David Mack

And if a person unconnected to the boat and boatowner was killed or seriously injured as a result of an incident caused by the owner's failure to comply with the terms of the insurance, would the insurers still be able to avoid paying out to the third party?

Not really. In the days of commercial carrying it was in the interest of both the canal company and individual boatmen to make the passage of locks as fast as possible, and so it was in the company's interest to add facilities to achieve this. Such features could range from strapping posts and upper gate paddles to speed lock operation, through to gas lighting to allow 24 hour operation (Farmers Bridge flight) to duplicate locks (Hillmorton, Cheshire Locks, parts of Ashton Canal etc.) and even complete bypass routes (Tame Valley Canal).

Quite. Got to prioritise Harold Shipman lookalikes poncing about in their narrow boats over yachties poncing about with rags and sticks!

In our case we had been following a boat at about 300 yards distance for some way, approaching the bottom of the Buckby flight. We assumed we would share the locks with them. I saw them land crew and start to ready the bottom lock. But before we reached them the aforementioned single hander pushed out from the moored boats on the towpath in front of us and joined them in the lock. By the time they had cleared the lock and we had emptied it again the hire boat with the two Swedish couples had pulled up behind us. They were unsure whether they should wait and let us lock through alone - I suspect they were a bit overawed by an unconverted Large Woolwich - but we invited them in with us and they were good company up the flight.

Ditto. Many of us owners were hirers once and some of today's hirers will be tomorrow's boat owners. We have shared locks with some great hirers over the years, most recently two Swedish couples, who were much more likeable than the miserable single hander owner who pushed out from the towpath just in front of us and stole the lock ahead.

I thought the quantity of water which could be drawn from Hollingworth Lake was minimal at the best of times. Although built as a canal reservoir, after the canal was abandoned it was sold to the water authority for use as part of the public water supply, The impounded level was also lowered several years ago for dam safety reasons.

Screenshot from maps.nls.uk showing the Butt's Branch bridge over the slip.

I don't know if there are any rules requiring a fused, rather than unfused, spur, but why wouldn't you fit a fuse anyway? It's cheap enough to do. I would also fit a double pole isolator as you won't want the immersion on all the time the Multiplus is running. https://www.toolstation.com/axiom-13a-fused-spur/p28571

So insurers and BSS are saying Lithium batteries must not be left on charge while the boat is unattended. So every time you leave the boat - be that for several weeks or months between trips or just nipping out to the pub or the shops during a cruise - you must turn off the charging. So that means boaters have to get into the habit of switching off B2Bs and solar controllers if leaving the boat, even for a short time. And if any post-fire investigation finds you forgot to do so, the insurance doesn't pay out?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mgn-550-mf-amendment-1-electrical-installations-guidance-for-safe-design-installation-and-operation-of-lithium-ion-batteries/mgn-550-mf-amendment-1-electrical-installations-guidance-for-safe-design-installation-and-operation-of-lithium-ion-batteries

I think there's a fair few boaters of 55ft boats who by use of engine alone would struggle to keep the boat's movements within the 20ft or so available to them.

Indeed. But then the prop is usually too far down below deck level to be easily accessible, so you still end up using the short shaft. But only if there is a lock nearby. I once dropped a boat onto the invert of the upper staircase lock at Brades to clear a prop. Safer having the whole boat on the lock floor than just the stern on the cill.

That's fine if the boat is half the length of the lock, but impractical with a full length boat - as soon as the engine has got the boat moving backwards you then have to go into forward gear again to stop the stern hitting the bottom gate. Keeping clear of both ends using the engine is almost impossible, especially when you also have to consider the changing draw as the lock fills or empties. You would have far more success using ropes around a bollard.

For a flat bottomed boat that would imply a draught when empty of less than 2" and only about 6" fully laden. For Swiftsure to have a draft of 2 ft (presumably when laden with 80 passengers) the hull must be very fine round or V bilged form.

I know some ex working boats have had weed hatches added. But if you have a fitted out back cabin access would be an absolute pain. Much easier to use a short shaft from the bank (and accept that very occasionally you might have to get in). It's completely different from a cruiser or semitrad stern where you can just lift the deck boards for access.

As posted 22 hours ago. "The original bridge was built in the 1860s and was converted into a sliding bridge in 1925." So how did it open between the 1860s and 1925?

Given the cost of a road move, is it worth reconsidering leaving the boat at Great Haywood for a few months, then taking it up north once we've had some rain?

So much spare water on the Wolverhampton Level that CRT are introducing restrictions on the Wolverhampton 21... (Beaten by b^5 - should have read to the end of the thread before posting)

Boats have a legal right of way, but that doesn't mean the bridge has to be opened on demand. It would probably take a court case to determine just how long the bridge can legally continue to be closed before a boat has to be let through. And given the relative levels and purpose of use by boats and trains, I can't see a court being too supportive of the navigation interest.

You can probably find a woodworker somewhere who can turn one on a lathe, but the size you are looking at would be too big for most hobby lathes. It would be easier to glue suitable pieces of wood together, rough cut the outer circular shape with a bandsaw or jigsaw, then use a router with a circle cutting jig to trim the outside (including an edge moulding if you wish), then use the router and jig again to cut successively deeper cuts on the inner radius until you have cut all the way through. Plenty of tutorials on YouTube on how to make and use a suitable jig. Or if your DIY skills are at a lesser level, just cut a disc out of plywood and sand the cut edges.

Yes it could damage the part of the cill facing into the lock chamber. But many locks have (or in some cases had) a loose timber beam held on by chains provided specifically as a bump board to absorb the energy from an entering boat. These were designed to be replaced from time to time, but I'm not sure CRT bother these days. But a boat bumping or riding the cill in this way does not affect the timber beam against which the top gate(s) seals - that is further upstream and the sealing face faces the other way.

It also provides the opportunity for the staff who lock up at the end of the permitted hours to ensure that all gates and paddles are closed, so there is less chance of water being lost overnight through open (or part open) gates and paddles.

They did this when the T&M breached at Dutton, just after CRT was formed. Raised £25k towards the £2.1m cost of the repair.

Depends whether your '30 years ago' was before or after the 1995 Act came into force. The rules haven't changed in that time, although the number of boats pushing the boundaries of what the rules allow has, and with that the level of monitoring and enforcement has increased.