PeterScott

Reported here "Canal barge enthusiast falls to death after slipping through sheet ice into freezing water on Leeds-Liverpool canal near Ormskirk" on Sun 20th Anyone with any further details?

Gosh, a photo from the infamous Tom Lewis. Second cousin eh? Seems to have got the hang of this photography lark :-) All we have here in ActonBridge (T&M) is laminated ice - looks quite scruffy.

Not seen that either. On GU in Feb this year, there was a moorhen coming in to land, expecting the deceleration of the water to gently arrive at the bank. Not it seemed experienced in ice, the speed was all wrong and it slid at great speed into the bank. To become a (temporarily?) surprised ex-moorhen. Shouldn't have laughed at the misfortune, I suppose.

We're at Acton Bridge (br 209 T&M) and we have half an inch or so of ice, so no enthusiasm to move today. An Anderton hireboat was icebreaking southbound at about 4pm: tempted to set off in their wake but it was raining, so lethargy decided it. May set off in the morning. Jousting with boatpoles sounds an odd way to spend Christmas week.

That sounds conspiratorial, which is not the case; there was no 'immediately' involved: Angel and Aldgate were bought as a pair, with the intention of running them as a pair after their restoration, which they did for the 2008 season. However plans, being plans, didn't work out fully. Aldgate was at the 2009 IWA National, with Nick Woolf. Angel is owned by Sheena Bourne and is moored at Braunston: she was in the parades at the 2009 Historic Boat Show with Fulbourne and did a trip up the Ashby with Duncan Davis's PearlBarley later in the year.

Paying it might make them go away

Has anyone done the link to the whitepaper? Nothing much changes from the budget position of a property portfolio in a subsidiary company. Either BW panicked with the Tony Hales interview after some low-level enquiries from HMT - or we have a significant victory in waterways lobbying, averting a drastic effective cut in funding - or somewhere in between.

I wonder if this is mainly about the BSS or the WW house style for punctuation. The latter is probably more entertaining. Here is the letter with the before and after shown (ie as published March 1998 WW, p82) . ========================= 11th. January '98 Waterlines, Waterways World, Thank you BW AIR CONDITIONING, COURTESY OF BW Like thousands of other boaters I have recently been awarded a Boat Safety Scheme Certificate for my 50 foot narrowboat,. hHaving sorted out minor non- compliance's, - flexible pipes, labels etc. - I turned my attention to the ventilation standard. I applied that very clever formula contained within the BW guidance notes. I was horrified. It needed extra low level ventilation at each end (3.5"½in square holes), additional roof vents and orifices cut into each interior door. My boat must have been a death-trap. Several times when sleeping on the boat I have awakened, shivering with dread at the thought of what might have happened,; more often I have awakened just shivering. But now I know it's safe. Somewhat disturbed I thought I would apply the BW formula to my house,. tTo my amazement I found that unlike narrowboats there was no built-in ventilation whatever. I am now in the process of modifying my residence to BW's standard,. mMost of the work I have managed myself,; cutting a large hole the back door was easy and I found that screwing the letter box flap permanently open took care of the front. All the interior doors I have shortened to allow a one inch gap below and a local builder is giving me a price for knocking holes in all the bedroom walls for high level ventilation. A medical friend tells me that in extreme cases, a deficiency of oxygen caused by poor ventilation can cause major brain damage,. I believe that in view of the appalling situation uncovered by the Safely Scheme a national screening program should be initiated. Perhaps we might start in the Watford area of West London. John Orentas, Oldham, Lancashire ========================= I agree with John about the first comma; better to run-on the sentence to show that the BSS award required the non-compliances to be sorted out. But then the sentence has even more subclauses which could lead the reader astray. Even better, maybe, to put the 'Having sorted out...' at the beginning and forego the 'Like thousands of other boaters'. I also prefer John's method of stating the size of his hole. I'm with Hugh Potter on the first deleted apostrophe (*), which is clearly a mistake; so is the omission of the indefinite article in the antepenultimate paragraph. On the parenthetical commas being replaced by dashes, I think that's just a matter of house style, but both are fine. Similarly the commas replaced by semicolons; I like semicolons: this is an incestuous sentence: hopefully it dispays the hierachy of colon, semicolon and comma. So that's thirty-all with two lets, so far. I think we need a separate thread on each of the other changes :-) (*) I saw MENS' EVENINGWEAR in Marks&Spencer last week. _sigh_

In the 2007(?) evidence to the subcommittee of the EFRA select committee, Robin Evans explained reasonably coherently the BW analysis of its structures: in one dimension they had the state-of-the-structure: iirc E= dangerous, D= awful, etc, and there was a consequences-of-failure dimension 5= likely to lead to fatalities, 4= extensive flooding of residential/commercial properties down to 1= floods an uninteresting field - or something like that. Then there is the analysis of costs to repair, investment over a period to bring the whole system to a better state, consequences of failure to invest etc. There are some elements of remote telemetry to monitor high-risk sites: an alarm sends people with stopplanks when water starts to move too swiftly in pound X. Depending on the state of our love-hate relationship with BW, "it's all worth the money for the inspections that are needed and the assessments of future investment" - or "it's all pseudo-science as the Mon&Brec failure-to-predict-the-hole shows". Overall truth of efficiency is probably somewhere in the middle of the range of our collective confidence/lack-of-it. The likelyhood of a random nutter digging away at the embankment is probaly not a high priority feature of the scheme. So that's where the eternal vigilance comes in, and particularly why we need all those living on or near t'cut (everyone: bridge-hoppers, dog-walkers, ... can help) to have a swift reporting mechanism to those who only visit occasionally in a van, or cover an enormous area in said van (that's most of the BW's permanent workforce). It all needs better organising than we currently have, though ...

This is an experience, but probably not to be followed. In saner conditions, it's an excellent trip. For those heading the oher way (towards Bristol), Those nice people in Bristol Floating Harbour are keen to take lots of your money, though

(x-post from another board) As to taking photographs, aside from the pornographic and vastly personally intrusive, photography is certainly allowed in public places, and nobody has a personal veto on being photographed or on the publication of their own image. (Recording them singing is different, particularly if they do it for a living). The references to 'private' locations drifts into considerations of whether permission was sought or granted: this is nothing to do with criminal law, though. It relates to what owners of property allow (cf may the free-newspaper-deliverer trample on my grass?). [and, oh dear, all that thread about breasting-up and trespassing on the inside boat to reach the outside one] If they don't allow it they can ask the photographer to leave, or sue for damages (similarly with free-newspaper-deliverer) but talking about what is 'illegal' in the context is likely to be misleading. Here's a canal-related photography story for your amusement/worry. On the Sunday of the wet-May BH 2009, we were at Cavalcade, and I was photographing the opening of the IWA marquee. I was stopped by two policepeople from a patrolling policecar and, they said, under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, they required to give my details, be checked on their intelligence database, and show them the photographs that I had taken. They were reasonably polite (although depressingly young), and while acceding to their request to wait for their checks, I left them in no doubt of my views of the procedure. I was, and remain, disturbed by the experience. I suppose that a full description of the circumstances requires me to say that I was using an SLR camera with a telephoto lens, and that a good view of the marquee needed me to be on the inside of a traffic roundabout, which is a pavementless bridge over the Paddington Arm of the Regents Canal. My picture is almost exactly this view from Google streetview (Google's is without the Cavalcade activity of course). Obviously with normal daytime traffic whizzing by, it's a hazardous place to stand. My friendly policepeople were of course unconcerned for my personal safety, but if they were following the requirements of the Act, were needing to believe that my photographs would be of more assistance to someone blowing up the vital road infrastructure than the Google picture downloadable anywhere in the world. Ho humm. On t'other board Tony said "Sadly, those of us who work in the media are used to this kind of intimidation when all we are doing is going about our daily work. Some untrained policepeople have even disregarded our official press accreditation - approved by the chief commissioner no less - so what chance does the ordinary man on the street have? Under section 44 the police are only allowed to stop you if the area you are photographing is deemed to be of national security or a likely target for an attack - so that's most major public events then! Remember, you do not have to give your name and address or explain why you are there - you only need to be allowed to be searched. And you have the right to ask them for their full reason for stopping you - not just to hide behind section 44. Some helpful tips Here" The discussion at that link is most interesting. I think it's comparable with being stopped by a mugger. The mugger isn't doing anything legal, but to avoid further nastiness, it may be best to give them something in the hope that they will go away; then complain to the authorities. Similarly with the policepeople. More to the point of course is the observations of Lord Carlile's report (Para 140 on p29) that these policepeople need to balance their racial-origin statistics. Or it might have been the hat I was wearing. Perhaps thinking about it again, I'll write to my MP (Nick Clegg) about it all: an excuse to mention the canals again, when he doesn't have any in the constituency. Anyway there was a report last week that the number of stops has vastly reduced in the most recent statistic-collection period. And the Today programme today see 8.50 (does the link survive into tomorrow??) had Chief Constable Andy Trotter of British Transport Police, chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers media advisory group, saying that photographers shouldn't be stopped in this way.

Yes all OK now. It was almost five years ago, and we're on the second set of 'ordinary' batteries since then. The gels were good-ish value (about £3000 in 1995) except for the fire. We did enquire of the gel suppliers while we were researching the replacement - 'were we going on a round-the-world trip' they asked. We said we probably wouldn't be doing that, so they thought their offerings wouldn't compete.

The gel batteries are in the far corner, in what was an engine room. They lasted for ten years without maintenance before this fire. Insurance people (who were £30k poorer as a result) thought they were probably the cause. The 'without maintenance' might have been the problem, of course. Ho hummm.

Salford Junction. It will go round if you keep contact of the right side of the boat with the pointy bit of the junction: but some wind or bouncing off will mess it up and need the front end poling. I have watched a boat and butty doing it with aplomb: need to get the speed slow enough to take advantage of the extra turning effect from the butty, as mentioned below. Ladywood Junction is one that doesn't work at all - that's coming around the OozelStLoop and heading back towards OldTurn. nbBen tried it 'on-camera' for the 1999 BCN challenge and it's entertainingly recorded in the very first series of 'Waterworld'. Similarly SandyTurn, leaving the IcknieldPortRoadWharfLoopLine and heading out of Birmingham towards Rotton Park. Of the more sensible turns, RushallJunction is also very tight. Yes, it's doable if you start off very slowly from the stoplock. I first did it in the early 1970's on nbCrane, a Willow Wren hireboat. Arrogance of youth and all that. With someone living on a no-longer-trading workingboat moored outside the pub, and remembering that speed heading my pointy end towards the lace plates still gives me the heebyjeebies. Oh dear. It did go round, though.

I agree with Martin; it wasn't IWA's petition, but it would be a pity to have one that wasn't supported by a reasonable number of people. Interesting that BW should email all boaters telling them of IWA's emails. That's consistent with greater co-operation of recent months. Only the inner workings of Government will know exactly what the inner workings of Government are doing, and even they might be a bit confused (remember the web version of the document saying VAT was increasing above 17.5% on 1Jan2010). My guess is that some enquiry from HMT was received inside BW, and that was consistent with an option to the Chancellor being written-up to reverse the earlier decision to leave the non-operational property with BW. Since then, BW has been doing its best to lobby furiously against this possibility, including its TonyHales BBC interview AND its subsequent press release reminding the Government of its earlier April decision, making a U-turn as hard as possible. Of course there are other perfectly acceptable ways of funding BW as a public service without them managing a large property portfolio: on the balance of the argument, however, I signed the petition on the grounds that those other funding possibilities will be hard to justify in the current climate, and most likely worse than the current arrangements.

The press release has no more information other than that the Government announced earlier in the year that BW was keeping the property portfolio: there's nothing in there from HMT to remove it from the agenda - so it's just BW trying to make the U-turn more difficult. No doubt knuckle-wrapping is in order from a govt-department viewpoint, in hating TonyHales' boat-rocking: but presumably that's the BW plan. As mentioned, the increasing of the grant wouldn't be simple, and maybe not even likely, but there will be HMT-mandarins working on it: increasing future revenue-grant may feel a decent trade-off for the short-term asset-income. The PolitcsShow didn't get to the heart of the matter at all: you could see it and still believe that the locks would be sold off: nobody mentioned the concept 'non-operational' at all, so overall it was welcome supportive waterway-publicity but didn't add much else useful. As to the sale being to users' benefit, it's a complicated argument: (1) we won't get all the compensation annual grant but (2) we wouldn't need to pay megapounds to the BWboard to be 'good' at property speculation (3) the ups and downs of the economic cycle would no longer be amplified by property ups-and-down. You pays your money and (somebody else) makes the choice

So that innocent (or not) towpath-walkers are less tempted to fiddle with an up-paddle, maybe?

BW say"Stoppage: Cornhill Embankment near Bettisfield Associated Regional Office: North Wales & Borders Waterways UPDATE (17 November 2009): Due to a breach during stoppage works at Cornhill Embankment the towpath and canal are closed until further notice whilst engineers investigate the works required to repair the breach. Canal and towpath closed between Bridge 44 Roundthorn Bridge and Bridge 50 Hampton Bank Bridge. There is no access in or out of the Prees branch. Boat movements are only possible South of Br 1 Allman’s Lift Bridge. Signage will be erected. Wind at Br 42 Tilstock Park Lift Bridge and Br 50 Hampton Bank Bridge. British Waterways apologise for any inconvenience caused." How nasty is this one? Anyone nearby?

Aha, is this a statistical analysis based on notifications to BW? Am I allowed to doubt the no-doubt? :-)

We hired from Dewsbury Basin (no longer a hire base there) in 1979: 50' boat - 14 berths including 2 in the kitchen. We all eat around a two-legged table that swayed front-to-back and side-to-size with an odd twist to help. It rained all week. Entertaining trip.

Sling separation similar to these? New boat, too. I'm sure it had a long and successful career after the sinking (1971)

It'll be coming from Sheffield that does it ... Cue for ...

Lots of entertaining merry banter in all of this. Would anyone like to comment on the fundamental BW assertion of a RIGHT and a DUTY to regulate/manage/sort-out mooring on their waterways. There are some suggestions that NABO question the mechanisms for doing this (complaints, ombudsman, courts or whatever). What would this be attempting to achive? Is it that the moorings are in no need of management/regulation/sorting-out? That they are self-regulating by boaters? That there is no 'public-interest' in managing/regualting/sorting-out moorings for people who appreciate/use the canal but don't live on it? And if none of those, if not BW to do the job, who would do it? Boaters, again? Local councils? Nobody? If you're with me this far, and BW do have a DUTY to manage/regulate/sort-out, how do we give them the tools to do it: what is wrong, then, with them being able to (with consultation etc) set some standards and rules?

I think we need Eugene: a sane BW voice that at least explains what they are trying to achieve, and then we can have a go at it (or not) _sigh_ I don't see why I should have to precis the 22 pages into something digestible. But I think they're trying to say (1) BW have a RIGHT and a DUTY to manage/regulate/sort-out mooring on their waterways (2) There are places where there are insufficient moorings for visiting boaters... (3) ... and boaters/local-people should work out a *local* scheme to make this better... (4) ... and tell visiting boaters the outcome with a consistent set of signs ... (5) ... and monitor *their* scheme locally with *minimum* of BW expense/monitoring (6) Any charges should be self-financing, properly and evenly enforced, be worth collecting, and be structured to encourage the sharing of the scarce-resource mooring places identified at (2) (7) There have already been consultations outside BW in the writing of this paper, and there should be pilots of the concept over the next year, with extra BW support, and it should all be seen as part of the movement to involve more volunteers in the running of the waterways, towards 2020. So my answers to Allen's questions: [a] YES. I want as many people as possible to understand the canal in their village/town: the more people who are involved in the environment of the canal, the more supporters we have in persuading local and central government to fund us properly. No, but that's not being suggested. (My licence fee allows me to work through a wide lock on my own - but that doesn't give me the right to exclude another boat from sharing, or indeed to order them out of the lock so that I can use it: similarly it doesn't buy me casual moorings to the exclusion of other boaters.) [c] I want mooring schemes that allow the canal to work properly in 2010-2020: BW's enforcement powers are a second-order issue and arguing about it will ensure that lawyers continue to live in big houses. Also mentioned in BW's 22 pages is the Western end of the K&A where they are already trying out some of the ideas. That has both good and bad: it is a hard situation to resolve (we had a thread about it) so it may well fail while still being workable elsewhere. Boaters need to have been there in the last couple of years to understand how hard it is: a quick trip to Bristol and back is easy enough, with just the challenge of getting into the side, and then through the vegetation for overnight rural stops. Spending, say, a leisurely six-weeks between the bottom of Caen Hill and Bristol is much trickier. I rather enjoyed the non-residential mooring with the chicken-coop on the towpath.

School hols: the Chesterfield was extremely quiet. The T&M had queues of twenty boats for some of the locks. (OK SU closed helped). It's just that it all depends ...