Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/10/17 in all areas

  1. The Narrow Boat programme was funded by BBC East Midlands and was part of the work of the "Inside out" team. They had loads of information and only used a small part in the programme, it wouldn't surprise me if a more lengthy programme is produced at a later date. Their interest in Harefield was good too and comments were passed that this in itself could form a programme basis. In all for its 30 minute slot I thought it was well edited and presented with the majority of facts correct, indeed they went to some length to ensure facts were true and not heresay.
    2 points
  2. I'd have thought MDF and ply could be relied on to do that by itself.
    2 points
  3. From what I have seen the IWA are briefing a great deal against live aboard boaters, at least where it relates to the South East and particularly the London area. In doing this they purport to be speaking for other boaters who are not live aboard, of course. I'm not a full time live aboard, nor ever likely to be close to being one, but I do not find any stance that seeks to divide boaters into different camps, and hence divide them to be in any way helpful. There is plenty all boaters need to be concerned about in terms of our canals, how CRT manage them, and particularity how important CRT actually choose to make boating as part of their total remit. What is needed, in my view, is for us all to try and understand each others position, and to try wherever possible to be putting as united a front as we can to CRT, (although I realise this is often far from straightforward!). Overall I think people like the IWA leadership, (at one extreme), and the NBTA leadership, (at the other extreme), tend to be doing more harm for boaters as a whole than the good they think they are doing for the rather small percentage of all boaters that they believe they represent. I suggest the vast majority of us boat owners do not hold such extreme views, of see quite as many of our fellow boat owners as "the enemy". A lot of the unhelpful and divisive comment actually comes from a very small percentage of all boat owners.
    2 points
  4. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  5. Unless hanging from gibbets...
    1 point
  6. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  7. empty all old blue or green antifreeze out, and fill with new red, don't mix blue or green with red antifreeze.
    1 point
  8. I support somebody buying this boat and restoring it to its last incarnation with BWB. That is to say, throw the engine away, chop off both ends and turn it back into a bit of banking at Harecastle.
    1 point
  9. Both comments are spot on. Here's a picture of the sort of thing Harland & Wolff were churning out around 1912, and then around 25 years later.
    1 point
  10. Sorry if you can still read my posts Nick !!
    1 point
  11. This post has depressed me considerably. We have a useless stove fan, a pram hood. We don't have beer nor wine onboard. I'm on a dryout ready for eldest sons wedding soon. So that I'll get some of me in my suit. cheers Tim, you know where it hurts.
    1 point
  12. This is the boat that blocked the old tunnel (from http://petergshilstonsblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/james-brindley.html) But the England ad says it has been in the same ownership for 38 years, meaning the current owner acquired it in 1979. My recollection is that the boat at Harecastle was there well into the 80s. Can anyone confirm? This picture suggests the boat was buried, although judging by the current bank line, the boat (or at least one side of it) was presumably removed later. It also seems to have lost something from the stern (unless it has been turned end to end and the flat end wasn't full height). As it is today (from http://www.stthomasthemartyr.org.uk/nicks-cheshire-ring-walk-20171.html) And this is what it looked like when both tunnels were in use (from http://www.thepotteries.org/location/districts/boathorse3.htm) Yup. Lost its original name in 1914, original stern in 1938, and original bow in the 1960s (?). So not much of the old Germany left!
    1 point
  13. So the first 3 are all conjecture by you. In detail: 1/ No proof only conjecture by you and some residents. 2/ Those closures are happening nationally so you cannot blame the canal for any of them. My own town has lost 4 banks in the last 2 years, 2 pubs and 2 shops and we are no-where near a canal! Shops changing hands happens all the time. Again conjecture and exaggeration. 3/ That isn't "everyone"! I have not seen every member of this Forum complaining either. More exaggeration! 4/ Then you should have said that! But you didn't. And sorry but I severely doubt they chased you for 10 miles or forced you to discharge yourself. And sorry, but my opinion of you has not changed. Your "argument" would come across a lot better if you removed the aggressive language used, the aggressive attitude and rudeness against those that disagree with you, all of whom have been totally polite, the total lack of provable facts and continuous use of conjecture, and personally the petty, childish and frankly pathetic insults issued against me by you and others over on Thunderboat. I have always found that being constructive, polite, accurate and understanding seems to get a far better and more reasonable response when I have had to "argue" with someone or something else. To your other points: 1/ You don't know that. Conjecture. 2/ The Police do not get involved in Civil matters, unless there is likely to a Breach of the Peace. 3/ Traffic wardens or Bin Men? Don't know what you are on about. use their proper descriptions. 4/ So you condone an assualt? 5/ Fine
    1 point
  14. Malcolm Braine and Dennis Cooper both based at Norton Cannes built handsome traditional boats for many years. Just over a year ago I brought a 45foot Malcolm Braine trad with a rotten wooden cabin for well under £10k. Using traditional hand tools and a few thousand pounds worth of timber and materials I have restored the boat whilst afloat. Still got a fair bit to do but she’s come. A long way!
    1 point
  15. Sounds like the bearings need replacing.
    1 point
  16. I've just found an even better collection of potential pain and injury delivering features! This time on a boat with a £150,000 price tag, the glowing report on this boat is by Adam Porter in Octobers Canal Boat magazine. The shell, engine, and joinery quality look superb but why would any designer create an obstacle course of lethal sharp corners in a narrow boat? The builders are one of the most experienced makers of river and offshore boats with a reputation for quality. There is no mention that the tester has even noticed the hazards, the boat is described as being aimed at those who have not been canal boating before. If they are not very carefull the experience may leave a lasting impression in more ways than one. I don't believe that any experienced narrow boat user will be much impressed. In this article even the proof reading is below optimum, the editors instruction to remove a picture and replace it with the correct one has been printed over the wrong photo and proudly published. Times are tough in the magazine industry at the moment with subscriptions falling and buyers being reluctant to make a casual purchase at nearly £4.00 a go.
    1 point
  17. Presumably you didn't like the answers when you asked the question in another thread ? Madness is defined as "repeating the same question and expecting to get a different answer each time" May I suggest that you return to your original thread and have a look - a lot has been added to it. (even an instructor/examiner of the French boaters licences has commented)
    1 point
  18. I haven't got the figures to hand for restoring Owl, but if you want to see what's involved in restoring and converting historic boats, take a look at the two websites below. The figures for Hampton are, however, fresh in my mind. Over the years, it's cost around £90K. I fitted out the undercloth conversion myself for around £10k. The original uncoverted boat cost £9k, but since then some of the best in the business have sorted out the rotten footings, base and stern, have rebuilt and fitted out the back cabin, have made a steel ellum with its hydraulic drive. It's also had a new paint job and has been lettered (by Dave Moore of this forum). I know I could probably have had a good second hand Hudson for that price, but I like the idea of preserving a 106 year old boat for the next generation. It's worth noting that a boat like the newly restored but unconverted England is on the market for £65k. Some have expressed shock at such a price, but I bet it reflects realistically what it would cost to do a first class restoration. For another 20 to 30k you could then have a good conversion. However you do the sums a good converted historic boat will cost around £80k. You can't do it on the cheap. See www.narrowboatowl.com and www.buttyhampton.com
    1 point
  19. If you fancy living in a working style boat then it would be much better to get a shell builder to make you a brand new replica style shell. this will.... 1 Give you a brand new boat 2 Hopefully work out a bit cheaper 3 Not vandalise a bit of history ..............Dave
    1 point
  20. I've had the Simarine installed for a 2-3 days now with only one shunt installed (I've another to do)... Here are my initial thoughts. Provided cables are long enough for most environments. (too long if have multiple shunts next to each other!) Shunts (300/500amp) are in covered boxes so can be used on positive cables, etc. Ends on provided cables for voltage will more than likely need replacing for the battery terminals as they are really too small. Alot of the features in the firmware don't seem to be available, such as the ability to change the wifi mode so it can join a network instead of been a AP even though the option is in the menu. You can tell it's been actively developed which may not be for everyone. Act of upgrading the firmware is easy via the iOS/Android app. The Battery SOC percentage seems accurate even when charging (although the time to charge isn't!), it has a input for battery capacity and mine will now be way off as I used the batteries spec and they are 4 years old! However it's early days to really confirm if this is the case but it doesn't feel like a amp counter (there is no display for amps/in out). Wifi range is okay, but put behind a steel bulkhead and you will seriously reduce it's range. If your the type of person that needs the latest gadget then I would recommend. Hopefully the next firmware will be out soon so can check historical data and will report on that. If you're the type that wants a smartguage replacement then it looks promising.
    1 point
  21. Old boats are for the enthusiast with a large array of skills, spare funds to buy in materials and expertise where needed. Joy if you have all of that. But if not.....
    1 point
  22. So.... glad you agree with me on that. If.... only I could find a way to get rid of the buggers.
    1 point
  23. Yes, very gall-ish behavior.
    1 point
  24. But why should CRT spend our money challenging this further, it is of no benefit to them what so ever if we have to pay or not and it probably effects less than 1% of their customer base. It doesn't make business sense. That would not hurt Peel at all, they don't care if boats with their licence can go on CRT waters,it would only hurt fellow boaters
    1 point
  25. it can easily get rough enough to be extremely uncomfortable and challenging for a small boat that is not designed for the purpose. The clue will be found on the CE plate. A boat suitable for making offshore passages in the Med should be Category A or B. It is likely that the boat in the photo is Category C, in which case it could safely make the journey in very calm conditions, but you should consider what might happen if the engine fails and then the weather changes?
    1 point
  26. I think Gigoguy should be applauded. Despite the "oh no it is, oh no it isn't" exchanges at least he is challenging Peel. It seems to me that they are probably really p**sed with him and you would think they would at least attempt to make an example by taking him to court over his recent actions. Yet they don't. It looks likely that even they have no clue what the exact legal position is so I can't see how anyone on here can have any certainty. Do BCC boaters in general object to paying for a Bridgewater license - probably not. Do CaRT license holders object to only having 7 days - probably not. It's the £40 for a return trip and an ex-gestapo enforcement officer that are the only real issues here - IMO. Gigoguy has stirred the pot but I believe is in danger of pushing too hard and too far which will probably result in some nasty medicine from Peel. Challenging the £40 return fee is IMO fair game, but the challenge should really have come from CaRT who seem to be incapable of doing anything useful to boaters.
    1 point
  27. Twin 65hp. Not a common set up in that type of boat. Also worth pointing out to the OP that these boats were on the whole fully customiseable by the first owner so the layouts differ greatly from boat to boat even within the same hull. Some don't have an internal helm position, just the fly bridge helm which gives greater internal accomodation in the saloon. Some are fitted out to suit a couple so just have an aft master cabin and more seating in the bow rather then the twin berths. The galleys tend to be on the small side in the boats with a forward sleeping cabin. With this in mind you need to have a good look around and find the fit out that suits you best. ETA: A couple of Pedro 30's with completely different layouts: https://www.tbsboats.com/boats-for-sale/pedro-30/ https://www.tbsboats.com/boats-for-sale/pedro-30-3/ Also worth pointing out that these boats get very hot in the summer so may not be an ideal choice for the med. Some very good friends took theirs over to France a couple of years ago and have to come back to the UK every summer for a few months as it is just too hot.
    1 point
  28. Full displacement is just a way if saying it is not a planing hull ie one which enables the boat to travel over the surface of the water, " on the plane" I suspect this boat could make sea passage but with respect if you have to ask what a displacement hull is and if it could tackle the Med, then you should not be tackling the task as you are clearly lacking in experience. Phil
    1 point
  29. How long ago was the Bridgewater canal frozen over?
    1 point
  30. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  31. Although I agree with you in principle this is not a finite description as when it was towed by a Steamer, or another horse boat it was a butty And the motor conversion was carried out by W.J. Yarwood & Sons Ltd., Northwich (Yard No. 592), with the remainder of the works completed by F.M.C. Ltd. at their Saltley Dock, Birmingham
    1 point
  32. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  33. That's why mobiles are crap. I use a pooter fort tinternet always have used a pooter fort tinternet.....mobiles are realy portable telefones and toys.
    1 point
  34. And I might suggest various peeps crying loudly how unfair it all is will eventually mean there will come a time when there really arn't any liveaboards quietly getting on with their lives
    1 point
  35. OK, let me say at the outset that I have very little time for BCC and its odious enforcement officer, and that I think their new policy on use of the reciprocal agreement is a complete dogs breakfast that wasn't thought through. However, there we must part company. Your quasi-legal posturing seems to be founded entire upon the "It's not fair Act, 1827" Life isn't always fair, and we have to deal with it. It may be essential in your mind that the canal is a Public Right of Way (it isn't BTW), or more to the point a Public Right of Navigation (again, nope), because for it to be otherwise would mean that a private company is in control of whether you can go that way or not. That may not be how you think the world should be, but that doesn't mean that the world isn't like that. You may then conclude that BCC can't charge for use of the canal, but if that is the case, how would the canal be maintained? Just suppose that you actually manage to prove that they can't charge for use of the canal. Will a magic money tree spring up at the side of Pomona Lock, providing funds for the canal. or do you just imagine that the largesse of the public purse will provide? Yes, the canal is run to make a profit (or rather more likely to avoid making a loss, and you might like it to be in public ownership, but would that actually mean it was cheaper or to be frank that you could use it free of charge as much as you want on a CRT licence? Perhaps BCT could take it over, but they would still need to cover the costs of running it. Perhaps it could be taken over by CRT, and all the BCC licence holders would have to change to CRT licences. You would be saved from paying £40, whilst all the locals would see their costs increase. In an ideal world, CRT would be discussing and sorting the reciprocal agreement with BCC, but if they don't want to play, then what. The only thing that CRT can do is cancel the agreement. You would still have to pay your £40, and BCC licence holders would need to pay to come onto CRT waters. That might hurt BCC eventually, because mooring there wouldn't seem quite so attractive if you can't go anywhere else. So, in the final analysis, the new BCC take on the reciprocal agreement is really rubbish, but that doesn't mean that it isn't legal.
    1 point
  36. As a confirmed narrow boater and student of canal history with little interest outside of narrow craft made from steel or timber you might think it's obvious where my sympathy will lie. However I don't agree with the premise of the OP at all. In 50 years since the end of wholesale commercial carrying we have gone from the threat of little or no craft on the waterways to worrying about what sort of boat can go where. The true threat to canals is from under use not over use or perceived inappropriate use. The rise in demand for boats is a product of our time and things will not be so favourable regarding the usage of canals forever. In some places it still isn't and the threat of consequences of underuse are real. Be thankful for what we have. The 'blame' for this situation lies with the Grand Union company; it was they who opened up north of Braunston for wider craft with their ill-fated widening of the Napton & Warwick and Warwick & Birmingham canals. Before that I believe the stop narrows at Braunston toll house was only wide enough to pass narrow beam boats. Personally I think it a great shame this scheme ever happened. However we can't change the fact that it did happen and we must deal with the consequences. It was also that scheme which gave rise to the real anomaly in this debate; namely that the section of the south Oxford between Braunston and Napton that is part of the wide route from London to Birmingham is surely even less suited to wide beam craft than the north Oxford beyond Braunston? As for the issue of Berkhamsted being the northerly limit for wide beam craft I don't believe that the intention of either the Grand Junction company in 1800 or the Grand Union company in 1930 was that their wide locks would never be used by wide craft. It was lack of demand requiring such that caused that. There also was a time in history when wide boats did trade to Braunston in small numbers. Today there is a demand for wider craft and the principal problems around the movement of wide craft are dredging and vegetation management which are eminently solvable. This section of canal may never be ideal for wide craft but that it is delicate point since it can easily be argued that craft longer than 57' in the north or ex-GUCCCo boats on the BCN are not suited to those canals yet such craft do operate in those areas. And there is unlikely to be any craft on the network with more potential for causing damage than a butty crewed by volunteers. So I would say put the effort into campaigning for dredging and particularly vegetation management instead of telling others where they should or shouldn't take their boats. Ultimately it may just be doing canals more harm than good. JP
    1 point
  37. There is now a new forum bylaw, all post titles to be pmd to Mr Oss for inspection and approval. Or he will get upset. No creativity, no seductive teasers, no smart Alec gimcrack one liners. Be staid and sensible lads. Wear your underpants outside your trousers while posting.
    1 point
  38. Widebeams are good as they don't rock as much as narrowboats when you pass them having forgotton to slow down
    1 point
  39. Anybody who made the mistake of visiting that disastrous last National at Watford would have realised what a spectacularly bad idea it was, and just how far things have moved on whilst the IWA has remained stuck in time, resting on its former laurels. The sight of a band of IWA grandees in their blue sweatshirsts milling around in a large marquee where they outnumbered visitors by at least 2 to 1 demonstrates just how far they were out of touch with most boat owners these days. Lines of turnstiles, (yes honestly), that almost nobody passed through told a real story. My view is that event was a near perfect model of how not to do things, (and how to squander large amounts of cash at the same time), and a pretty fair indicator that whatever boaters and the public want, that certainly wasn't it. Once you were inside, despite all the spend, there really was little to attract and keep you there. Admittedly I'm biased, because I feel the IWA has lost it's way, still seeking to be some kind of exclusive body that has CRT in its pocket, with little concept now that there are huge swathes of boaters out there who simply don't agree with the policies and aims of such an organisation, (let alone some of the more bigoted types allegedly speaking on behalf of the organisation). I'm sure the IWA still has many excellent people at grass roots level - well actually I know it has. However would I now be tempted to some mega event promoted by the IWA? I would need some persuading!
    1 point
  40. No response yet, so I've sent a message to the OP. As above, I could do this trip subject to the dates.
    1 point
  41. Just teasing that nice Mr Oss (Edit)
    0 points
×
×
  • 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.