Bridgewater permits and licenses

[gigoguy]

14 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think SOME people are just trying to help where they feel you have facts wrong. Once you present a fact that can be proved wrong then that is a basis to read doubt into the rest of your argument. If you say the "The Tank never moves" and they put forward a record that shows its opened 4 times every week people will just doubt everything else you say.

But that's just it. It doesn't open 4 times a week it probably doesn't open 4 times a year. I have spoken this moning to someone who works on the canal. He said they don't open it for the trip boat because it can pass under. It opens ONLY for big ships to go to the scrap yard. Probably 4-6 times a year. And it won't open at the minute because the seals need replacing.

Edited October 11, 2017 by gigoguy

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think SOME people are just trying to help where they feel you have facts wrong. Once you present a fact that can be proved wrong then that is a basis to read doubt into the rest of your argument. If you say the "The Tank never moves" and they put forward a record that shows its opened 4 times every week people will just doubt everything else you say.

The OP has quoted so many demonstrably incorrect facts in this thread that any credibility he had must now be seriously eroded.

[MtB]

16 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

Myalld the tank is almost never used .

= the tank is used. 

Another of your incorrect facts.

[gigoguy]

10 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

= the tank is used. 

Another of your incorrect facts.

OK tell me when it was last used.

And anyway I did not say it is never used I said it is hardly ever used and it is NEVER operated by a boater it is always and only operated by a MSCC engineer.

So please tell me where my facts are incorrect

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by gigoguy

[Paul C]

The swing aqueduct is definitely swung for the MSC trip (boat), it cannot fit underneath otherwise. It operates seasonally. Here is a pic from the upper deck of the trip boat, note that there's a bridge (on the boat) and masts/fittings above that.

 

[mayalld]

3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

The swing aqueduct is definitely swung for the MSC trip (boat), it cannot fit underneath otherwise. It operates seasonally. Here is a pic from the upper deck of the trip boat, note that there's a bridge (on the boat) and masts/fittings above that.

 

Don't confuse him with facts!

Despite the fact that I've been on the trip, that the aqueduct WAS swung, and that we had to hold off because they were having problems with the swing, and we COULDN'T pass beneath the closed tank, gigoguy spoke to a guy who told him different.

[David Mack]

28 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

It opens ONLY for big ships to go to the scrap yard. Probably 4-6 times a year.

What happened to the Tesco wine traffic on the MSC that was much heralded a few years ago?

[gigoguy]

It really doesn't matter how many times it opens does it? It isn't operated by a boater and it doesn't usually cause delays along the Bridgewater. And I was only passing on information that a MSCC employee told me today. As with this forum we can only take what we are told at face value unless proof to the contrary is shown.

So why is it of any importance? Unless the entire legal argument of whether they have the right to impound boats or charge tolls rests on it. But I can't remember seeing in any Act that passage is only allowed because the tank can be open from time to time.

 

17 minutes ago, mayalld said:

and that we had to hold off because they were having problems with the swing

It won't open at the minute as there are problems with the seals............Thank you for confirming that

[mayalld]

4 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

It really doesn't matter how many times it opens does it? It isn't operated by a boater and it doesn't usually cause delays along the Bridgewater. And I was only passing on information that a MSCC employee told me today. As with this forum we can only take what we are told at face value unless proof to the contrary is shown.

So why is it of any importance? Unless the entire legal argument of whether they have the right to impound boats or charge tolls rests on it. But I can't remember seeing in any Act that passage is only allowed because the tank can be open from time to time.

 

It won't open at the minute as there are problems with the seals............Thank you for confirming that

It isn't important.

For some unknown reason you raised the issue of swing bridges, which was always irrelevant. It is simply instructive that you can't even get simple factual information correct.

[mayalld]

12 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

It really doesn't matter how many times it opens does it? It isn't operated by a boater and it doesn't usually cause delays along the Bridgewater. And I was only passing on information that a MSCC employee told me today. As with this forum we can only take what we are told at face value unless proof to the contrary is shown.

So why is it of any importance? Unless the entire legal argument of whether they have the right to impound boats or charge tolls rests on it. But I can't remember seeing in any Act that passage is only allowed because the tank can be open from time to time.

 

It won't open at the minute as there are problems with the seals............Thank you for confirming that

Let me explain this slowly.

A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, I took the MSC cruise from Salford to Liverpool.

ON THAT DAY, there was a problem with the aqueduct.

The boat COULD NOT PASS UNDERNEATH and had to wait for half an hour whilst they sorted the problem.

The last trip of 2017 was YESTERDAY, from Salford to Liverpool.

So, Barton Tank was swung YESTERDAY (and the day before)

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, mayalld said:

Let me explain this slowly.

A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, I took the MSC cruise from Salford to Liverpool.

ON THAT DAY, there was a problem with the aqueduct.

The boat COULD NOT PASS UNDERNEATH and had to wait for half an hour whilst they sorted the problem.

The last trip of 2017 was YESTERDAY, from Salford to Liverpool.

So, Barton Tank was swung YESTERDAY (and the day before)

 

You are missing the point and are totally wrong

"It won't open at the minute as there are problems with the seals............"

[mayalld]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You are missing the point and are totally wrong

"It won't open at the minute as there are problems with the seals............"

Indeed so, and on the evidence available they can fix such a problem in half an hour!

Just to reinforce the point, if you visit the information page about the cruises;

 

http://www.merseyferries.co.uk/cruises/Manchester-Ship-Canal-Cruises/Pages/Dates.aspx

 

you get a lovely shot of Snowdrop with Barton Bridge and Tank (BOTH SWUNG) in the background.

59 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

OK tell me when it was last used.

 

 

It was used yesterday and the day before.

 

[gigoguy]

2 minutes ago, mayalld said:

Indeed so, and on the evidence available they can fix such a problem in half an hour!

Just to reinforce the point, if you visit the information page about the cruises;

 

http://www.merseyferries.co.uk/cruises/Manchester-Ship-Canal-Cruises/Pages/Dates.aspx

 

you get a lovely shot of Snowdrop with Barton Bridge and Tank (BOTH SWUNG) in the background.

Oh well that's it then case proved. Barton swing bridge opens..........so what? It wasn't opened by a boater and the whole process takes maybe what 30 mins to an hour even?

From there you're probably 3-4 hours sail from the end of the canal. So the trip from one end to the other is still possible in one day. 

I still fail to see how the tank has any baring at all on illegally impounding boats, demanding money with menaces, harassing innocent people and charging a toll they clearly have no legal authority to charge.

It's ok Arthur saying they don't have to prove it. They bloomin well do have to prove it. If someone claims they have the authority to impound my boat and sell or scrap it if I don't pay them some money. They DO have to prove what gives them to right to demand. Otherwise it's extortion and that's illegal....I think Graham maybe you'd like to check for me?

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, mayalld said:

Indeed so, and on the evidence available they can fix such a problem in half an hour!

Just to reinforce the point, if you visit the information page about the cruises;

 

http://www.merseyferries.co.uk/cruises/Manchester-Ship-Canal-Cruises/Pages/Dates.aspx

 

you get a lovely shot of Snowdrop with Barton Bridge and Tank (BOTH SWUNG) in the background.

It was used yesterday and the day before.

 

[mayalld]

Just now, gigoguy said:

Oh well that's it then case proved. Barton swing bridge opens..........so what? It wasn't opened by a boater and the whole process takes maybe what 30 mins to an hour even?

From there you're probably 3-4 hours sail from the end of the canal. So the trip from one end to the other is still possible in one day. 

I still fail to see how the tank has any baring at all on illegally impounding boats, demanding money with menaces, harassing innocent people and charging a toll they clearly have no legal authority to charge.

It's ok Arthur saying they don't have to prove it. They bloomin well do have to prove it. If someone claims they have the authority to impound my boat and sell or scrap it if I don't pay them some money. They DO have to prove what gives them to right to demand. Otherwise it's extortion and that's illegal....I think Graham maybe you'd like to check for me?

It has absolutely NO BEARING WHATSOEVER.

Remind us why you mentioned swing bridges in the first place.

Whilst you're at it;

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/watch-take-cruise-down-manchester-13059163

at about 0:55 the boat passes Barton Tank and......

[Alan de Enfield]

Gigalo is a bit busy so I post this on his behalf :

 

[Graham Davis]

2 hours ago, gigoguy said:

Again you seem to be having difficulty reading the item you posted.

It asks CAN I cut down a tree and DO I need permission and it gives EXPLICIT information that under certain circumstances you DO need permission.

So your point is what exactly?

I suggest you read the whole link again

[gigoguy]

6 minutes ago, mayalld said:

It has absolutely NO BEARING WHATSOEVER.

Remind us why you mentioned swing bridges in the first place.

Whilst you're at it;

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/watch-take-cruise-down-manchester-13059163

at about 0:55 the boat passes Barton Tank and......

I mentioned swing bridges only as a passing comment that there are no time wasting obstacles to hinder travel along the canal. And that transit from one end to the other is possible within one day. Therefore if I went from Preston Brook to Leigh on Sunday and worked all week on my mates boat with him. I'd have to pay 20 quid to go home again on Friday.

If I was on holiday on a boat and went from manchester to Liverpool I'd have to pay 20 quid to go back again.

If I set off to Ashton and the locks are closed I'd have to pay 20 quid to go back round the other way. Or the same with Marple as is the case at the minute.

Graham decided that it would suit some strange agenda of his to divert the conversation from the point in hand to something totally irrelevant. And that has been carried on by others also wishing to stifle the debate.

Can we let Barton tank go now. OK it opens and it opens regularly. It isn't opened by a boater and it doesn't as a general rule impede transit from one end to the other.

[haggis]

It is surprising that when this subject sort of died a death on the other place the op raised it here and it is still going with very little off topic digression. 

I can't wait to find out where it will appear next and no matter how praiseworthy the subject is it will no doubt be diluted by the pronouncements the Op will make which are as he thinks things are on all manners of subjects 

 

Haggis 

[gigoguy]

4 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

I suggest you read the whole link again

Well even though this is another ridiculous waste of time......I've read the page here it is

I want to cut down/prune a tree in my garden, do I need permission?

Yes

And your point it what exactly?

[Graham Davis]

1 hour ago, gigoguy said:

OK tell me when it was last used.

And anyway I did not say it is never used I said it is hardly ever used and it is NEVER operated by a boater it is always and only operated by a MSCC engineer.

So please tell me where my facts are incorrect

 

The fact that it isn't operated by a user is of no consequence.
Plenty of others here have stated that it is swung several times a year, and much more than the figures you have given. Therefore your facts are incorrect.
I note that I am not the only one to state this.

[haggis]

2 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

Well even though this is another ridiculous waste of time......I've read the page here it is

I want to cut down/prune a tree in my garden, do I need permission?

Yes

And your point it what exactly?

Come on there must be more to the story than that! I could have typed what you have just posted 

No doubts its is true in certain circumstances but we don't know what they're are 

Haggis 

[gigoguy]

2 minutes ago, haggis said:

It is surprising that when this subject sort of died a death on the other place the op raised it here and it is still going with very little off topic digression. 

I can't wait to find out where it will appear next and no matter how praiseworthy the subject is it will no doubt be diluted by the pronouncements the Op will make which are as he thinks things are on all manners of subjects 

 

Haggis 

I posted information in the news forum. Others added to it and some asked questions. Some have carried on trying to make this a personal assault on me and I've replied to them.

For all of the members who are bored with or have no further interest in the subject or who have nothing of relevance to add they are not forced to read or contribute to the thread.

 

[Dave Payne]

Just now, gigoguy said:

I posted information in the news forum. Others added to it and some asked questions. Some have carried on trying to make this a personal assault on me and I've replied to them.

For all of the members who are bored with or have no further interest in the subject or who have nothing of relevance to add they are not forced to read or contribute to the thread.

 

Less posting, more action otherwise it gets boring...

 

[gigoguy]

Just now, haggis said:

Come on there must be more to the story than that! I could have typed what you have just posted 

No doubts its is true in certain circumstances but we don't know what they're are 

Haggis 

Some boats are exempt from charge on the bridgewater canal and we're trying to establish what they are too. Read the article and make up your own mind

1 minute ago, Dave Payne said:

Less posting, more action otherwise it gets boring...

 

Well Dave I'm taking action by challenging them and by reporting them to trading standards and by reporting them to the police and by writing to my MP as IWA have requested and by posting in here and TB to try to get other people to also challenge a company that threatens to take your boat off you and sell or scrap it if you don't pay them some money.

You want to join me?