David Mack

"Low water levels after heatwaves and drought are limiting shipping on some of Europe’s biggest rivers including the Rhine and the Danube and pushing up transport costs." https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/07/low-water-levels-shipping-europe-rivers-heatwave-rhine

I've just looked them up for a trip in the opposite direction. Restricted hours at Wolverhampton 21 and top half of Hatton. Knowle to Camp Hill is closed but the North Stratford route is unaffected.

In which case none of the rest of us would know about the settlement, and so the perception that they didn't pay out would still be out there. But that would be more work and legal costs for your insurer, with no certainty of getting the money out of the boat owner. Far easier for them just to pay out and then load your premium/dock your NCB when renewal comes up. And how do lead acid batteries fare under those scenarios?

According to the notice at https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices/01969048-1f3e-7b39-8121-871bb6ffd0f9 there is an 'Ongoing' issue with a blocked paddle culvert at Pigeon's Lock on the Oxford Canal. The notice doesn't say whether the canal is closed or not, and the notice was due for an update on 30 May. Does anyone know if the canal is passable here?

Can't you arrange with those who will follow you to do a handover wherever the boat happens to be, so that you can both make the most of whatever waters are open at the time?

It might also be the case in MP's example that the insurance company didn't want to pay out a large number of individually smallish claims for reblacking, which nevertheless could be significant in total cost terms, not least because the admin cost of numerous claimants would be disproportionate. And done in the knowledge that it wouldn't be worth any individual owner pursuing the matter through legal channels, notwithstanding that they might have a valid basis of claim.

And how do you know who might be listening in to your phone conversation as you read out your card details to all within earshot? And how do you know the minimum-waged call centre employee isn't writing those details down to sell on to his dodgy mate?

Unfortunately it isn't just Mr BB. The insurance companies and the standards bodies seem to be lumping all Lithium technologies into the same risk category. And that can only lead to, on the one hand a reduction in the move towards a better and safe technology, and on the other hand, denied insurance payouts to people who have adopted a safe Lithium chemistry.

Just to add to my previous comments, that connecting the start and domestic batteries directly (whether by VSR or 1-2-both-off switch) should only be done if both are lead acid batteries. If you are using lithium domestics then you should use a b2b to connect them. People do connect them directly, often using the 'long wire' method to limit the charge current, but this is contrary to all the latest guidance and emerging standards.

What is that 3 terminal isolator? Not a 1-2-both-off switch I hope. That's a sure fire way to ensure that sooner or later you will leave the switch in the wrong position and fail to charge the start battery. I would fit a voltage sensitive relay between the two batteries so that both will charge when any of the charging sources is active together with on-off isolator to each battery which would disconnect everything except the solar and VSR. Use quality isolators, not the cheap red key things which are known to be unreliable.

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.