Jump to content

March of the Widebeams


cuthound

Featured Posts

31 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

By-Law No3

 

As to Vessels to be used on Canals
Fitness of Vessels
3. No person shall bring use or leave in any canal any vessel which
is not in every respect fit for navigation on the canal or part
thereof where it is intended to be used.

 

I think forcing C&RT to implement the by-laws may have unthought of consequences.

(Stone and glass houses come to mind)

 

I wonder how many boats & boaters actually comply with the requirements ?

Implementing that one could be fun and a lot of court cases, its even more contestable than the "bone fide" navigation rule. Lots of crap on the roof certainly renders a boat unfit for navigation, as do many big solar panel installations. But can we also include visual suitability? The canals are a piece of history and so all those boats with cartoon ducks and frogs on the side are not really suitable......and with the ongoing build up of silt and inadequate dredging those old working boats are certainly unsuitable...look at all the trouble they caused on the Rochdale.

 

...............Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Chris Williams said:

Aren't you lucky!  Horrible things.  The steerer can only see straight in front of him/her.  No idea what the stern is doing.  Keep well clear.

NIce space for the children to sit on at the stern, and fall in well out of the steerer's view. That scenario often gave me the eebie-jeebies....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

NIce space for the children to sit on at the stern, and fall in well out of the steerer's view. That scenario often gave me the eebie-jeebies....

Yes, I forgot that one.  Especially on the Thames, saw kids playing, no adults and no lifejackets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

NIce space for the children to sit on at the stern, and fall in well out of the steerer's view. That scenario often gave me the eebie-jeebies....

Yes because you hear lots of tales of herds of children lost off the back of boats on the Broads. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

By-Law No3

 

As to Vessels to be used on Canals
Fitness of Vessels
3. No person shall bring use or leave in any canal any vessel which
is not in every respect fit for navigation on the canal or part
thereof where it is intended to be used.

 

I think forcing C&RT to implement the by-laws may have unthought of consequences.

(Stone and glass houses come to mind)

 

I wonder how many boats & boaters actually comply with the requirements ?

As it's only going round the loop and back to its mooring -- and appears to do so without an issue -- they'd probably argue that it is fit for navigation on the part of canal it's intended for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

If you are talking about the forum search function - forget it.

 

I struggle to even find the 'button' and when I do it never seems to provide what you ask for.

Hopeless !

I was trying to find Rusty's rubber cat suit but failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

NIce space for the children to sit on at the stern, and fall in well out of the steerer's view. That scenario often gave me the eebie-jeebies....

Unfortunately I saw just that in 1975, son fell ff mum screamed dad hit reverse. result one son with huge gashes in his leg and a red river. The ambulance did get there quick but I don't know what happened to the poor lad.  Since then I have refered to propellers as mincing machines, and hate seeing anyone on a boat roof or hanging on the side, one slip and unless there is a miracle they are going to get badly hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

If you are talking about the forum search function - forget it.

 

I struggle to even find the 'button' and when I do it never seems to provide what you ask for.

Hopeless !

??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Detling said:

Unfortunately I saw just that in 1975, son fell ff mum screamed dad hit reverse. result one son with huge gashes in his leg and a red river. 

Blimey. Rule one if anyone falls in must be "Put it in neutral!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Detling said:

Unfortunately I saw just that in 1975, son fell ff mum screamed dad hit reverse. result one son with huge gashes in his leg and a red river. The ambulance did get there quick but I don't know what happened to the poor lad.  Since then I have refered to propellers as mincing machines, and hate seeing anyone on a boat roof or hanging on the side, one slip and unless there is a miracle they are going to get badly hurt.

And we all know what happened when the guy fell off the back in Harecastle tunnel when it was suggested that his wife reversed back to look for him, them went forward, then reversed again ……………..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Athy said:

Blimey. Rule one if anyone falls in must be "Put it in neutral!"

I've always gone with "kill the engine" rather than neutral as a lot of props still turn slowly in neutral (admittedly it seems there isn't a great deal of force)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jess-- said:

I've always gone with "kill the engine" rather than neutral as a lot of props still turn slowly in neutral (admittedly it seems there isn't a great deal of force)

Yes, same idea but your point is a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, adam1uk said:

As it's only going round the loop and back to its mooring -- and appears to do so without an issue -- they'd probably argue that it is fit for navigation on the part of canal it's intended for.

Apart from any issues with encountering it coming the other way (and it is VERY fat and badly driven) it gives a clear indication that the developers haven’t a clue  about the history and heritage they are developing their project around. Why not just use a narrowboat? I can hardly imagine they will be taking more than a few punters at any one time. It’s just irritatingly stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Apart from any issues with encountering it coming the other way (and it is VERY fat and badly driven) it gives a clear indication that the developers haven’t a clue  about the history and heritage they are developing their project around. Why not just use a narrowboat? I can hardly imagine they will be taking more than a few punters at any one time. It’s just irritatingly stupid.

I don't suppose the developers give a shine about the heritage of the canals but that big green ugly monster of a boat sicks out like a sore thumb and get's them the attention that they crave. If they used a narrowboat even painted with the same garish colour scheme I don't think it would be quite as attention grabbing, which is probably the bigger deal than how many people they can fit onto the boat its self. 

 

Edited by Tumshie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.