Canal World

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


WJM last won the day on October 9 2014

WJM had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

93 Neutral


About WJM

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

14,042 profile views
  1. Based on the annual figures that would indicate that the lift is empty and idle Monday to Friday. Not exactly a loss of a navigation.
  2. Averaging half a boat per day, I feel confident that they will be able to maintain throughput at current levels if the capacity is slashed from the current maximum of 80 boats per day to a mere 40!
  3. 4 minutes per half rotation - lets say 10 minutes either side for unloading/loading, 24 minutes for the complete cycle (generous?). There is therefor the potential for 20 rotations per basic eight-hour day. I cant find any actual usage figures but I bet is is significantly less than 20 lifts per day.
  4. How does removing 50% of the boat capacity reduce 'availability' by 75%? (This is a balanced system where both caissons move - one up, one down) If they are going to be rotating the device much more (to carry the foot passengers in the dry caisson) then a greater supply of wet caisson movements will be automatically created - boat capacity goes up?
  5. How many times CAN the wheel be rotated per day? And how many times IS IT rotated per day? Divide one by the other and you will get the actual usage of the facility - and I bet it isn't even close to 10%
  6. Closed to Navigation: Repurposing one caisson wont make any meaningful difference to the operation of a facility that is used at a fraction of it's capacity. This surely a non-story!
  7. You get a settlement figure from the lender. You advise your buyer that the asset is currently encumbered but will be clear at the time of sale. Then on the day of sale you clear the HP (you may briefly need bridging finance), the HP lender releases the asset - and you sell. And you pocket the remaining residual.
  8. It works believe me. It all happens simultaneously.
  9. The simple way to control the risk with HP is to spot the problem coming. Sell the asset yourself before your relationship with the lender hits the buffers, repay the settlement figure and keep what is left. Leave it too late and you loose the lot.
  10. An HP agreement isn't 'secured' in the traditional sense like a mortgage. But the lender is in full control of the asset until the final contract and 'Option Fee' is paid. I suspect that a lot of borrowers fail to read and understand the contract they signed and then rail at their perceived injustice when the lender exercises the rights that they gave them.
  11. HP (Hire Purchase) is a very common way of financing strong assets like this with high residual values. With HP the ownership passes from the lender to the 'Hirer' with the final payment. Even if a borrower has made 35 of the 36 repayments the full ownership remains with the lender. That is how it is, that is what was wrtiiten clearly on the agreement signed at the beginning.
  12. Spot on - it is a dispute between the administrator/liquidator (who probably owns the boats) and the former company owner (who probably thinks he owns the boats but doesn't).
  13. Looks to me like the liquidator/administrator is simply selling off the assets. Not a crime!
  14. Very nice!
  15. have