john6767

I think the lack of road access will constrain the price that this will sell for.

I think it does, that is what I was playing with. Make your query and then hit the ">>" by Next, you then see the number of pages of results. As a quick approximation multiply that count by 20 (assuming you have the default 20 results per page), it you want it more accurate, multiple the count-1 by 20 and add the number on the last page. That appears to work, although clearly you are abstracted somewhat from doing a real query on the database.

Not heard the term "apparent staircase" before, and a google search only seems to come up with that exact same wording in different locations, is that a general term or just something someone made up on Wikipedia and has been copied?

Thanks for that, perhaps that is it. I will maybe dig a bit more, I was only wanting 3 nights to go watch the rugby with is over 2 days at Ibrox.

Or to provide the only volume of water, such as at Bratch and the one on Stourbridge. It does seem that the Foxton case neither fits with "side pond" or "side pound" in it's normal usage context.

If you look at how many members there are who have posted in the last 6 months, I make it 1975, the number who have logged in in the last 6 months 2850. So the number logging in is not a massive percentage of the total, and I would bet if you required re-registration if you have not posted for 6 months then a very large number of that 15000 would disappear. Interestingly if you qualify those figure to only count users who have made 5 or more posts (in total) the numbers are 1500 and 1656 respectively, ie much closer together. So you could argue* that perhaps the 1656 number more accurately reflects active users. * you can make the numbers say whatever you want really....

Looking at those figures, and assuming you just want one headline figure, I would agree that "5000 active members" would feel about right. That should cover active posters and active viewers. I think the number of posts per day figure is also one worthy of quoting as well,.

Is there actually availability of boat hire. I was looking for a hotel for during the commonwealth games period and it all seems to be booked up, which is not surprising I guess.

Daniel, I think direct image upload would help a lot of people, but what are the cost implications of hosting images. I would hate to see the site have to take on advertising for example to fund this.

Yes I have read that, but that reasoning there is about protecting the income of marinas and not competing, by allowing people to give up a marina mooring in the winter and taking up a winter permit. That is not what I am saying, why should you not be able to take out a winter mooring permit, in addition to having a home mooring if I want to. That is not impacting marina businesses income.

Yes, but the question was why not it you want one.

If they want to stop people giving up a marina mooring to take one of these permits up, then I would agree that is to protect marina businesses, but why can someone with a home mooring not take out a winter mooring permit as well if they choose to do so.

I would say not. Foxton and Watford work on a different principle to other staircases, the actual lock chambers are not directly connected to each other at all, they are only connected to the "side ponds"/"side pounds" whatever you call them, and all the water goes via them, hence the "red before white" approach with the paddles. I really like the design, and I think it avoids the issue with normal staircases wasting a lock full of water, but no doubt I will be corrected if that is not the case!

Driotwich, although one of the 3 was out of action earlier in the year.

This is another case of a badly written communication, similar to the one with the new mooring rules to Stoke Bruerne/Foxton etc. To me, the main message that it sends is the lack of importance that CRT attaches to public communication.

Actually there is nothing to say that Braunston will not be one of the areas where visitor moorings will be available for winter mooring use, they only give Llangollen and Ellesmere as examples, and of course Ellesmere has a marina in the town too. So to the ones who are not happy with this scheme, could they collaborate on what the issues are.

The exclusion zone adds an interesting twist, but I guess 1km is not really very far, and most places on the system don't have as many marinas as the Braunston area. The key really is that this is a permit to stay for the purchased period in one location (or multiple locations if you choose to) rather than for a single location dedicated to winter mooring. Edited to add, some of the stretch on the Oxford at Braunston that has previously been used for winter mooring is more than 1km from the marina anyway.

But am I right that this is how it will work this year? I would assume its is not relevant if a given marina has space or not?

I have just read the CRT page on this, and at first reading this all seems very reasonable, and provides a lot of flexibility. So I don't know if I really understand what the issues are, but perhaps the following is the main one? Using Braunston as an example, in previous years some/much of the visitor moorings have been used a winter mooring, and they are permanently signed as such on the towpath signs with date this dates. In addition part of the towpath on the Oxford (which I don't think is signed as visitor mooring) was set aside for winter mooring. With this year scheme this will no longer happen, as with a few exceptions there will not be dedicated sites, just a permit to stop in one place for the period purchased (this I guess is the main crux of this years scheme?). However you will not be allowed to stop under the permit with 1km of a marina, so in Braunston's case as there is a marina there, you have to go 1km on either the GU or Oxford out of Braunston. Is this the issue, meaning that if you want to say somewhere like Braunston you would have to take up a winter mooring in the marina, as there will be no online wither moorings available there. Is this what the issue is? So

The winter stoppage map shows "Lock 3, Smethwick to Pope Bridge 10/02/2014 to 08/03/2014". Looking on canalplan Lock 3 is the bottom lock, and Pope bridge is the road bridge at the tail of that lock, was that what you saw.

We came through Foxton on Saturday, but we did not stop there, we went straight up the locks and moored out of the "zone" beyond the bridge at the top. We could not have stopped at the bottom had we wanted to as the moorings were full, not least because there were 4 CRT work boats moored on the 2 day moorings taking up around half the available space. They really should be asking everyone who went through at least, then we could say why we did not stop there. I must say all the signs make it look very tacky.

I would not have thought anyone got paid for lunch breaks, but probably someone will come and say that they do.

Yes.

The arrow points UP (ie. the top of the lock), picture it as a pair of lock gates!