Jump to content


Tech Team
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by grendel

  1. of course we have no proof they are wrong doers, that is only our suspicion, probably better phrased a people who play the rules and people who play by the spirit of the rules. Very similar to those who quoted the rules dont say...... as opposed to the reason for the rules, during lockdown to justify doing what they wanted. the vast majority knew what the rules meant and stuck by that, the small minority interpreted the rules to allow them to do what they wanted.
  2. the big issue here is that if the land owners take action, then from fairness they would have to act against everyone who moors on a wild mooring on that bank of the and from Johnny Crowes right up to Barton broad, as they own that whole section.
  3. it was my understanding that the original agreement drawn up included a penalty clause for obstructing the navigation, in reality this probably hasnt been updated so a punitive fine back when the licence was drawn up is probably a mere pittance in todays terms, by what i see in other legal documents from that era a 5s fine per boat unable to navigate back in the early 1900's is a mere 25p nowadays (random made up figures as i dont know the details) but nowadays the cost to administer those payments would in itself present an expense, thus i was trying to ascertain to whom the Railway network a
  4. In reality that should make no difference as they will still legally be bound to maintain the navigation, what I was trying to ascertain was the conditions of the agreement that they are bound under to do this, and whether there was a penalty clause for failure to maintain said navigation by being unable to open the bridges in a timely manner.
  5. does anyone know of the terms that the bridges run under with regard to restricting the navigation, I seem to recall there is a requirement to open for vessels navigating the rivers, but is there a penalty for the railway for failing to do so?
  6. well I guess that will stop you driving for a while, best recuperate on the boat for a few weeks until its healed
  7. well according to that chart there should be 6 ft 10" at low water today, woo hoo, at that level I would even try taking Water Rail through without a pilot. (we reckon she need 6 ft 1" but that needs to be checked at the bridge)
  8. maybe, maybe not, will be having a look when i am up in a few weeks.
  9. Since the land concerned is apparently owned by a local parish council, then i would assume that they too would have a say in the location of a shed on their property, That local council would seem to own the land that the footpath along that section of bank, and points inland runs on.
  10. A good question, and one I m sure the local planning authority would have no problem answering, though it might be dependant upon owning the land in question, or obtaining permission from the landowner, and even then might be rejected.
  11. can I remind people that while this is an important issue, Griff has done the correct thing by putting the matter in the hands of the correct Authorities. We are not here to condemn peoples lifestyle choices, if someone chooses to live on board a boat, that is their free choice, but the moderator team wont allow this discussion to degenerate into a discussion of anyone's personal habits or problems, firstly we have absolutely no idea why they have ended up in the situation they are in, and secondly we are in no position to be judgemental about them, (and thirdly, such judgements will inva
  12. it woul, but also introduces another non start component into the ignition system to fail.
  13. actually one for Doug, thats Nipper, with the varnish looking as shiny as ever
  14. plenty of wooden boats going through, all no doubt no more than 10 foot wide, similar to Marthams fleet that still have less difficulty getting through nowadays, not the 12 foot wide behemouths that are common these days.
  15. while the situation is still being resolved, it would probably be best to restrict the scope of this discussion to the cause of the engine failure, which I think is what most of those still following this thread are interested in, as that might have some bearing on peoples future mainenance regime.
  16. a friend of mine had a rottweiller/ doberman cross, he fitted a cage inside the door, well that worked ubtil the dog head butted it and flattened it to the door, after that it was an outside letter box, the funniest incident was when he returned home to find the dog stuck on the curved windowsill in the bay window, it had apparently got up then followed the newspaper boy to the door, then got stuck not being able to reverse, my friend had to pick up 11stone of dog and put it back on the floor.
  17. how about a large real cat
  18. the way I see it, you are on holiday, away for a break, so in my book, i dont mind paying a tenner to get a mooring spot. you pay that at the yacht stations after all.
  19. yes, I moored at the nelson moorings a couple of weeks back, and they did charge me a tenner, i did ask if that was deducted off the price of a meal, but its not, so be aware, for me it was within the reach of an electric post on the BA moorings so worth it, I did have a drink and a meal, and they kindly delivered my meal direct to the boat.
  20. do note it says the centre height is just 7 foot, in 1955, nowadays of course the height is quoted at a set width (at least thats what the height for the bridge markers shows), so how much to allow for that section, looking elsewhere i see the dimension to the top of the centre arch is approximately 5" above the bridge marker height, so lets subtract that from the 7 foot in 1955, and we get 6'7" this means we now have a direct measure of the bridge from 1955 to compare modern clearances to. maybe we have lost a few inches clearance, but it doesnt seem as bad as some people make out.
  21. do the yards not have reciprocal arrangements, as such they might just take it to the nearest yard for a quick lift and clear.
  22. I agree, its my firm opinion that the media only survive because every day the news they turn out has to be more sensational than the previous day, and only bad news at that, good news doesnt sell, every day they need another sensational headline to sell their wares, if there is no news of import then they have to sensationalise a mundane story to give them a good headline.
  23. only to be expected from the edp, sensational headline- no facts
  24. working in a company that installs gas and electric supplies, we have been told that new installations of mains gas are being phased out, this is due to the carbon footprint targets. I do know that some trials are in place to replace current natural gas with straight hydrogen gas, its just a case of making the system proof against misuse and thus explosions. but in essence gas is being phased out as a household fuel.
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.