GRPCruiserman

It was before the ice broke, so they would have committed the offence at that time, followed by the navigational offences once it had fallen in.

It id probable that they would not need a licence until the point when the ice broke and they actually entered the water as they weren't actually displacing any water until that point, but at that point they needed licence, BSC, and insurance, and I can think of many ways where a car would fail the BSC; no battery main switch for one; so they can be prosecuted for all those things; in addition to the cost of removal of their 'vessel' from the canal. I agree the Police 'Accident' sign is a little ironic as no way could it be described as an 'accident' as it was an occurance as a result of stupidity; however, I don't think the police would have a sign for that. There may be pollution issues too as the car will have oil in the sump and other horrible fluids; antifreeze, etc, and if it's a diesel it will have some of that to deposit in to the canal; although petrol is less polluting as it evaporates on hitting the surface, it could potentially do some harm if trapped under the ice. I would imagine the offenders could be prosecuted for that too.

Bizarrely our previous caravan (which was a mass produced, major make, 'built like this') as standard had the battery and gas bottles sharing the same compartment on the drawbar at the front. There were many caravans built like this up until the 1980s, but our present 1982 caravan has the battery inside (so it just potentially gases us instead!!) with the gas bottles on their own on the front in the locker. I know caravans have a vent to the outside (downwards) which most boats don't (although I've had boats that do and take some bailing after a while!!) but I was never over happy with it and always switches the gas off before touching the battery or towing/moving the caravan; and always ensured that the connections to the battery were sound. I'm surprised the boat you looked at had a BSC unless during the test the batteries were removed or it was done prior to the fitting of the bow thruster??

I wouldn't disagree with any of what you've said there; just pointing out my experience; but yes, quality of life is much more important.

People keep refering to Narrow Boats as a depreciating assett; well I've never had a Narrow Boat, buat have had lots of other types of boat and have NEVER lost a single penny on any boat, even those that when sold required work that wasn't there on purchase. If I add up the profit I've made (and boats have always been bought for what I want, not as profit making items, and always kept for some time), I bet pound for pund I've made as much as I have ever made on the bricks and mortar I've had. Admittedly I've never bought new which I can imagine would loose you money; but even narrow boat owner friends have always made money on their boats, and certainly cruisers always turn a profit, so apart from new purchases, or uninsured disasters (including catastrophic mechanical failure) is there anyone on here that has lost money on a boat??

When I had the boat on the canal, I paid £100 a year plus the BW mooring permit at £250 A YEAR!! Yes it was on line, and yes the only facilities were parking and water; but the owner lived on site and didn't miss anyone coming and going, plus we had one livaboard for extra security. Apparently he still only charges about £200 a year for a narrow boat now (any length) and it's in a cracking spot with brilliant views out of the window from every mooring, about half way from each end of the Lancaster Canal. They've recently built a couple of these silly money marinas on The Lancaster and they have about three or four boats each in them!! The 'normally' prices marinas are about double what I used to pay and offer full facilities, although have a short waiting list to get in. As posted above, these marinas with telephone number prices obviously don't want boats to come in; and have been built for planning/other reasons.

What a shame about those sunken boats, they'd be cracking starter boats for someone; looks like two are Norman 20s, and when you think they only made about 200 odd Norman 20s, the loss of two in one go is very sad. My old Norman 20 was the best, most versatile boat I ever had and was definately the one that gave me the most fun; was a big mistake when I went bigger.

Hey; I liked a lot of his music in it's day; had very large speakers in those days and the base really got them moving. It was a 'must' to record 'The Hit Man and Her' in the middle of the night then watch it the following morning. Apologies for being off topic. It could, on a more serious note (no pun!!) be a very good idea to use prisoners to repair the canal system; a solution needs to be found for the governments effective 'abandonment' of the canal system in an attempt to save money; and if it could keep licence fee increases under control, I may be tempted back on to the canal one day. I do miss it so. I'm all in favour of it, it's a win-win situation. The canals get repaired, the goverment saves money paying people to do it, the prisoners learn new skills and hopefully become more positive towards society; no one can loose!! What I may suggest is that the experience and expertese of the organisers of 'The Waterway Recovery Group' could be put to good use here; they have much experience in training and managing people who have no knowledge of repair and construction techniques and are able to organise them in to safe and productive working parties. Surely by way of recognition, some top level WRGies could be paid a reasonable salary to manage a program of this kind and with them and prison officers to keep control, some very productive repairs, and indeed restoration, work could be carried out.. Just a thought.

A 'Supersoaker' type water pistol is much more licencable and certainly a lot less lethal!!

If it's frozen right across, then boats shouldn't be moved past moored boats as it could quite easily hole and sink a GRP Cruiser. When I had mine it was always left in over winter (as are many today) and I never saw any steeelys come past when the canal was completely frozen across. It could be highly dangerous if someone is inside the boat when it sinks as they may drown or become overcome with the cold and die of exposure. I would have thought that the offending passer by would at least be responsible for the sinking of the moored boat and liable for the recovery costs; and possibly be commiting an offence of not necessarily criminal damage, but certainly neglect and possibley manslaughter if a death occured as a result.

I remember sleeping on the Dawncraft one January with the solid fuel stove on and watching the canal gradually freezing over through the open window in T shirts; it was awesome. I seem to remember the boat never actuallly got frozen in as it moved very slightly all the time stopping the ice getting right up to the boat; but the boat didn't half make a 'bang' when it touched the edge of the ice!! Mine are kept on trailer/trolleys all the time now so don't see this kind of thing any more.

My car was covered in snow when I came out of work at 9pm last night. It would be fine if the heater worked in my car, but it doesn't. The one thing I value most and the best invention for cars ever is the front heated windscreen. Without that I'd probably be still sat in the works car park!! Especially with no heater. We parked both the cars on the road last night as the drive is on a steep slope and we'd never have got out of it!! Either that or we'd have slid down and demolished the garage door!! Don't like all this snow and ice. How much are moorings in the Med??

Even in the last couple of years of canal boat ownership. I'd migrated to 'Motor Boat Monthly' as the canal magazines had totally turned their back on GRP Cruisers; with most articles and news items being VERY steel narrow boat biased (you'll note I say narrow boat as there is very little wide beam news as well). Motor Boat Monthly has some inland news anyway, so I always got to know stuff, plus the IWA magazine keeps you in touch, and MBM has many articles about GRP Cruisers and the various things that come along that affected my chosen craft. Now I (almost) always sail on tidal waters (and it is sail with cloth and string attached to sticky up bits on the boat), I read Practical Boat Owner which suits my now chosen wooden sailing dinghies. They also keep you posted with the main inland news as well. It is some years since I bought a canal magazine and echo the previous poster's comments about them being very newcomer orientated; which has ramifications as newcomers will thing Steel Narrow Boats are the only way to get on the canals; which simply isn't true. The number of GRP Cruisers for sale seems to have returned to levels it was some years ago after a barren period of non being available. Licences, however, continue to increase at an alarming rate.

This is a good point, the average age of a canal user has increased since I started on the canals, by about the same amount that I've got older (this is not accurate, just a guesstimate), so we need to encourage the youth of today to hang around canals, and play around them, but legislation, licences etc, are now too dear and too heavilt enforced that no self respecting youth would ever bring his 9foot dinghy to 'play' on the canal with; after all he'd be prosecuted for having no licence, no BSC, no insurance, and Health and Safety would have a field day actually allowing a young person to play near water. This is beside's parents' worries. Boats under 14 foot should be licence free and would probably be exempt from BSC, and more slipway access should be provided. Encouragements of visits to canals for younger people should be made, and interest sparked in the majority of law abiding, good children that we have in this country, then perhaps they wouldn't feel it necessary to intimidate older people by wearing gang style clothing etc. Much of this post has been taken up by posts of legislative fear on the part of boaters. Now don't get me wrong, I wouldn't have allowed someone I didn't know on my boat, but that's anyone, not just a youth, it's access to the canal that is the answer; they are seen as playgrounds for the rich now by the majority of the population, hence the lack of opposition to the sell off of property by the general public. If BW supported a 'Waterways for all' attitude (apologies for stealing that expression which I believe should be actioned); then they would encourage day licences at 50p a day for small boats to get the thousands of people in this country with small boats to take their young familes for a day out on the canal instead of in the car. But no, day licences are £10 a day, with slipways up to around £10 and becoming fewer and fewer; that £20 will take you a long way on a day out in the car. Hiring is also £35 odd which is a huge price to pay tfor a day out. Get the young families on the canal and the children will grow up to enjoy, respect, and learn the peace of the canal. Sadly policy is that unless you have £100000000000 for a shiney narrow boat and £1000000000000000000 for a licence and mooring you are denied being 'in the club' and are led to believe that although you can cycle, walk, fish, or use the canal as an observer, to actually float on it is the preserve of the rich. I'll stick to sailing; the guy with his new Mercedes is happy to sail with me in my £200 car; and will even help me pull my sailing dinghy out of the water at the end of the day. No one is bothered how rich or poor you are, my boat cost £400 and is good enough to race against the multi thousand pound racing machines that others own; even if I dont necessarily have a chance of winning; they'll still talk to me and chat and smile, and actually encourage ANYONE to join in; there are many kids sailing at our sailing club and it doesn't matter how much money you have. They are not intimidating, they are involved in the fun; something which now lacks on the canals.

You've obviously never had a GRP Cruiser. The Canopy is the best part of having a GRP Cruiser over a steel narrow boat, you can travel withour getting wet. When it rains it's somewhere to take off your coat without getting the inside of the cabin wet, and when cold it provides a warmer environment to cruise in. The aforementioned coats can then be hung up to dry in the canopy. I often used to smirk slightly in the height of a rainstorm when a narrow boat came the other way and I was cruising along nice and dry under the canopy in my t shirt. In the middle of summer when it's roasting hot but pouring with rain, you can sit out and enjoy the countryside without getting wet. They are the best thing ever, and if I ever had a steel boat, I would HAVE to have a canopy, with windscreen, and wipers. As regard getting in and out, this depends on the design of the canopy; on my Norman and on the Dawncraft there were wide openings in the side which made it very easy to unzip and get in and out, but on my Yeoman the cockpit was very small so it was much more difficult and a rear access was used over the engine. Also the canopy gives wind protection as well as rain, so you can sit under it when it's warmish but windy in the Spring and Autumn and enjoy being outside but out of the wind. They are the best part of a GRP cruiser and I cannot understand why more narrow boat owners don't have them; unless you just like to show how hardened you are? I suppose they dont look very traditional on a Woolwich Copy or Shiney Washer Josher, but on a cruiser sterned narrow boat (or widebeam) that's not any kind of replica. I don't see why not?? It was nice to put it down when the weather was nice, but like most convertable cars, it was up much much more than it was down,

This amounts to selective reporting, ie The Government are given a spot, as are BW, the governing body, but the people, as represented by the IWA are not? That has to breach some BBC 'unbiased' reporting??

They are missing out then!! What about the locely new visitors moorings in the centre of Rishton, handy for the shops, cracking jetty, nice spot, the perfect 'overnight' between Barrowford and 'The Moorings' pub at Finningtons; or the georgeous stretch between there and Johnsons' Hillock, or Johnsons' Hillock itself, which is a cracking place to leave your boat for the week if you need to go home (not on the 24 hour moorings, obviously, but below the first lock is fine). What about the 'Lancaster Stretch' between Johnson's Hillock and Wigan? There are some lovely places to stop along there; I moored at Adlington one winter and it was brilliant. Then South on to The Bridgewater; an urban canal for most of it's length but some really interesting architechture, the Barton Swing Aqueduct, Lymm, The Old No. 3, Dover Lock, the list goes on and on, there's not many places where you can see the fish swimming beside your boat the water is that clear, and you can see for miles across the countryside on such big embankments. Or towards Liverpool; Parbold, Burscough, The Rufford Arm, and to moor at the bottom of the disused Appley Bridge two locks after descending the huge single lock is the most pleasent over night mooring I can think of. I'm not suggesting that mooring for the night opposite the Traveller's camp near Crook would be the best mooring, but go another half mile and Crook itself is very pleasent. If it looks OK, it generally is; even Sale and Altringham are now furnished with Audi TTs in every driveway, not like the old days where you'd go through at 5am in fear. Burnley and Blackburn are more a problem for debris IN the canal than on the towpath, it's just a case of enjoy it and chill out.

This seems a lot of money to me, this is a regular 'need' on a GRP cruiser and there used to bea guy called Steve on the Lancaster Canal used to do large GRP Cruiser covers, with rails etc, for about £500. Even if you add in a windscreen and higher prices of today, I cant see it being over £1000. He is still about, and although BW evicted him from his boat sales business to build some residential moorings; I bumped in to him once and he said he was still doing canopies. The standard of his work was always very well thought of and he was much respected. I once bought a boat on which he'd fitted a canopy and it was excellant. I dont seem to have any current contact details for him, but I'm sure someone will know how to get hold of him??

It does tend to stop if you start throwing the stones back at them (apparently); or as a friend of mine did when barraged with stones, pull the back of his boat very close to the towpath and then quickly fill a bucket with water and completely soak one of them; they didn't seem as smug then. We once had trouble at a rally where we'd had small incidents for a number of years, culminating at about 2am with the attempted theft of a dinghy and outboard. A quick dunking in the canal of a couple of them soon stopped it and trouble has never occured at that rally since. The police responded within 45 minutes of the original incident being reported; but the nearest Police Station is some 20 miles away. Not that I have been involved in any of this retaliation you understand. The old Dawncraft we had had a plastic front window and plastic windscreen which didn't seem too bothered about receiving stones from bridges. I was always more concerned with my old Norman 20 which was glass on the windscreen, but it never got broken. I remember out running them once in the Norman when barraged with stones from the towpath, but it did have quite a sizable engine and could easily out run a person running. I did get a hard stare from a moored boater, though. (please note that no speed limits were exceded to my knowledge).

Wasn't it the government that told BW that they had to build up this portfolio of 'valuable' land rented, leased etc to third parties to generate income to replace grant in aid? I seem to remember that being the excuse for them to build flats for students on Aldcliffe Basins in Lancaster? BW now get an income from it. Now they are saying sell the assetts; so should we not be argueing that as it was government who instructed BW to set up this situation in order to reduce grant in aid; if the assetts are to be sold then Grant in Aid must be increased to reverse their previous instruction? This may put them off selling the property. Perhaps BW should jump the gun, and sell the property off now, and immediately pump the money straight back into clearing the maintainance backlog and restoration of derelict canals still owned by BW; then there would be no assetts to strip, although the income would, of course, still be lost, if this is inevitable, then at least we would not have lost the money from these BW owned assetts to other departments. They could even set up a seperate company as they did with BW Marinas to 'loose' the assetts without them disappearing. We could have 'BW Sanitary Services' a company owning all the Sanitary Stations and associated buildings (some of which are substantial). Surely then they could not be sold off as they would be seperate organisations? Similar schemes could be set up for other areas of the system, you could have 'Canalside Property Holdings' as a company owning proerty alongside the canal, but also owning all the locks, so they would have to maintain both? If it were run like BW Marinas then they surely couldn't be touched. I saw the TV article and they described BW as one of the biggest 'Quangos' around, which whilst technically correct, puts visions in the minds of the public of self centred organisations, which despite some shortcomings, I do not beleive BW to be, and BW did defend itself quite fervantly. It is press like this that we could do without. I beleive it will be TV News that will help to kill our canal system as they seem to already be on the government's side in this. Perhaps now we need to look outside the box and see if preservation orders on the whole canal system are a way forward (or something similar) to compel government to keep things as they are. I know some locks are 'listed' structures but a pristine lock on a weeded up shallow canal is no good to anyone. If they proceed with their threats then I think a mass withold of licence fees may kick some action in to place, after all, they cant chase everyone, as the courts would just be snowed under; and if the canalside portfolio is part of the enjoyment of usage of the canal, which it is, then why should the licence fee be as high for less enjoyment? We could also make any property that was up for sale unattractive and difficult to sell, perhaps by being a nuisance on an individual basis when potential purchasers visit? I expect it will be leases that are sold, though, and not the proerties individually, in which case perhaps we need to get the leasees on side with a vow to stop paying their lease if the property is sold on. That may put potential purchasers off again. Every canalside home owner should apply to their local council for a rate reduction on the grounds that if the sale goes ahead and the canal becomes useless then the value of their property has greatly reduced. Councils should be snowed under with applications for this, another angle of attack. Force goverments at all levels in to turmoil with paperwork as a result of this and make it clear why it's happening. They'll soon complaint when they ghave to employ extra staff to deal with the additional paperwork. I used to enjoy the canals, and I'll be sorry that after their survival for 200 years, a simple recession is enough to kill them off for good. They survived (largely) the mass slaughter of demolition in the late 1960s and 1970s and even Dr Beeching, but it would be appalling if Mr Gordon Brown was to be remembered as the Dr Beeching of the early 21st century as the man who killed our canal system, one of the greatest assetts that the UK still has. This needs attacking from many angles and needs fervant, aggresive, even positive action, not political, as the writing already is on the wall.

I had a problem with Mink once using my boat as their toilet (they didn't get in the cabin, just the cockpit) and tried everything, old clothes (they don't like human smells), those cat deterant things you put in the garden, all sorts. The Farmer who owned the mooring sid he'd shoot them if he ever saw them but they are pretty evasive, and the only way I got rid of them was to put a battery operated PIR siren in the cockpit. It cost £19.95 plus the battery and was disarmed by a keycode, all self contained. The Mink would have set it of after the 20 second time delay and run away, afetr 1 minute it would stop screeching and reset itself only to go off when the Mink returned. The Mink was never to be seen again!! Best £20 I spent on that boat. As regards burglar alarms, the 'dial up' or 'text' type are obviously the best solution; but what do you do if you get the call/text?? OK if you are in a marina or an attended mooring (assuming the owner is in); but if you are on a towpath or unattended offside mooring, I see little point; you'll know you've been burgled when you get there!! If you rush up to your boat they'll be long gone. The sinkage alarms ARE I believe a good idea as most sinkages occur slowly (unless you get torpedoed or something!!) you would probably have time to get to your boat before the water got too high and started damaging things. I think a mooring in the middle of no-where with a good track record and not leaving anything of value when you go home if probably the best policy (and leave the curtains open). If you live on your boat and there are neighbours around then an audible alarm would work OK, especially if your and your neighbours work/be on board patterns vary. I once was on a mooring where a neighbour had left his enire hatch and rear doors open when he'd 'nipped' to his car and then got distracted and driven home for the week. I got to my boat the week after and after a few hours wondered why I'd not seen him knocking about. I went and shouted 'hello', knowcked on his windows and even resorted to sticking my head through his rear doors worried that he may be injured or something. In the end I told the mooring owner who phoned him and he came up from home. Apparently this was a whole week before and no-one had been in his boat or taken anything. That gave me a lot of confidence in the safety of mooring there. I once had a classic car which I used to leave the doors unlocked as glass was impossible to get hold of and so I'd rather they opened the door to break in, I just had immobilisers to stop them driving it away. Couldn't leave anything inside it but that's probably no bad thing, even had a removable stereo. I think you can be lucky and unlucky, and as most of my boats have only cost about what you are proposing to spend on an alarm to me it seems excessive.

Where I used to live a neighbour rented out their house but was very indiscriminate about who she rented it to, the last tenant paying one year in advance as they'd received compensation from an accident at work. Once their money ran out she didn't get any more rent and they were there eighteen months. During their time their we had the police at their house almost every day (and that was only when they were reported), glass in the road all the time, the fire brigade on two occasions, regular fist fights with various neighbours, neighbours vehicle windows smashed, a thouroughly bad lot, and it used to be a nice quiet neighbourhood. Now at least two other neighbours have moved, we have moved, and the house they were in has been re-renovated, but the road has definately taken a turn for the worse. When I used to rent out a property I had credit checks done and all sorts to stop this kind of thing. It only takes one bad apple. I do like Burscough which has great historical canal importance and was always a nice stopover after the Preston Riversway Festival as it's an easy day from Preston Dock on a mid-day tide then up the locks on the Rufford Arm to the geourgeous area at the top of the locks. The stretch between Burscough and Wigan is one of the prettiest I've cruised and to stay over at the foot of the disused locks at Appley Bridge is wonderful, with a lovely view across the valley which has no road just a railway, and to not be able to do this for fear would be a shame. There has been much investment in this area too, with three new marinas in the area and it would be a shame for a couple of individuals to spoil it. If the Police wont do anything, then in the past I know of at least two occasions where boaters have 'sorted' out yobs of this kind, and this is what must be done. Towpaths are dark at night and the chances of being caught for administering justice are very slim. My fear is that the boating poulation is now much older on average than it was then and there are much fewer persons who are able to administer this both in body and through fear of being vunerable afterwards. If the yobs find the canal an easy target then they will come back, but if it gets a reputation for admistering it's own law then they will not return and find other areas to prey on such as Tesco Car Parks etc. It would only need to happen once.

What, like you get on the Motorway, with the three lines, two lines, one line, yep that would look very traditional. I suppose you could paint them in official BW colours. They would also be useful to tie up to without having to bang your pins in. I understood they were always there right from the canals inception, but I could be wrong. I think they are also on the Lancaster section between Johnson's Hillock and the top of Wigan so I suppose they couldn't have been there from the start as that was built by The Lancaster Canal Company and only leased to The Leeds Liverpool company whilst they were debating various routes before being taken over by the L&L company.

I often used to hear rumours of trouble at Burscough and Parbold some years ago, but I presonally never saw any, and sometimes I left the boat there for a week or so unattended. There were boats there in the old days that had been left on the towpath for months without trouble. (before these enforement days!!). It's probably one group of yobs, led by a single ringleader/troublemaker. If they are identified/caught and either locked up by the Police or given a good kicking by persons unknown then I'm sure peace will return and no more trouble will be uncountered.

Perhaps the cost of boating has now got to the point where all that can afford it and want to use the canals are doing so. It is healthy to know that the hire boat industry is doing well, but they will do anyway due to the wek pound plus I think that there will always be those who want to try it. The number that can now afford to use the canals in the way I used to I think is decreasing, however, as costs rise. This may have a positive effect, however, as if market forces are keeping newcomers from buying boats and licences, moorings etc, maybe we've reached the point that BW have always been trying to strive for, ie as much as they can charge the boaters, they will do so. If things start to turn, and as people leave the canal for whatever reason and costs still increase meaning fewer people start to buy bnoats, then BW may have to derease costs or look at other ways of attracting new users by having 'starter' schemes for small boats, cruisers, etc, as they have in the past. In 2002 a day licence for a trailboat was £2. It is now around £10 and slipways are fewer and farer between, and those that are left are usually chargeable at quite high rates compared to the plethora of free slipways we used to have, so a day out in a dinghy probably costs £20 or more now, whereas it used to be £2. To me, on a modest income, £20 is wuite a lot for a day out, when I can go to the Lake District for the day in the car and still come back with change out of £20, whereas £2 is no more than a carton of milk. Also the supply of affordable boats is now dwindling. You ask the average man in the street what sort of boat he would expect to see on a canal these days and it would be a Narrow Boat (he'd probably call it a barge but that's another story). Cheap cruisers are now very much in the minority and so the days of buying a boat for a few hundred pounds and licencing, insuring, and using it every weekend are now also dwindling. Those that can afford a boat on the canal now either use it as their main residence; so normal living costs apply, or are well off enough to have other interests which probably take up much time and only use their boats perhaps every other weekend, potentially halving the number of boats using the canal system. This may be a positive thing, not a negative as it may show the authorities what is happening on the canals due to licence numbers; although lack of use is an arguement for closure, or at least restriction, which none of us want.