Canalfreak

Quite right. I stand corrected. But if you're going to go wide, why not go really wide (I make that just under 8 feet) and get the full benefit? Bob.

Looks a bit wide for a canal boat (2.45 metres) Bob.

12 months insurance??????? Since when was an insurance policy transferable? Bob.

Thank you. Much appreciated. While it would be premature to make a judgement, I can very much see where some of the forum contributors are coming from. The Buyback Scheme always made me a little uneasy. As did the "free boating" offer. What little we (think we) know doesn't make good reading. Hopefully the meeting will make everything clear. However, having enjoyed 7 happy years as Ownerships owners, I'd like to think that the scheme could continue successfully. Bob.

You could always swap her for a black cat! Bob.

As an ex-Ownerships member, I saw your post and went immediately to the Ownerships web-site. Maybe it was me, but I couldn't find the Owners' forum. So would you care to be more explicit? Regards, Bob.

No, I was very much employing the common sense factor. The reason many contributors to the forum advocated never standing other than in front of the tiller is that otherwise if you suck something like a log into the propeller/rudder area and the rudder is knocked hard over, so will be the tiller arm. You do not need to be in-experienced, a hirer, or in a lock for this to happen. Of course, none of this appllies to the clothes drier function which I am assumimg will only be in use when the boat is moored. However, I now await the posting of a photo showing a boat under way with one of these clothes airers in use! Bob.

On a practical note, there have been a few threads on the forum where the consensus IIRC was that it is dangerous to stand other than in front of the tiller arm. Not alongside it. Well, they convinced me, anyway. In which case, the centre of the umbrella is going to be some way behind you. This would seem to limit its effectiveness in keeping you dry. Unless, I suppose, the wind is blowing from directly astern. Bob.

We winded a 59 foot boat there in June 2008. You wouldn't get round with a 70 foot boat, though. Bob.

Two not so positive thoughts spring to mind. As the Government claims it will be better off, then presumably BWB in its new guise will initially be worse off. If others are expected to fill the financial gap, let alone restore the new BWB's funding level to where it ought to be, then we can expect boating costs to rise more than we would like. If communities along the canal are to be given a greater say, perhaps some stretches of towpath will become "No Mooring". See recent threads on houseowners trying to prevent boats from mooring opposite or outside their houses. On the other hand, if funded properly and managed well, there is scope for a huge improvement. Bob.

Yes but does it have to be a snailmail postal address? Could it not be an e-mail address? Just a thought. Bob.

My wife and I have also moved on from Ownerships, but to buy our own boat. Obviously, you need to get on well with your co-owners and to be on the same wavelength, as I can appreciate. In looking at new boats for sale, we were impressed with the Kingsground boats we saw at a couple of the shows. Not cheap, in fact one of the more expensive offerings, but they looked very good, although obviously I haven't steered one of them. They have only recently entered the shared ownership market. Consequently, Kingsground haven't been in that market long enough to be one of the major players, but if I was going down that route I'd definitely investigate their offering. Bob.

Allan, Thank you for your tribute to Allen Matthews. My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed 7 seasons of boating through the Ownerships scheme. Moreover, in no small way due to the learning experience over that time, we are now moving on to buying our own boat. Allen Matthews was a thoroughly nice man who gathered kindred spirits about him to make Ownerships the organisation which it is today. In essence, he was the type of person who makes canal boating such an enjoyable experience. And, in spite of things not being quite what they used to be, there are still enough people of that ilk on the canals today for it to continue to be just that. Bob.

Yes, us included. We found it an invaluable learning experience in respect of boat ownership, quite apart from thoroughly enjoying 7 years of boating at a very reasonable cost. Without it, I very much doubt if we would have gone on to buy our own boat. And all done in such a pleasant manner, too. Such a shame. Bob.

My wife wouldn't let me call our boat "Blogless". On the grounds that "everybody else" seems to write one and there's no way I can be bothered to broadcast to the nation every day. Bob.

One short (boat)!

In my defence, I did say "to some extent" (undefined!!!) It was your reference to losing parents that amused me. Happy New Year, Bob.

But perhaps it does, after all. Please excuse me if I'm wrong, but don't I detect Chris Pink and Dave Mayall being, to some extent, in agreement? Or perhaps not. I've just seen Chris's last post! Bob.

Phylis, I didn't get as far as working out precisely what a mooring will cost. You always have to make sure you've added in all the extras and to my mind it's the total which counts really, not normally the precise levels of the individual charges. At first glance it looked to be roughly in the normal range, I thought. While I can see that if they are developing the site to include a number of amenities, the marina being just one of them, that they might be a little apprehensive that objectors within the group of moorers using the marina might be a problem. And if moorers had been warned in advance that there was going to be, say, retail development on the site subsequently, it would be a bit much for them to then go and object about it. On the other hand, as I understand Clause 8, anybody agreeing to the marina terms and conditions, as you must do in order to moor there, is signing away their normal democratic right to express reservations, or downright opposition to any proposed development and to follow that through by lodging an objection with the relevant planning authority, or whoever. Whatever form that development might take. To me that is completely unacceptable. And, like you, never having seen a clause like that in any other marina's terms and conditions, I wondered just what sort of development might be proposed in the future that makes their lawyers think that they need the protection of such a clause. Also, come to that, what their attitude will be towards their mooring customers. However, I do not exactly regard myself as a leading expert on marina contracts, although I've downloaded and read through a few, and I wondered what other Forum members thought about it. (Perhaps not a lot judging by the response so far!!!) I also decided to look elsewhere for a mooring. My fears may be totally unfounded, but why take the risk? Bob.

Well, not with Clause 8, anyway. Bob.

Slammer, I looked into the question of using Aston Marina earlier this year. Basically they quoted £128 a metre for a year incl. VAT (15%). A metre of berth, not boat. Includes water, car parking for 1 car, toilets, showers and WiFi.. £50 joining fee. Electricity extra (£50 connection charge) Elsan disposal £50 p.a. 3 months berthing fee for reservation (non-refundable). All the above from their "Mooring Information & Tariff" sheet which they sent me. You might also like to look at Clause 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Mooring: 8 (i) says "The Owner (of a boat mooring there) hereby acknowledges that the berth which is the subject of this Agreement at Aston Marina forms part of a larger integrated leisure and retail development, and hereby acknowledges the right of the Compnay to deal with the Marina in any way that the Company in its absolute discretion thinks fit." 8 (ii) says: "The Owner hereby freely undertakes and agrees with the Company as follows: Not to object to any Planning or Licensing Application in respect of the Marina or any part thereof ......... Not to object to or complain to any person or authority about any of the other retail and leisure uses at the Marina nor their activities nor any intensification or variation of such uses or activities". Etc. Now, in my ignorance, I had never seen a clause like this in a marina mooring agreement and I e-mailed the Marina to ask what it is all about. Basically, they said that the marina was not typical in view of the other amenities and businesses to be provided on the site. So I might well not have seen such a clause in other marina agreements. They also said, amongst other things, "Please let me assure you that there are no sinister hidden motives behind its (Clause 8's) inclusion" and that they included Clause 8 "under advisement (sic) by our solicitors". Where will we be mooring our boat? Somewhat further south. Bob.

The Ownerships boats we had shares in had dump through loos on which a 40 gallon tank seemed to last two of us just about a fortnight. However, we came across a nice man from Leesan at the Southampton Boat Show and asked his advice about a macerator loo. For two people living on board 24/7 he said a 70 gallon tank would last about a fortnight. Doubtless everybody will have their own different experiences, but hopefully this will help. Regards, Bob.

For what it is (or isn't) worth, I was advised to use a Pela pump with the insert going into the dipstick tube so that it reaches the bottom. Then, after that, to remove the drain bung which is apparently magnetic. So you not only can extract the remains of the old oil, but also all the swarf which has adhered to the magnetic bung. Except that "bung" is probably the wrong word. Bob.

I'm sure we can all agree that anybody who calls the ceiling a "deck head" is really a d**khead??? Bob.