Froschkörper

Yes. My lungs also ceased operation at the same time. It is commonly known as a cardiac arrest and is not to be recommended.

I agree, please accept my apologies, I haven't locked in there since 1960 and did not know that it had shrunk. Out of interest, the moulded breadth of the second BLISWORTH was 33 feet - 10 inches. At 1031 tons g.r. she was easily the largest vessel owned by the Grand Union Company.

I think it might be harder than Limehouse, arguably, because the target is only 14' or so wide- compared to Limehouse, which I believe is wider. The river lock at Limehouse AKA Regents Canal Dock is most certainly wider. The largest craft in the Grand Union (Shipping) Company fleet which used it on a regular basis was their second 'BLISWORTH', 1957, of 1031 tons.

Never having had anything more luxurious than a "Guidwife" stove in a tiny cabin, I was intrigued by this topic and looked up the Lockgate's advertisment on the internet. I was surprised to read that the makers apparently are unsure of the materials which they use when constructing these devices. The advert for their 2062 series quite clearly states "CONSTRUCTED ENTIRELY OF STAINLESS STEEL FOR LONG LIFE" etc. Further down under Lockgate-Refleks 2062 Series Features, it also clearly states "STAINLESS STEEL, BRASS OR COPPER (SOLID METAL FINISH - NOT COATING)" and "CAST IRON HOTPLATE ON MK VERSION". As a stove is an item to help create comfort the choice of which also involves some reasonable safety aspects, is it not reasonable also to view any of the features claimed by the makers, including 'how to light it safely' with some degree of scepticism ? I may not have taken English at university, but I am farly confident that I understand the meaning of the word 'ENTIRELY'.

100 miles equated to time at latitude n 51.5 (London) is approximately 5hrs 52mins, what is your point ? If you refer to my original comment it is obvious that I was a merchant seaman reflecting on my observations on how commercial narrowboats were safely moored alongside for working cargo. The canals which I worked on are a non-sequitur as they were ones like the Manchester Ship Canal, the Keil Canal, the Amsterdam-Yjmuiden Canal etc. and I assure you that 10 knots was a normal speed in all of these locations and we didn't cause accidents.

Many things have changed since the 1950s, but to the best of my knowledge, the Laws of Physics and in particular the Laws of Hydrodynamics are still the same.

Sorry, but height is not important. In the 1950s, ships which I served on frequently offloaded cargoes of spelter in Regent's Canal Dock from narrowboats using the ships derricks. Mooring lines and springs were always set and the height difference between a fully loaded narrowboat and the mooring positions on the foc'sle or aftercastle of the ship in ballast was commonly around 15 feet. Because of the potential danger to the stevedores handling heavy compact pallets of spelter, tautly set springs were essential. There was often a lot of tug or sea-going vessel's movements in the dock as well as considerable movement of water, both from the use of the locks to the canal and to the river, compared with which the disturbance due to a passing pleasure boat on a canal would be insignificant. I do not recall knowing of any accidents attributable to movement due to slack or incorrectly applied moorings. God looks after those who look after themselves. Moor up properly and stop wingeing about the occasional passing craft.

Thousands of professional seamen for decades must have got the correct techniques of mooring up. A vessel ranging against the quayside is a potential life-threatening hazard to stevedores in the holds when working cargo with shore-side cranes. Ships are tied up using forward and stern lines and forward and aft springs. The lines hold the vessel against the quay and the springs being parallel to the ship's side prevent her from ranging. If the technique works for a merchantman it will certainly work for a small pleasure craft. It's all common sense really.