Tam & Di

I'm a bit late coming to this. I would not think there is necessarily anything wrong with the engine/reduction/blades ratio. She certainly always used to go very well when I knew her with BW, but do bear in mind she was engined to tow mud hoppers etc, and maybe you should ballast Chalice so the gunwhales are awash and tow it. A couple of possibilities: it is a good idea as already suggested to push the tiller over so she begins to come to starboard (right) before putting her into reverse. She could just then pull back into line rather than swing to port. (sorry, got used to that terminology now). You presumably have a left handed prop, as that would make the arse end swing to the right when you chuck back. You should find it easiest to come against the right hand wall of a (wide) lock as the bias will throw the stern that way. I find that if you come in at a reasonable speed, slightly to the middle of the lock, and then steer the bow into the right hand wall as you go into reverse it should fetch up nicely lined up along on the righthand side. You then need to put the elum over the other way somewhat to hold the stern there as the paddles are drawn. It's not very easy to put this sort of stuff into words. I'd love to play, but a] it was probably said in jeast, and b] we're not in the UK very often now. edited to try to stop b/bracket turning into an icon!

If you were going uphill it would be because the flow of water from the top paddles ran down to the bottom and then surged back to push the boat against the top cill. I can't think why it would happen if you'd got the bottom paddles drawn as well though, as I'd expect that to dissipate the effect.

Nor any other type of line. A thing started by hire companies I would guess, so hirers did not lose their lines all the time. The only permantently 'attached' line we had was the one on the back end rail of the motor. (beaten to it by the rapid fingers of Chertsey)

Yes, but what I was trying to get at is what is it that (from the posts on this thread) makes some people act in constant 'fear'? 'anticipation'? that disaster is about to strike and that they therefore act in a very tentative manner so as to mitigate the putative effects? I am by inclination a pessimist, but they are so far from my view that I can't even see how they got there. Contributors on CWF often refer in jokey terms to Elf and Safety, but presumably the people who drift into locks for fear that their gearbox might fail or drive very slowly because their brakes might fail are exactly the people for whom the H&SE were set up, and for whom the rest of us must now constantly watch our backs. Yours, in bewilderment, Tam Coming into a narrow lock with some pace (particularly uphill) means you are pushing quite a wadge of water in front of you, and the pressure from that means you can stop very quickly. Mike's comments re Victoria are spot on, but it does apply to smaller boats too. Drifting in allows the water in the lock to escape round the space between the boat and lock, and if anything does go wrong stopping is more difficult as there is no back pressure to help you. A brief burst of reverse gear throws even more water forward between the boat and cill/bottom gates, whereas going gently into reverse as you come level with the entrance does not.

I think if you've gone frem Brentford to Teddington via Westminster you've probably lost your way (or maybe the engine died and you didn't have an anchor )

The wooden ex-GUCCC wideboat Progress had a National with an epicyclic gearbox that would occasionally stick. I had a line I could strap it to a halt with if it jammed coming into a downhill lock. Going uphill either I stepped off with a line to check it as described in other posts here, or Di was lock wheeling and could check it by drawing a bit of paddle. I’ve not thought of it in these terms before, but it seems to me that this is a far more failsafe way of avoiding problems should the boat stick in gear than going in on tickover. There seems to be a dichotomy developing on this thread between those, mostly with ex-working boats, who regard an occasional accidental bump as a fact of life, and those whose major concern is to avoid all risk (they should be so lucky!), whatever activity they engage in. Is this a generational thing? Is it because progressive generations of kids have become more cosseted and over-protected as they grow up? They certainly do not seem to be allowed to do half the things we did in the 40s and 50s (but I suppose there are not so many bomb sites to play on now ). Do kids climb trees (branches might break), make rafts out of oil drums and planks (might sink), make rope swings out over a river (could break - could tear your trousers), play on their own on wasteland (might meet a dirty old man)? If they did, why should they be frightened of the extremely slight chance of a gearbox sticking or car brakes failing? I’m not a gambler, and don’t take risks if the outcome is purely down to luck, but it is a different matter if the outcome is substantially down to my own abilities. I just don’t understand what has led people to the point that their level of acceptable risk is so low.

I agree entirely. However in general if a boat is being driven on tickover it will be taken out of line by even quite slight cross currents, side winds, passage of other craft it passes, changes of water depth to one side of the channel, and any similar occurences. Coming into a lock is exactly the time when many of these things will occur, and entering at a very slow speed means the boat will frequently ricochet in rather than slide in neatly and in line. If this is done on a regular basis you are likely to finish up with a corrugated hull side. Steerage with a conventional single engine, single screw boat such as a narrow boat is effected by steerage way - speed through the water - or (to a greater extent) thrust from the propellor against the rudder blade. At dead slow engine speed you have virtually no thrust, and with little way on you have no speed through the water either; ergo little real fine control over the craft. edited for spoiling and amplification

Ah, you must be the person I always seem to get stuck behind who is driving along the kerb at 5mph even in a 30mph limit.

Certainly I did not say anything about you breaking CC guidance notes or taking the piss, but you do not seem to read people's mails properly before you jump on them. My point was that your life and pattern of cruising appears to be driven by CC rules rather than any enjoyment of cruising. 10 hours - at say 3 mph this is 3 hours 20 minutes. 10 locks at a generous 10 minutes each is a further 1 hour 40 minutes. This is a 5 hour day, but you say it is seldom possible for you to achieve this. I would think it is a perfectly normal day's cruising for someone who actually enjoys cruising. I'm not even going to try to count up the number of posts you have made on this thread which is now pushing a total of 800, but I bet it is much more than anyone else. Nor can begin to guess how much time was involved in the posts, but you obviously have a lot of time on your hands. Just relax, enjoy life and go boating. edited as reply did not seem to appear at first attempt.

Sorry. I did not realise you had a boat that sticks in gear and that you have to go everywhere with that in mind. I was trying to respond to the OP, and only pointing out that with most boats you are not going to have great control if you are on tickover, which seemed to be what some replies were suggesting. Most single screw single rudder boats do slew one way or the other when put into reverse. However I could not fault what you say you do in locks. I was trying to reply to the OP whose question suggested he was a novice. I certainly think that if he goes into reverse as the fore end comes into the chamber he will bounce about rather than sliding straight in.

Read my mail that you quote again. You say that moving 10 miles in a day is not possible as you have to get rid of rubbish and sewage as well. Mine says that your pattern of cruising 2-3 hours once every two weeks is more suggestive of someone who is doing as little as they can get away with, as 10 miles is easily possible. In any conventional understanding of English "as little as you can get away with" does NOT mean you are in breaking the guidelines. It means I think your cruising pattern is more determined by guidelines than by a genuine desire to or love of cruising. I think any knee jerk reaction might be yours. Before you leap up and down again, I acknowledge that the '95 Act does not insist CCers must love cruising - it's just that that was the argument put to the Lords in order to have BW drop the requirement for ALL boat owners to have a home mooring.

You do make some valid points, but then you revert to complete nonsense such as this which just emphasises that you think 2 hours boating every two weeks or so is enough to demonstrate bona fide intent to navigate. It seems to me that this is more aiming to do the minimum you must do to stay within the rules rather than someone who genuinely wishes to cruise. Of course it is possible to cruise 10 miles in a weekend, no matter how many tons of rubbish and sewage you have to dispose of en route. Locks take about 10 minutes (4 minutes for an expert) and at 3 mph travelling 10 miles is just over 3 hours. Not exactly a long day, whatever your state of health.

If your boat is on tick over, or even worse if your boat is out of gear, you have no control over the boat - it will go wherever it feels like going. The slightest cross wind or minute cross current and you are immediately out of line. Coming into a lock you MUST be in gear so you are telling the boat what to do. If you are coming in nice and straight you can drop out of gear sooner than if you are coming in on the piss at an angle. On our courses we get people who say they drift in so if they hit anything it will not do any damage. My response is that they cannot use "if" in that sentence, as it is "when" they hit something. Play with your boat - drive it hard and then go hard astern to see what the stopping distance is. See how it slews over when you do go astern; learn the characteristics of your boat and develop you own skills, then you can enjoy your boating and as a bonus you can answer the next novice who starts a thread about it.

Well Arnie does, anyway. A long while back we built our own cool boxes for our trip boats that worked very well. Just made a box from blocks of expanded polystyrene or something similar and fibre glassed the inside. Cooling was via a 12v compressor. We only used it to keep beer cool and as we were running the engine all the time it was in use it worked fine. I'd guess that in principal it was more or less like the coolboxes mentioned from Halfords and was very electrically inefficient. Have you (OP) thought of using an Osokool type cooling box. There was a thread about them some while back. They are a porous chalky sort of box which you soak, and make use of the fact that as the water evaporates the box cools down. They work very well, but you do have to be in a position to add more water when they have dried out.

Models usually have large chests

A couple of shots of Leonids in the early 1980s. Towcester & Leonids (nos.1 and 7 in our own fleet) are of course at Lady Capel's. Steerers are Andy Farquarson and Sandy Macdonald, who delivered the final 33t load to Boxmoor in October 1981 immediately before L. Rose relocated to Corby. The snow shot is at Bull's Bridge. Coincidently Leonids was a houseboat powered by hydraulic drive when we bought it at Bishop's Stortford. We are on Friesland at the moment and I can't remember offhand any details of when we bought and subseqently sold it. Towcester and Leonids were my very favourite pairing. Lots of boatmen told us they didn't like the middle Northwich boats as they rolled too much, but we did not find that - they certainly swam very well. Although they did not load as much as the big boats that was a fairly irrelevant distinction by the 1980s as it was difficult to load any boat fully unless you were out on the Thames or somewhere like that. edited to flesh out detail

That may be in part its effect, but that was not the reason for it. It was the "British Waterways Act", not "Local Councils (avoidance of nuisance by boaters) or something Act". It was an attempt by BW to regain control over the proliferation of unofficial and unpaid for "moorings" being taken up by boaters along the towpaths and to the detriment of people who wished to cruise in what was accepted as meant by cruising. RBOA and others successfully objected to the Clause requiring all boaters to have a home mooring on the basis that some people wished to cruise steadily around the system rather than just in the locality of one particular mooring, and all problems stemmed from the ill considered amendment to the Act at its Bill stage.

The canal system is different to e.g. National Trust or Forestry Commission in that it cannot be ring fenced to exclude commercial activities that exist on it. Arguably users could be said to be represented by John Dodwell with his ex-IWA hat on, but there is no one from e.g. British Marine Federation or APCO (Association of Pleasure Craft Operators). Despite BW publicity to the contrary, it was not BW that led the upsurge in popularity of canals since the 60s; it was the group of entrepreneurs who invested their time and energy in building up hire fleets, marinas, chandlery shops etc, without which the canals would still be a secret world enjoyed by the very few. There is no way this group can be excluded or taken over by the new charity, and it would have been sensible for them to have some say in the running of it.

I've also seen a narrow boat which was brought to France by low loader and dropped into Calais harbour and which then had its rudder bearings smashed by waves from a passing tug. Also one that broke the shaft coupling to the propellor as the prop raced when waves lifted the stern, and another which lost two of the bolts holding the engine down. I've not looked at the link in the previous post, but it is probably the one where a barge was towed in when the cooling water hoses split and the barge was rapidly sinking. Most modern narrow boats are not engineered to a standard that is designed for work at sea. An additional problem if you start with a secondhand inland craft - barge or narrow boat - is the likelihood of sediment in the fuel tanks being stirred up and blocking the fuel line. So in addition to the above you'd want to clean the tanks thoroughly, and if not possible then to do the sea passage with a separate drum of diesel to feed the engine. Maybe double Racor type filters in the line so the fuel supply can be switched from one to the other if necessary, but that does mean you have a crew person inside the steel coffin boat who can take care of things like that. It can all be done, but there is considerable risk. Much reduced if you have the money to build one with all the safety aspects dealt with at that stage.

Chris does not have a wheel option as far as I am aware. We did join Chris and a couple of small barges just off shore from Dunkerque on one of the small ship events, and the square chine of Progress did seem to make it more stable than some of the other craft out there. Another aspect of this though is do you go alone or do you have crew? If you have crew, where are they? Not stood on the gunwhale I trust, but I for one would not like to spend a crossing inside a steel cigar tube which is rocking and rolling and where the only exit is from the stern (as the front end has to be sealed very securely to prevent waves breaking through). Chris crosses in company with a safety boat, and so did Darlington as far as I could understand what he wrote. I believe Chris works on the principle that he can afford to write off the cost of Progress should it sink, as insurance would be prohibitive. At Twickenham market on Saturday we met a woman who said she and her husband were planning to cross to France in their narrow boat, rafted up to another one. She was absolutely adamant that they would have no trouble at all like this. Now that really is a recipe for disaster. I've been out from Limehouse with an empty pair a few times, and on the first occasion very nearly came a cropper by being breasted up pretty much as if we were on a canal. We started with the fore ends tied conventionally with a line from the tee stud of one to the stud of the other, but once we were out on the river we found we needed a line from the mast of each boat to the stud of the other as well to reduce the sawing motion between the two. After that and having talked with various boatmen who had done it we always put tyres between the boats to allow crud to float down between the pair and minimise the risk of it building up between the two fore ends. We also took a line from the back end rail of the motor, under the two boats and back to the rail to prevent them leaning in towards each other and slamming back each time we met a wave. But that was just the Thames - a 15+ hour Channel crossing and meeting waves from ferries and such other craft with two little modern narrow beam pleasure boats does not bear thinking about.

I've not got anywhere that I need to do quite that, but I do use the wooden wedges provided by a dismantled wooden peg to stop occasional vibration noise on sections of my wheelhouse roof.

I don't want to be drawn into the rights and wrongs of it, but I couldn't understand your maths either. I've no idea what AC planner default cruising means, but with your further explanation I think you are saying you cruise 2-3 hours every fortnight, with sometimes an extra "day" or two over a weekend which pushes the total "movement days" up from 26 to 35. Is that right?