US Marines

Meteorologically, fog is defined as follows: Mist = visibility restricted to less than 2 kilometres Fog = visibility restricted to less than 1 kilometre Thick Fog = visibility restricted to less than 200 metres Dense Fog = visibility restricted to less than 40 metres Inland in the UK, Dense Fog is very rare. 1 mph = 0.447 metres per second, so a typical narrowboat travels at around 1 to 2 metres per second. At these speeds, fog won't typically pose a hazard. At typical road speeds, thick fog can - and does - pose a hazard. I've investigated lots of fog related road crashes and I sometimes have had to explain to witnesses that the fog didn't get less dense immediately following the collision, it is just that it appeared to be less dense when they were walking around the collision site compared to when they were driving to it (200 metres is quite a long way when you are walking around but not so far when you are travelling at 70 mph (31 metres per second)). Similarly, I've read loads of Police statements referring to 'torrential rain' when they were blue-lighting it to an incident which 'eased off' as soon as they arrived !

Sorry, it was us - We were just waterboarding a group of young-uns for hanging about looking shifty when the time got away from us .... .....I blame those limp wristed commie loving liberals that got all hot under the collar and made us geographically restrictify our secure 'West is Best' education facility where we used to do this kind of thing in the privacy of someone else's country without causing any trouble to the natives. And it worked even better when we had that 'special relationship' which meant that you lot used to pay for all the particularly shifty looking ones to be shipped out to it.

Maybe not, but I'm guessing a seal would improve the 'performance' no end ! [groan] And you do need a packhorse I'm sure : 2 x 9 foot long halves plus ballast = heavy !

I think the potential 'lift' on the bows issue might be just to do with the perspective of the photos and, as said earlier, not enough ballast at the front, giving the whole boat a pronounced slope when in the water. An amazing model - VERY well made that man .... ! I'm guessing you had to build it completely from scratch and that there were no plans to work from at all. It also can't be 'Action Man', he'd be too small at that scale .... Hopefully, we'll get to see it 'in the flesh' at a show sometime ?

And you've discovered sarcasm - whoop-de-doo to you It looks a hell of a model to me !

When you say 'more revealing', I'm REALLY hoping you mean of the boat !

Maybe not 'sneering' but its simply not nice to tell someone who was asking for advice that you think that their purchase - which they like - was an expensive thing to do ! Anyway, I bought a new boat once and asked the builder to fit it all out for me.... ...that is, except for the bathroom which, for some reason which I can't now remember, I didn't want him to fit out for me - and then [dang me] if, once I'd been using it a few weeks, I suddenly realised that it needed doing and went on the forum to ask for advice on how best to do it..... But then I'm thick and no sane person would do this..... As Blackrose should have known....

Hi Dank, My advice is not even to try and sort out the problem yourself. Why should you ? The boat is clearly not fit for purpose and anything you do to rectify the problem yourself will tend to legitimise any potential argument suggesting that it is your responsibility. There is clearly only one appropriate course of action and that is to get the boat builder to sort it out. Trading Standards should help with this and you could at least threaten their involvement and/or a Solicitor's involvement. It is simply not acceptable for a builder to operate in this way - but I would also be interested in understanding why the relationship between you ended up like this - which could be the root cause of why you are now being subjected to such an unhelpful attitude.

Quite an interesting thread I thought, then suddenly it descends into a personal slur on Robkg As it happens I am a friend of Robkg so whilst he appears to not want to put you straight, I am more than happy to. These testimonials are the ones I know of, there may be more. Ref. His first fit out of Alice: "A highly proficient fit out" Andy Burnett Ref. Waterways World Nov. 2008 Article on Grace "truly outstanding boat" "fitted out to an exceptionally high standard" "very high standard of workmanship" "The middle cabin is probably the most amazing use of space I have seen on a modern boat" "a fantastic cruising boat" Mark Langley IWA National Waterways Festival 2008 Judges comments included "a boat that any professional fitter should try to look at for ideas" and "full of innovative ideas" Waterways World Trophy:- Best amateur fit out - Winner Marion Monk Rose Bowl:- Best private narrow beam craft - Winner So soldthehouse, prehaps you should try to be a little better informed before you voice your opinions on other forum users competence.

Thanks Dave - and yes, I do recognise this point of 'free loaders' but that doesn't explain why there isn't a licence available to me to use the canal how I want to. If there was such a licence available, I'm guessing that there would be quite a few buyers and the overall situation would be clarified and thus easier to enforce. I take the point that the system is 'full'. However, your (slightly over the top, if I may say ! )) example would not apply if the licence to do what I do cost the same as a typical static BW towpath mooring.

Thanks Chris, I wasn't aware of that history. Yes, so far, I haven't had a problem - but I can't help feeling uncomfortable about having to 'push the rules' like this, and I can't help but feel edgy that one day, I'll get an enforcement notice. I'd far rather that BW had clear and sensible (even 'reasonable' ?) rules that everyone could obey, and then enforced those rules 100% of the time, than this situation of having unrealistic rules that are inconsistently enforced.

I, for one, would very much like to know what that reason is....any ideas ? (As I said in my original post, we're not talking about 'honey pot' areas here, where I fully understand that lengths of stay should be limited). My boat is 70 feet long and that's how much of the canal it takes up - it doesn't get any longer if I stay in the same place for more than 14 days. Are, but you see, there is not: (i) marinas aren't the right distance apart, (ii) most of my winter cruising is done at weekends and I don't want to spend most of my Sunday sorting out a berth. I go on a canal to relax and chug around, I don't want to have to organise and lodge a 'flight plan' weeks in advance...... And, as I said, I suspect I am not alone in this and the current licencing situation simply does not cater for it (i.e. as I said in my original post, I would be prepared to consider paying a premium if it was held to be necessary, so its not a question of fee dodging)

I couldn't agree more. Where has the "wrong" info come from? Incidentally, in my opinion his boats are the best replica joshers available.

I have a problem with the current mooring regulations. As I like to cruise the system rather than just my local canal, I "continuously cruise" around the country. I am not a liveaboard and have other commitments that mean that I cannot always move the boat within a two week period. My situation is not catered for by the current rules. I propose two alternative legislation changes that may provide a solution. 1. Areas that are not "popular" desirable moorings should have a longer time period for mooring. After all, why does it matter if my boat is at point A for four weeks as opposed to point A for two weeks and point B for two weeks? Those areas considered desirable should then be monitored more rigourously with fines for overstaying applied. (this doesn't need to cost more as the wardens could spend more of their time targeting the premium mooring areas and much less frequently cover the rest of their area) 2. Another category of licence in addition to "continuous cruising" could be available allowing a boat to moor for longer than two weeks in unmarked areas (i.e. not signed as 24 hour, 7 day, 14 day etc. moorings) for an additional payment. A sort of "mobile mooring permit". Without such a change to the regulations, if I wish to explore the system, I am resigned to occasionally breaking the rules. I suspect that I am not alone.

I've done self pump outs in a boat and I've done cassettes in a caravan - as the aptly (in this instance) Smelly put it above - sh*t stinks ! Do I want the occasional 15 minutes of a peg on my nose whilst holding a pipe or the frequent lug, splash and rinse of a cassette......hmmmmm.... Elsan blue can be used in both, so not a deciding factor.... hmmm... Every 3 days or every 3 weeks..... now that IS a deciding factor Pump out for me, I thank you !

Hi Rob, Like you, I actually like my kids so I'd like to think that they won't die horribly ripped to shreds and/or drowned when I could have done something more to have prevented it ! To this end, and like you, I think about teaching them to act safely and responsibly AS WELL AS thinking about whether there are additional practicable and cost effective safety features that may assist if things do go awry. For me, this is not an either/or situation. If I (or my kids) were in the water at the back of a boat that was reversing would I want nothing between me/them and the mincing machine.....? Errrr, no - in that situation, I wouldn't be counting the number of false rivets that make the hull look pretty, I'd be wanting something - anything - that might just help me/them stay alive. One bar might be sufficient, or two, or three, as long as they were strong enough - Afterwards, I might even be grateful that it was only my flailing hand that had got the chop, instead of my chest - at least there might be an afterwards ! You definitely wouldn't need a chicken wire cage, which would weed up fast, and I don't think a couple of strong bars would slow you down noticeably, even if they hadn't been weeded for a few months...and yes, it would be sensible not to remove the weed whilst travelling down the canal I guess.....! The bars would also be completely invisible when the boat was on the water, so the rivet counters et al wouldn't even know.... On a cost/hassle to risk mitigation ratio, this idea appears to have merit - to me at least - therefore, I say give them a go......!

The deaths of a few boaters like this isn't a problem - it keeps the numbers of plebs down..... I'm sure chris w would agree !

Well, in my experience, its certainly got a better head on it than much of the stuff that's served up in the VP !

Yep, but what is 'permanent' and what is temporary and who has responsibility for what ? The amount of water available to flow into and through the canal system will vary - and is the responsibility of BW (and God). Boats tend to be fairly permanent features and are the responsibility of the owners. I'd prefer a system with lots of water in it and not too many boats over one with lots of boats and too little water ! In my opinion both of these 'variables' need managing but the water probably needs managing a bit harder.... I still don't know why people are talking about large or small boats - its the mass that makes a difference, not size. Therefore, if anyone really does think that the 'water use' issue being discussed in this thread should be the basis for licensing, then they should also think that everyone's boat needs to be weighed.....not dimensioned. Also, I'd like to think that all of us accept that the only overall effect on the whole system is caused by the mass of the boat, and that this results in its mass equivalant of water being lost out of the bottom of the system. Therefore, I would say that the difference between a heavy and a light boat is a pretty minimal difference to base a licensing system on ! However, that's actually not quite the end of the story because a boat's mass will change with time - working boats in particular of course, but also water tanks, fuel tanks, poo tanks, crates of beer....lardy parties.....etc will all make a difference. And if these aren't carefully managed and 'paired' with other boats doing the precise opposite at precisely the right time (and those boats increasing in mass always being upstream of those that are decreasing in mass), these changes will lead to water being wasted out of the bottom of the system. So, how do we account for all these things ? Errrr.....hmmm..... I certainly wouldn't want working boats to be penalised for constantly changing their mass ! (not sure about lardy parties though !) And, of course, some parts of the system don't have the same water issues as others, and this varies from season to season and from year to year.... so how do we account for those variables ? Hmmm.... I suggest that, if licensing was based on the 'water use' issue being discussed in this thread, we'd end up with a VERY complicated and HIGHLY unfair system (worse than now ?). Even thinking about licensing based on such 'water use' is a complete nonsense.....IMHO of course !!!! Nb//WJM - you're wrong about your lock theory btw - if you look at a single locking operation a heavy boat causes less water to move downstream through the lock than a light boat (coz the 'big' 'hole' created by the boat is mainly backfilled as the boat moves forward - even through a lock. Nnb// Robkg - you're wrong too ! (but only slightly ! ) - if a boat is moving upstream then the 'hole' left behind it is completely backfilled. However, if a boat is moving downstream, some of the 'hole' left by the boat is filled by the normal downstream flow, so its not quite completely backfilled !

Aha - now we're talking ! Yep - changing the displacement of a boat will definitely make a difference. Ok.... Lets take the example of loaded boats going downhill and empty boats going uphill: When a boat gets loaded at the top of the canal, the top pound will instantly increase in level - this will spill over the weir/increase leakage through the lock at the downstream end of this pound so that the water level in the top pound quickly regains its maintained level. This overspill process will then continue on down through the system until the 'excess' water (equivalent to the weight of the load put on the boat in the top pound) leaves the canal system at its bottom. Therefore, one boat load's worth of water is eventually lost from the canal system as a result of the boat being loaded. When the loaded boat moves down through the locks no more water is lost from the system as a result of the load because - as we have shown earlier - its just that the boat sized 'hole' is moving around. However, each locking operation will still cause a significant amount of water to move down the canal. When the boat is unloaded at the bottom of the system, the bottom pound lowers in level by one boat load's worth of water, and it will remain lowered until it is replenished by more water from upstream. This replenishment of the bottom pound could arise through 'normal' flow through the system (natural downstream flow coupled with water from locking operations upstream and/or through leakage of lock gates etc). However, if a second boat is loaded at the top of the system by the same weight of load as the first boat, and it was timed correctly, the 'excess' water this second load creates in the top pound could flow down the system to fill the 'hole' in the bottom pound made by the first boat being unloaded ! In this (unrealistic) situation, even if there was no normal downstream flow of water through the canal system (which, again, is unrealistic) the second boat's load will not cause any more water to be lost from the bottom of the canal system. If boats were able to be 'paired' in this way, one loaded and the other empty, the total amount of water lost from the system by the cargo operation would only be the equivalent of the number of 'pairs' of boats operating, multiplied by the average load of those pairs - it being a 'one off' loss for each pair ! It is, however, probably much more realistic to think about a situation where boats are not 'paired' in this way, so that there are times when there is a great majority of loaded boats on the system and other times when there is a great majority of empty boats on the system. In this case, if there was only a limited amount of water naturally flowing through the system, water levels would vary (possibly quite considerably) as a result of the cargo operation, and more water would be lost from the bottom of the system in total as a result of the mis-matched loading/unloading regime. In this real world situation, the position of the boats on the system, and their locking operations, could significantly affect the water levels on the lower parts of the system. Most importantly, my reasoning for this is that, every locking operation carried out causes a significant quantity of water (much more than a single boat load's worth of displacement) to flow from one pound down into the next. However, it is also the case that, although each boat is only moving its own 'hole' around, it would take some time for the 'excess' of water created in the top pound every time a boat was loaded to flow down through the system, and this time period might well also be significantly altered by locking operations etc. If we now look at the example of loaded boats going uphill and empty boats going downhill: This would create a double 'whammy' at the top of the system because the 'excess' of water created by loading the boat at the bottom of the system is simply lost from the system as a whole and it can't be used to replenish the 'hole' made by boats unloading at the top. In this case, any situation of limited water supply at the top of the system would be exacerbated by the unloading operations. When water was scarce and there was a constant movement of loaded and unloaded boats on the system, it does not surprise me at all that this would require some very careful and clever management to ensure that water loss was minimised...... My hat is most definitely off to the guys whose job it was......!

Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say. If a river is connected to the top of a canal, then there will be a flow of water through the canal that will easily and quickly replenish the amount of water displaced by a single boat. Even when the water that flows into the top of a canal comes from sources smaller than a navigable river, this flow is sufficient to do this within a very short time indeed. As a thought experiment..... Fill a washing up bowl with water up to the brim. Put a saucepan or dish to float in the bowl - watch some water leave the bowl. Take the saucepan/dish out and see where the water level is, put the saucepan/bowl back in to float again - does more water flow out of the bowl ? Ans = no. A canal system has a maintained water level - the weirs are like the rim of the washing up bowl.... However, a canal system does have a flow of water through it. So, try the whole experiment again, but this time keep the tap trickling water into the bowl. If the saucepan/dish is out of the bowl for very long, the bowl fills up again from the trickling tap before the re-floating takes place.... Does that help ?

We are now in an Escher print ! How do you get a boat into the top of a canal system without letting any water in at the same time ? The only way you could do this is if you did a circuit by craning a boat out at the bottom of the canal, took it by road back up to the top and crane it in again. Even if you did this, the normal downstream flow of water through the canal would quickly rectify the situation - it really doesn't take much water to flow into the canal system to replenish one boat sized 'hole' - therefore the situation would only be very temporary. This would certainly take less time than it would to truck a boat back up to the top of the canal from the bottom, so you would not get a stuation where the water volume in the canal continued to reduce, the more circuits you did.... For those (hopefully very few people) who still don't get it.... Archimedes Principle (which is a well established Physical Law) states that an object floating in water displaces its own mass of water. In a canal system, where the water levels are maintained by weirs etc, this displaced water is lost downstream and, eventually, out of the bottom of the system. Therefore, for as long as the boat remains floating in the canal, there is a 'hole' in the water where the boat is, and the size of this 'hole' is proportional to the weight of the boat. We all know this 'hole' exists because we walk around inside our boats with dry feet, even though they are below the waterline outside it. From then on, all that happens is that this 'hole' moves around with the boat. As the boat moves forward, the water flows around the boat from its front to backfill the 'hole' it leaves behind. This is as true in a lock as on any other section of the canal. Its as simple as that.

Though I'd dearly like to get there and meet some of you weird people (and ALL of the others), family commitments get in the way (such as youngest daughter's play etc). Have a good one (or two or three or four.....etc) !!!!

At this time of year we get bleeding cold ! BW should put all their wind generators on the eastern side of the country, so its the coldest winds that they slow down.... Actually, now I think about it - its not fair - those boaters on the west side of the country get milder weather and lots of rain compared to those on the east side, who get more temperature extremes (both hot and cold) and more droughts. I think these differences should be reflected in the licence fees.....it is simply indisputable that these factors affect the number of potentially enjoyable cruising days in each region, as well as water usage. (and now it becomes clear that the thread about (apparently) appalling weather in Yorkshire is a blatant attempt to sway the numbers in their favour ! )

Dominic - I actually think that we do all now agree ! (even perhaps Machpoint now ?) There is only one boat sized 'hole' and this moves with the boat. The only effect caused by a boat on the volume of water in the system as a whole was made when the boat was first craned into it, and this effect will remain until the boat is removed from the system. The effect of the boat's position within the system at any one time is only to displace some water out of the pound it is currently in, back into the pound it last came from. Weird though it may seem at first, this includes backfilling apparently 'uphill' through a lock (though, of course, because of the way a lock works, the backfilling water does not move backwards up the height of the fall of the lock).