sebrof

If you have the space, you could always fit a day tank, and dispense with the fuel pump. Gravity has proven to be very reliable over the years.

My reply to you was a bit OTT, Cap'n. Apologies.

I didn't say it wasn't reasonable, but it IS an assumption.

Have to say, I don't watch telly while on the loo, and I can't reach the fridge. But for those who do, and can, new batteries must be a blessing.

But you ARE assuming, when you say 2amps at 240V requires 25amps at 24V. You are assuming a loss of 20% in the inverter. May be right, may be wrong, but it is an assumption.

I have 2 Victron 50s. On shore power, with discharged batteries, I turn on both. Using the Honda, I turn on one. Two 50s are cheaper than one 100, believe it or not.

Oh dear. First, BA's ownership is not relevant. You mentioned it to appear "clever". You'd have seemed more clever if you had kept quiet. Second, IAG is the holding company formed when BA merged with Iberia, and shareholders in BA received shares in IAG. BA is the larger part of IAG, and the BA CEO became CEO of the new holding company. So to say dismissively that BA is "just part of another group" is misleading. Nothing new there, of course. Is it just me, or is there just a scintilla of a whiff of a hint of a suspicion of a possibility of a MASSIVE inconsistency between these two statements? Somewhere, there is a circus with a job for you. Colourful uniform provided, including red nose and large shoes.

No, and virtually unique is OK, too, in some circumstances. It's comparatives which don't work, such as "very unique".

Try telling that to BA. I'm not saying privatisation will work, in any meaningful sense. I am saying it is the almost inevitable conclusion of this sorry tale. The simple fact is that the figures don't stack up, and if Robin Evans and his colleagues were worth their salt they would have threatened to resign until more money was put on the table. As it is, it looks to me as though they are going along with a plan that can't and won't work, and will milk the situation for as long as they can. And at the end, big transfers will be made into their pension pots. I am not normally so cynical, but it's difficult to see this from any other angle. ETA to add "almost".

Try boiling a couple of kettles to get hot water, or maybe a large pan. Much better than running the engine. ETA: Chertsey, I have a bad habit of ......... I see you have already suggested a kettle.

You may not be a grammar whore, but you do use paragraphs and capital letters, and that's 90% of the battle. And it's invariably the omission of those two that causes me to go "anal"!

Do you know, I don't think I have ever read a sensible post from you? Not one. I'm not saying that there haven't been any, but your batting average is pretty low. The reason I requested Bux to write properly, was so that people would read her posts. If people can't be bothered to write clearly, other people often won't take the trouble to read what was written. Result? The poster doesn't get as many useful replies as they might otherwise have done. Comprende, senor? ETA: Chertsey, I have a bad habit of responding to posts immediately, without reading on and seeing what others have said. Upon reflection, I should have said why I made my request to Bux, so thank you for rectifying my omission.

Try BA. And non-transport privatisations have often worked reasonably well. Did you ever try to have a phone installed pre-privatisation? The privatisation that has been least successful is certainly the railways, and that is largely because the Tories deliberately made it too complicated for Labour to be able to re-nationalise it. I would much prefer the canals to remain in quasi-government ownership, but, barring a miracle, that is not going to happen. The charity is clearly under-funded, so I think it will inevitably fail, leading to the piecemeal selling off of the assets. Privatisation by default, in other words.

Earlier, you wrote: "fuel sold in cans is either stolen, contaminated, or both." Perhaps an apology is in order.

At last. A sensible post on this crucial matter. The problem is that the charity will allow government to wash its hands of the canal network and (almost) all the costs that go with it. Since I fear that the trustees will be unable to wring more money out of the government, we should start to look at privatisation (which will inevitably follow when the charity goes bust, so better to bring it forward before the network dies from a thousand cuts).

Yes, many people would agree that being able to predict (and therefore prevent) the imminent failure of an aircraft engine would be useful. On a canal boat, there is slightly less at stake. Looks good.

Thanks, I'll think about this. At the moment, though, I am delighted to have a BT again. Although I am now quite adept at mooring in tight spaces in a strong current, there is nothing like a BT to help you make a tight turn. BTW, I shifted all the junk out of the way today, and had a look at the BT itself. On top it has a pair of very meaty-looking contactors made by - you guessed it - Albright.

Screwfix £38.00, including shower head and pipe. Works fine. For the walls, I used Hygienic Panels from Just Plastics. Much easier to fit than tiling, much easier to keep clean, cheaper, and less likely to leak in future. Just Plastics

In London, gas is nearer £30 per bottle, and diesel much more than a pound if used for propulsion. Boat economics are rather different from house economics, and costs can be much higher if more than basic maintenance is required. Hence the importance of a thorough survey. And if you view a boat as a cheap alternative to owning a house, you will be disappointed (renting is a different matter). There are much better reasons to live on a boat than saving money. You will find it easier and more pleasant and not necessarily hugely more expensive (if your boat is well insulated) to heat electrically if you are on the mains. Coal is dirty stuff, and diesel can be smelly. If you're ever in West London you are welcome to view my boat, which is a barge, and in my view it has several advantages over a WBNB (it will still manage the broad canals). Mine is a bit of a floating building site at present, but that should prompt a few questions. With a barge, you also have the option of exploring the Medway, the Essex rivers and creeks, and popping over to France. So the cruising ground is not as restricted as the Narrow-boatists would have you believe. It's not just the beam that is broader, it is the horizons too. Whilst I accept that you CAN cross the Channel in a NB (or even a WBNB), it is not the craft of choice. That said, there are many absolutely delightful small canals, and I am glad I have done a bit of NB hiring in the past. Good luck.

The question was would boats be impounded. The answer is no. That is a big relief but it doesn't mean there are no other problems.

Indeed. Why not go the whole hog, GD, and get rid of the stove altogether? Unless your boat is a houseboat, permanently attached to the mains, there is just no practical substitute for gas, unless you are happy to live on cold baked beans.

Has it come to that? Poor dears. Times must be hard.