magnetman

Just out of interest the Minn Kota propellers are very very good at cutting up weed. It is remarkable how effective they are. If it is Herts then it is River Lea or Stort neither of which I have been on but if you can get to the Thames you could do worse than Hurley as suggested. Or Cookham. Launch at the Ferry pub by Cookham Bridge. Free public slipway. Not that I am biased but the Cookham to Marlow reach is the jewel of the Thames.

True. When I bought the Boat which had only 12v aboard and square pin sockets I did think it would not be a problem. However I added a small generator and had an extension lead which came into the saloon area for power tools and things. It was accidentally plugging the 12v radio into this which caused the problem. If the vessel definitely has no mains electric and will never have any then the square pin plug 12v thing could work unless an appliance is then taken to somewhere which does have mains electric and plugged in there. For example another Boat.

If you don't know what the ends look like then surely you still have a part which needs to be removed. I think set screws have a cap of some sort and won't go right through a thread. A hex head, socket cap, socket button, torx etc which is of larger diameter than the threaded part. Whereas a grub screw would goe right through the hole and out the other side as the socket is inside not on a cap.

If people genuinely can't afford it then go to the Job Centre apply for Universal Credit then send them proof of your housing costs (Boat licence or mooring) split it into 12 parts and you will get monthly payments to cover it. This is a fact not conjecture. If by 'can not afford it' you mean someone has a house somewhere which they are renting out and an increase in licence cost would be a problem then sell the Boat and go back to the house. Universal Credit will pay housing costs for people who are eligible and need it. This includes cruising licence and / or mooring costs up to the local housing allowance. That is how it works. You can even apply online for this.

I think there could be some merit in making it awkward to lift the generator. I'm thinking of a length of rolled channel section steel bolted across onto the gunnels just inside of the cratch. This piece to have some sort of plate welded onto it which prevents the generator from being removed unless the security bar is unbolted. If the bolts are hidden it may not be that easy to work out how to get it off. Chains are too easy to cut. A restraint which simply looks confusing could be a deterrent.

Problem solved ! It is possible that existence of Boats in the first place is the basic issue which needs to be addressed. Maybe we should have kept Sunak. Just put hugely punitive tax on anyone who owns a Boat. Any sort of Boat. No mercy. Ten grand from every one of the blighters. Maybe this geyser knew what to do

Exactly. If the canal was drained except for a narrow stream the cyclists could have the whole towpath and the walkers could use the canal bed. Then there would be less user conflict. Obviously entry and exit points would need work. The cyclist problem is going to persist and they will demand more land over time. This is kind of inevitable as it is probable cycling will be encouraged by greenwash policies. It makes sense in some ways to bury the cyclists in tunnels but it's complicated and expensive.

As others have said the basic problem is there is a 12v appliance with a normal household type mains plug on it. I actually had this setup on my second narrow and did in fact plug a 12v device (radio) into a mains socket accidentally. I just remember a bang and magic smoke so no harm done but the risk is there. A 12v electric kettle would be a typical thing to get wrong because kettles are usually run on mains electric. Personally I would remove these 12V square pin sockets (how does the user know they are 12v?) and replace with the 5A round pin type.

It is interesting to think of a canal as a land parcel. What would be more useful for the population in general: 1. A canal which needs money spending on it and is available for those who can afford or want to live on a Boat at low cost. 2. A cycle way, a managed stream and a wild footpath the other side of it. PIcnic areas at derelict lock sites. Locks used as weirs to maintain the natural watercourse and provide drainage. Nature's adventure playground without the danger of mature trees. It's not implausible that more people from the local population would access and find No.2 useful than No.1. The canal itself does take up quite a considerable amount of land. There is some exclusivity regarding access to this land (water). If the water was not there and the land made into public access land I think a lot more people would be using it. The thing is that cycle lanes on existing towpaths are unsatisfactory because it is a mixed use path which is not wide enough. If the cycle lane could be segregated properly it could work as a proper transport route and the amenity of a pleasant footpath would be an additional benefit. People who just want to use the area as a local park would have the canal bed as their access land. Obviously this is a canal forum so the idea of dereliction is not nice but being realistic something like this will happen at least in some areas.

It would be ideal as far as I can see if all vessels were moored alongside the canal and moorings + licence fees went directly to the CRT. Never compare Boats with road vehicles. This way the money that 'someone is willing to pay to keep a Boat for use on canals' would all go to the navigation authority. It doesn't make sense to allow private operators to profit from underfunded canals. Perhaps the next move should be to break up and sell off the network to private owners.

OK How much do you pay to the CRT? How much do you pay to the marina owners? I would hazard a guess that you pay more to the marina but they are not giving you access to hundreds of miles of waterways. In fact their business is relying on others paying to provide this. If there was no canal connection they would just have a pond. I find it odd when people complain how much the cruising licence is. If I am a licence payer with a CRT mooring all of my payments go to the Trust. So I would be subsidising your marina providers profits. A marina does not have hundreds of locks to maintain. The NAA should be far more than 12 percent. It should be as high as possible. There should not be a situation where someone is getting rich based on an underfunded canal network that their business relies on. That is the wrong thing to be happening. Its like when people on the River moan about not enough lock keepers because they pay £8k a year to keep a Boat. £1k of that is the Thames registration fee the other £7k is marina fees. TALK TO YOUR MARINA OWNER AND SEE IF THEY WANT TO HELP FUND THE CANALS. Or are they just parasites. (I know the answer)

It would not be the poorest because they are able to claim benefits to pay for moorings or licences. It would be the middle group who can just about afford the life on a Boat while behaving a way, for example by having savings, which makes them ineligible for Universal Credit housing payments. So what you would get if the CRT were to maximise revenue would be DSS claimants and people with enough money to pay for expensive moorings or licences. Very much like residential areas off inner London. Vastly expensive terraced houses and modern apartments alongside state owned estates paid for by the government.