor
-
its a widebeam river most of the small cruisers on the river are widebeam if anything they should ban narrowboats
perhaps they should all move up to the North Oxford?
-
1
-
-
More importantly although this is a widebeam river many of the proposed moooring restrictions are to limit mooring to single file narrowbeam only no widebeams allowed.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:28 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:
wee is 100% water and stinks when its boiled
how do you know that?
-
1 minute ago, Ally said:
I had wondered if expanding foam might work. Knowing how well it sticks, if we braced it again it might just hold it?
even if it doesnt stick should give a nice interference fit if you use it inside the "hole"
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Ally said:
So sort of like this? Tried that, fell off! (See photo below)
yes thats it, dont recall them falling off it should certainly be possible to stick wood to fibreglass, then just the self adhesive velcro, as I said it was the vinyl covered cabin wall that was our weak point the velcro never stuck to it well.
another thought have you asked the supplier
-
1 minute ago, Ally said:
So so far nobody has really successfully fitted them...hoping still for someone to nip by with a "oh! Simple! Just use ******"
Recollection hazy now havent seen the boat for 9 months but when we used the velcro we had to glue wooden blocks to the porthole to fill the gap I don't recollect any issues here , with either the wood sticking to the porthole or the velcro to the wood the actual problem was sticking the velcro to the boat lining which had a vinyl covering. I think we probably used polyurthene glue for the wood.
-
11 hours ago, Ally said:
I am just getting to the end of fitting out a tiny 20ft narrowboat as a studio boat. I made the poor decision of buying fibreglass porthole liners, as the wait for wood ones, which is all I've fitted previously, was far too long, and I've been trying to keep costs down. Nightmare. I am sure I'm missing a trick here.
Your thoughts please...especially if you have actually fitted them, on the best way to do so. I've tried a couple of ways with little success.
I'm really wishing I had gone with wood now!
We made ours an interference fit in the cut outs of the lining, I dislike glueing someting like that in case it ever needs to be removed, some fit better than others, so every time we hit something those ones fall out, but not a grand nusance in the scheme of things, I've had a little success with stick on velcro but never really pursued that, cheap enough to give it a try?
What we do like is that they do not need varnishing and never get water stains like all of the wood linings that I have ever seen do.
-
44 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:
If the starter has been running long enough to burn out the solenoid then the whole unit will be toast.
Thanks for your comments.
indeed it is looking like that may so but I now have to wait until they get round to the job to find out if that is the case, if so is it likely to be repairable or need replacing? presumably there are cheaper sources than Beta? or even the local Kubota dealer?
-
22 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:
It's extremely unusual for a starter circuit to be fused. I've seen solenoids burned out to the point of short circuit but that's a certain indicator of the starter "running in mesh" and is a symptom not a fault.
There was some mention of the starter "hanging" but between his English and my Dutch whether it had or not was unclear so it may be the whole unit anyway?
-
27 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:
Because most of the diesel start ignition switches put the heaters on with the start solenoid as well.
OK I didn't know that (although it looks unlikely from the diagram), will ask them to try Sir Nibble's test first then move onto other things like the heaters
-
3 minutes ago, Bee said:
Not sure if the fuse blows in 'run' or 'start' . Sometimes electricity is hard to understand.
I will recheck their description but understanding was blows on "start" only.
trouble is you can't see electricity at least until it gets very bad
-
6 minutes ago, Bee said:
The fact that it didn't stop rather suggests that it might not be the starter but the engine stop solenoid, on the Beta 43 its a cylindrical thing by the fuel pump. If that fails the thing will not stop and you have to pull the rod by hand to stop the engine. I would not suspect the starter or anything to do with it unless it refuses to disengage when the engine is stopped and just keeps turning the engine over constantly. If that was the case a manual stop would not have worked. If I was there (!) I would take all the connections off of the engine stop thingy and see what happens., a burnt out stop solenoid might just have a dead short.
I did suspect that but if the solenoid is energised to stop it would only blow the fuse when the stop button is pressed wouldn't it? In the unlikely event that it is energised to run the fuse should blow on the "run" position before you get to "start"
9 minutes ago, bizzard said:Surely the starter motor can be tested independantly on the engine with jump leads and or energizing it with a wire from a battery to the solenoid.
Bit wary of that if solenoid is shorted there would be rather a big spark
7 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:Either the component or the wiring, what else is possible? Well that about sums up all fault finding.
I would suggest disconnecting the starter solenoid and then try it.
Thanks will ask them to try first, the solenoid and starter seem to be combined in one unit, do you know if the solenoid is likely to be available separately
-
57 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:
This doesn't sound like a starter problem. It sounds like the boatyard are replacing fault finding with guesswork and any fool can do that.
They don't hold themselves to be electricians but are local (and I am not and cannot be) and if we are fairly sure it is the starter makes sense for them to remove it and take to expert. AFAIK the fuse feeds the panel, everything works fine on the panel until they turn the key to the start position then nothing happens except fuse blows other than a chafed wire between the starter and keyswitch what else is possible
52 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:The bent copper busbar connections for the glow-plugs on a Beta are exposed on the cylinder head, a carelessly dropped washer/nut/spanner etc. can short them to ground.
but I presume these are only energised when the keyswitch is turned to "heat" why would the fuse blow at "start"
London boat dwellers protest against plans they say could leave them homeless
in General Boating
Posted · Edited by Phoenix_V
Don't go there, Lea Valley Regional Park own the towpath, I think there was a bust up between them and crt a few years ago as to who controlled mooring, crt won, a good result for once LVRP would either have banned mooring entirely (their conservationist arm) or monetised it (their financial arm)
.