Iain_S

My bold.

Moored at Barlaston the night before last. There are numerous, albeit small, bins around the canal side pub car park. Walking across the bridge to the shop, I passed at least four. There were also half a dozen bin bags full of assorted rubbish left stacked against the wall of the pub car park. I really can't see how they could have been left by anyone other than boaters. Would the bags have been left if there hadn't been bins nearby?

And good luck from me. I've got to say that of the "Moore" and "CaRT/Shoosmith" arguments, the "Moore" one is the one which is self consistent, doesn't contradict other legislation, and doesn't require a re-write of English dictionaries to make its case. I only hope the judge agrees!

If there's red in the system, don't add blue. They don't like each other, and can form a jelly like substance. Red is long life, 10 year instead of 2.

"Place", even in (i), can have varying meanings, which could be refined by adjectives. It could mean a specific boat length of pontoon or bank, or could be a wider area, such as an entire marina. (The boat has a mooring, but the marina owner reserves the right to shuffle boats around). It is conceivable that it could cover even more ground in the context of mooring, especially if the mooring was an arrangement between the boat owner and local waterways management. I do, however, agree with the judge! "Main navigable channel", however, is a noun further defined by two adjectives, "Main" implies that here are other channels, and, also, other navigable channels. "Navigable" means that a boat can float and move on it. If the "main navigable channel" extends from bank to bank, it is no longer "main", as it is the only one, but I suppose it could still be described "navigable" if a boat could pick its way through, avoiding the shallow bits The easiest way to make sense of the phrase is to give it the same meaning in the Waterways Act 1971 and Transport Act 1968. I see that Shoosmith's construe Section 43(2) of the Transport Act 1962 as protecting rights of free navigation. Are they saying that the Waterways Act 1971 repealed them?

So CaRT have a legal duty to maintain the entire width of the river to a depth which would allow a vessel to navigate? i.e. go aground in the Trent, and CaRT are liable?? There is no public right of navigation on rivers controlled by CaRT, and therefore no distinction between River Registration and Licencing (apart from cost)?? Aye, right! (And why not call it a River Licence, then? Oh, hang on ....) Haven't studied it deeply, so these are just the obvious bits that come to mind. (and didn't get asked for $8.99 either )

Total agreement from me there. In fact, I'd probably go further and cut some highly paid posts. Agreed, although it would help if the top management contained more than one person with canal experience. I believe the Lowland Canal Association was described as a "bunch of troublemakers" by one of S.C.'s top brass, so they must be doing something right! (LCA, not SC!)

It has the drawback of loseable parts, though! I agree it's not rocket science to use it, but that attitude doesn't seem to be shared by Scottish Canals, who believe I, for one, am incapable of operating it without practice . The adjustment relies on knowing the number of boat movements a year in advance! If the number of seasonals in based on boat movements in the previous year, compromises have to be made on busy days. (As Tuesday to Thursday Locks 21 - 38! ) I agree, and CaRT are in the same position. Many of the taxpayers gain benefit from the canals by walking, cycling, increased trade, etc.

Leamington could easily be made more user friendly by replacing the current keys arrangement with magnetic locks and detectors as is commonly done on bridges "down south". It can only be operated by SOME users outwith hours. Despite doing the course, I lost my authorisation to operate it, as I didn't work it 4 times in a year. (As I was normally skippering, I was on the boat ) If the commercial company is/was Capercaillie, my impression is that they are very much against user operation. If it is/was ReUnion, there is a bridge operator in the crew, if required. Many cruise holiday boaters in England meet their first lock on their first boating holiday, and seem to manage OK. I would agree that the F&C locks have their peculiarities, though, and it would probably be best to leave assisted passage as an option. I don't understand the bit about S.C.'s five year financial plan. When there is no user operation, required numbers will vary considerably from no boat movements, to 16-3, plus 3-16, plus 20-17 and 17-20, i.e. 3 teams simultaneously. Easier if at least some of the boaters can be left to get on with it! The plan must be easier without the varying demands of lock operating.

Yes, but that would not allow user operation, unless the users are allowed to operate drop locks. I appreciate the problems, and that in some cases user operation may not be possible, but there are some candidates where it could be done. Leamington is a prime example, as is the bascule bridge at Applecross Street. Similar problems and concerns to those at Bonnybridge have been tackled successfully elsewhere, with restricted times for operation included in the control system.

I don't see Dalmuir going to user operation!

Possibly snag there is Bonnybridge? If you have to contact S.C. 48 hours in advance, anyway, you might as well ask for assistance with the locks at the same time ...

When you say header tank, do you mean the heat exchanger or a separate header tank? Has it always done it, or is this a new development? Do you have a skin cooling tank? If so, it might be worth bleeding it. One boat I had intimate dealings with had a similar problem : the "natural level" in the heat exchanger was low enough to allow a small amount of air to get into the top hose, and from there to the skin tank, where it stayed, to expand next time the engine was run, expelling more water from the overflow, and allowing more air into the skin tank. Eventual cure was a flat cap on the heat exchanger and a remote header tank, to give a bit more water and expansion capacity. We also had an overflow bottle on the header tank, but that was only required because of the comparatively massive thickness and volume of the skin tank.

That statement is debatable, but we've done it before, and there seems little point in doing it again

But in the case of a rented out boat, it becomes a lot simpler : the "Board" can refuse to be satisfied that a licence applicant who rents out the boat can ensure that it does not remain in one place for more than 14 days, let alone be used bona fide for navigation. I suspect that few boats occupying the "rented sector" would be able to satisfy the requirements for the new licence, and that the real aim is to remove, or at least drastically reduce the numbers of, boats which are rented out as accommodation.