Derek R.

Probably just as Tim says. Google for Uxter plate and you get THIS. . . and Oxter plate THIS.

Well that little thing was only six inches tall, and sold in the States thought to be "English", and probably was. Granted, there's no centre band, but it still looks like a boatmans water can to me - Other than that, no joy so far: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Guernsey+%26+Jersey+milk+cans&newwindow=1&client=firefox-a&hs=2yg&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=0OhXU-iPL-mR1AXUjIFo&ved=0CEsQsAQ&biw=1291&bih=789#channel=sb&newwindow=1&q=Jersey+milk+cans&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch http://guernseydonkey.com/?p=7117 http://www.oldcopper.org/guernsey.htm

Is he relatively cheap ? . . . (Hides)

Overplated hull sides; concrete in the bilges; builders Norwich & Sons.

Gannow! My mistake based on bad memory of only two passages 30 odd years ago. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=KiScGsh_lqbp5M&tbnid=YHBjXMJsa7Gr8M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcanalrivertrust.org.uk%2Fburnley-trail%2Fgannow-tunnel&ei=EKRXU8HeCoeu0QWtiIHgDg&bvm=bv.65177938,d.ZWU&psig=AFQjCNGkcKPlNcPqEMKuvITG4jy8QUUlQw&ust=1398338819161375

For a can that has all the common features of a canal water can; half lid; hinged flap over the spout; handles in the usual place, and clearly painted a long time ago in the style of the canal painters - why should it be not primarily a canal can? Blessed if I can find any reference to any farmers jersey can anywhere. Do tell. £440! That's a months pension . . .

Anything produced for MoD use had the upward pointing arrow on. Gas mask Bags, tools, clothing - and boats. I would hazard a guess that the Roman numerals show the number of that type of boat made by the builder, the Arabic no idea, maybe a serial number. Other symbols such as has been noted on canal architecture probably are mason's marks. This was to ensure the mason making a particular stone or element of a structure was recorded, and thereby would be paid for the work. Though with the marks at the entrance to Foulridge Tunnel being so varied, perhaps just a display of those masons involved in the building of it. Pluto will know!

An interesting booklet, thanks Mike. Doubtless many children were subject to some dangerous conditions living and working the boats. But the report does weigh heavily against any child to be allowed on boats at all. The inspector Mr. Bennett stated: " the cabin of a narrow boat was not a fit place either for woman or child, and the conditions under which they live are disgusting and demoralising. . . . I have known a boy reach the age of thirteen without ever being inside a school, and to be a perfect young savage." So it may have been for some, and so it may certainly have seemed to many outside of the boating community at large without inside knowledge. But what chance did boat people have to school their children when their only home was on the move. Where in such a report was any empathy towards the needs of the families? None it would seem. Always the threat and fear of the 'Inspector' calling, the outcome of which would not be a happy one for the family. Did children run away from their families - or from the Inspectors! There is a sad irony in the desire to protect children by statute, as when such elements are in place we get social workers and authorities ignoring and abandoning real cases of cruelty, and when called to brook, obfuscate and deny responsibilities. I can remember my parents threatening me with 'an Inspector' when I showed a strong dislike for going to school - and I lived on a Council Estate! Edited to add: There is a lot in the Hansard about canal children. Just one comment: - —[OFFICIAL REPORT, (Standing Committee, 13th March, 1930, cols. 99–103.] There you have the zealous educationist, who says, "Education at all costs! It does not matter whether the accommodation is there, whether it can be provided, whether it is within the means of the parents. Here is a child of school age living on a canal boat. We are going to have that child educated at whatever cost." http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1930/may/09/new-clause-section-1-not-to-come-into#S5CV0238P0_19300509_HOC_61 With regard to whether the canal Act 1877 is still enforcable and applicable today, I suspect it has disappeared into various amendments and other Bills covering the licensing of craft, and in practical terms actually not enforceable. When our first was born on YARMOUTH, at a residential mooring, we had a midwife attend only. No person from any Council or authoritative organisation called to check on the boats registration or compliance with any Canal Act. Another good read is the booklet for schools. Some good photos in there: http://www.wow4water.net/images/2576.pdf

Now those are images I recognise from our first years on the cut - lovely - thanks Mark.

Yes, George Smith 1831 - 1895 DETAILS. It was his basic work that got the Canals Act 1878 passed into law. This controlled the number and ages of persons aboard a living boat. There's quite an interesting website for those seeking family HERE scroll down for more on George Smith, and links to pdf's with letters and reports.

Might be one. Probably found it by now! http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=55813&hl=%2Boldest+%2Bboat Derek

Everything from my childhood there - and some. Long hours, grime, and some danger but we lived with that. Apprenticeships, respect and pride. Today it's bureaucracy, borrowing and balls ups. It wasn't all good, but wasn't all bad either.

Might say a log; a Coracle; or LAPLANDER. Haven't we been here recently?

No, lighters were so called because they took cargo off the ships moored in London River and made them lighter. They lightened the ship of its cargo. Bob Harris was one such lighterman, seek a booklet called 'Under Oars' - as many were rowed with 'sweeps' - not the chimney kind.

As has been mentioned - that's not white paint - it's lime or calcium being washed out the mortar.

When I worked for Derby Corporation in 1968 as a a small team attached to the Public Health Department, we were issued tokens as part of our wages which were only usable on the buses for us to service clients - that's if you did not use your own vehicle. If you did the latter, costs either came out of your pocket or you could claim a small mileage allowance. But I'd suggest contacting the various museums associated with the Waterways. They might have something. Did such paper 'notes' exist? - Or were they in reality metal tokens? http://www.waterwaysongs.co.uk/tommy.htm

It's not his best work, and nowadays an almost too sentimental look back. So much lost. I prefer his Landscape trilogy. Red for Danger is good too, and some fascinating ghost stories in short stories.

1936 Northwich cabin rivets. Flush, but visible - and with associated corrugations. But the engine 'ole roof has been cut for the Petter to go in. Prior to which the front lower bulkhead was unbolted to remove the RN's. Petter was too big for that hole.

SOUTHCLIFFE's fit out does look lovely, especially the back cabin (or is it front cabin?!) anyway - where the crew kipped and lived when not on deck. But you don't need that much space to live in nice as it is, and then you've got to find somewhere to park it, then it becomes a static exhibit, which defies its reason for being built. This leads us down the road of scrap the lot and live on the bank. I do like the shed idea. I scratch built one 12' square in the Father-in-Law's garden ( to escape the F-in-Law). 11' to the ridge, fully lined, fitted double bed aloft, antique French range, plates and clocks and brass - along with a bench tools and motorbike. Home can be many things, but being tempted into a socking great Dutchman back in 1980 probably wasn't my best move (first boat and all that). But if we hadn't, we would have missed out on some life changing memories that have listeners in awe and envy. Sometimes you have to follow your heart. Currently our kitchen is heading towards a similarity to SOUTHCLIFFE's cabin. It'll be nice.

There is much that could be written of the move from an agricultural land to an industrial land, to a socially changed land – and indeed has been. At the root of all is the desire for big business to reap the profits of industry, and that business takes no account and has little concern for ways of life of those individuals who make up the working masses. Amongst those masses are many who seek to better their lot – better job, better home, better car. With rising prosperity and rising population, the market is fed with the desire for increases in more than wages – better living conditions, and shopping conveniently at supermarkets which rang the death knell of the corner store. Likewise, the drive to 'own' property fuelled a housing boom, and so prices - whether owned or rented - climbed ever higher due to demand outstripping supply. The old adage of a job being the acronym for keeping one Just Over Broke is most apt. Hence the credit lifestyle of so many, and in that there is only one winner. We live in a rented house that was originally built for farm workers in the 1950’s. Those workers are many fewer than back then due to mechanisation in agriculture, and the quality of the property was not sufficient to warrant selling off, so they are rented out with maintenance costs kept to a minimum. The tenant can make certain improvements at his own cost, but they become the property of the landlord, and on a rolling six month tenure – is there any incentive? Looking at the interiors of both the recently displayed houses, it is clear where the influence has been derived – profit, and spare no expense - even if it's a gamble. The various TV programs of 'developed' houses has inspired many I'm sure. Here’s another lock keepers cottage which I photographed in the early 1980’s still in the ownership of British Waterways. Some of you will recognise it: I'll wager it is very different today, though still probably without vehicular access. The character of Mr. Turnbull from 'The Bargee' and his like, are pushing up the Daisies now, though there are many who still seek the simpler life. Sadly, the market will be denying them the chance - unless of course that market collapses, and I believe that is not about to happen - though things will get tougher.

That might seem like a joke, but I believe the reality is that since the privatisation of the railway network, the costs of moving certain stock and locomotives by rail - on the rails - has become so expensive, that road transportation has become more economical. Most real congestion on the roads is caused by traffic signals, lane width reductions, pavement build-outs, segregated lanes, and other restrictions. Tongue in cheek? Maybe it was.

Ooops! I just pressed that thinking it would take me to the top of the page. Ooer.

That is correct. It's likely the estate agent has taken the post code of the property, but that has Google maps goes to the centre of that post code rather than the individual property. We had just this same problem when seeking a rented property in Shropshire, the agents website sent us a mile away from the house. Not only that, but the detailed directions gained from the agents for us to view was so far out we would never have found it. Instead, I sought the property by gauging the roof style, chimneys, and surrounding trees and through Google Maps hunted it down. No 'street-view' was available either as it was off the beaten track. Same will go for this place - unless you already know it.

That 28days site is fascinating - and just a bit scary. Wonderful stonework in the tunnel, but that flat top arch screams 'imminent failure!'

My recollection is the same as BEngo's. I too thought Dave had OTTER after BADSEY & BARNES. I certainly remember Dave and Jill together with B & B when we first came onto the cut around Oct. 1982. Think our first Christmas 'do' was at the then 'Lock & Quay', Bulbourne, and I seem to recall it was later we heard that Dave had bought OTTER which was kept on the Chess. But if Geoff had OTTER prior to Dave, maybe it went back to Dave after B & B were sold. Just goes to show I was unsure of who had what back then, and time doesn't help such a memory!