Tony Brooks

That is also a problem. How do I "satisfy the Board" when their checkers and systems say my boat was at XYZ but I say it was not. Really you just emphasise how unfit for purpose the CaRT system are. If that did happen and the systems were up to the job it would immediately show two boats with the same number. It would also show that one has been moored at a certain place/area for years so is unlikely to be the culprit. That could and should then lead to a special look out being kept in the area the rouge boat was spotted but less than monthly recording means its not possible. For ordinary boaters taking the legal path is very expensive and exceptionally uncertain as to outcome. It must reflect badly on CaRT if at least some of their customers feel that may be the only way to put things straight. Anyway the question was about CaRT bullying and whether boaters feel bullied. Feelings are personal and I find it interesting that that people are happy to leap to the defence of CaRT just because they do not feel threatened. Its even more worrying that speed cameras that in all but a minuscule number of cases are shown to only "catch" those in violation of the speed limit so who are actually doing it with a well proven record in courts should be used to excuse the way CaRT apparently go on.

Make sure any shoreline is disconnected. Take photos of the connections and tag each lead with what it is like 12V +, 12V -, mains L, mains N. Make sure the 12V master switches are OFF or disconnect the 12V pos lead from the battery end. Remove leads from old inverter and insulate (mainly just in case). Remove old inverter and fit new one. Fit each lead to their respective terminals. Double check. Turn master switch on or reconnect lead. Turn inverter on to test.

I can see no reason, apart from some complication, why the raw water part of the system should not be circulated through a properly sized and designed skin tank or keel cooler but I do knowledge that you would then have to use a dry exhaust and that will be noisier than a wet one.

It is perfectly clear that if I abide by the rules AND not be able to "prove to the satisfaction of the Board" that I am abiding by their terms and conditions then my boat and license is at risk. The question is is it reasonable to assume someone is guilty of not abiding by the rules when the system that flags the alleged non-compliance is so useless? What about innocent until proven guilty? A letter or email that asks you to give information the CaRT system SHOULD (but does not) already hold is a threat, however nicely they word it. It matters not a jot if they accept what you tell them or not, they have in effect started their procedure that could eventually result in a loss of license or boat. Explain why it should be necessary to explain yourself when abiding by their rules?

I certainly feel threatened by CaRT as per Alan's 2 above - especially as their boat reporting system is not fit for the purpose of enforcing cruising rules. It has had me in moored in a totally different marina to where I actually was and in a feeder channel. It is not comprehensive enough to ensure that if, for example, you leave your boat in a marina for a week or so and then start cruising again (all within the rules) you are not logged as overstaying in an area because you were logged the evening before you went into the marina and then when you came out again. It certainly does not give a full picture of your cruising pattern. I have travelled from Calcutt to Liverpool, Leeds, Keadby, Nottingham, Leicester, and back to Calcutt and despite using manned locks and the Liverpool link was only shown as being logged in two or three places. When I moor up away from the marina for a few days to paint the boat I feel under pressure to always choose a differents places a fair distance apart just in case their logging fails to show the boat back in the marina between times.

That you can easily saw. I bought a sheet of it and cut to suit with a jigsaw.

Come on Mike - read the rest of the sentence/paragraph. I was trying to explain why the large bank may not be such a good idea, not advocating that he should go days between charging. I am with you on the time to recharge issue but many are not and do not understand so specify a large bank, forgetting about recharge times, in the belief it will allow them to go days between charges. Actualyl it will, but they will damage most batteries that way.

I am not sure that is what Pete is saying. 600Ah seems an awful lot to me for a holiday boat as well. It all depends where the 600Ah came from - guess , advice, or sensible calculation. Remember that the larger the bank the longer you can go between charging BUT the longer it will take to fully recharge. Really, in my view, you should look at the recharge time for your use of the boat first and from there work out how you ensure your consumption is balanced by the available charge. That should also give you a fair idea of the optimum bank size. Fitting a huge bank is fine as long as you keep it as near fully charges as you can but if you regularly use it to stay a day or two without charging then there is every chance you will never fully charge it while away from shore power and thus suffer sulphation, not to mention deeper discharges than may be best fro the batteries.

All as I suspected. make a good mud weight though.

1. I think that it is a L100. Looks identical to me. 2. Last photo - I have no idea what this is showing as far as the red oxide painted thing is concerned. It looks like a reduction box that is normally bolted to the back of the gearbox (as shown in photo 2) but it seems to be bolted to a plate that fixes to the engine flywheel housing. This will give a dropped, reduction drive for a non-reversing permanent drive system but can.t thing of a marine propulsion application. My guess is the value is whatever someone will pay for it at the time. If you can find someone with a dead box then they might pay two or three hundred pounds, but as it will probably be in an old boat they may well want to spend rather less. If no one wants it as a "private" sale then its whatever the Ebay bid is so probably from 50p

personally I would never leave the boat unattended just on mooring stakes. There is always someone going fast enough to pull them out. I would try to find a better mooring place.

Drop the anchor down the non-bankside of the bow plus an extra couple of feet of chan and ie off the the T stud. Actually a couple of turns f chain around the T stud will probably suffice on a canal. Moor on piling and chain the back to the whaling bar.

The lower photo indicates that there must be some sort of upstand around the inside of the gunwales that the cover is clipped to. This means water can not leak under the cover much like when GRP tops were correctly fitted to steel hulls. If you do not have such an upstand or you think fitting one may be a trip hazard then you would need to cover the gunwales and even then if the cover is not clipped to them (as per my Weltonfield cover) rain will still blow and leak in when the cover gets blown inside the well deck.

And dosn't Banbury have a very good market?

Take bilge pump hose off skin fitting, direct into container, use bilge pump. No different to draining vie hose bosses or the hose.