narrowboatworld

We have three 80 watt panels and a good MPPT controller. Which I fitted myself at a total cost of £300. Since the beginning of June, the panels have put over 3,000 Ah into the Batteries. As the weather has not been very good and sunshine in short supply. It has meant that we still have to run the engine at times. But we are running the engine much less than previously. Also fitted LED lights which also give a good saving.

regards

MnM

Now why on earth would you, Bob Hallam, want to find out if a continuous cruiser is using a nice spot just off the waterpoint?

What will you do?

Hi guys,     i am looking to install some solar panals to assist in battery charging, what i need to ask is, what bits of kit will i need, apart from the panels and cable, i think i will need a controller but im not sure of the spec, any suggestions would be appreciated, also what do you think i should be paying for say a 140w/150w system,

look forward to your reply.

many thanks,            Mike.

Underneath the date panel is an 8 figure code. The first 2 letters relate to the canal where the boats home mooring is. ie TM, LL, CC, etc. CCers all have the code BW-065-007.

As far as mooring on the lower Trent & Mersey there are plenty of mown edges with deep water. However, I have noticed that several spots where there are rings have not been trimmed completely to the edge meaning the rings are often obscured by the grass. That's why I keep a p[air of shears on board.

Regards

Pete

I find all this controntational nonsense a little hard to stomach sometimes and as I am now firmly in my seventh decade often feel like taking the approach suggested by 'Mudskipper'. 'The let them get on with it' idea is all Ok I suppose if you are happy for it to be repeated but when I say that to my good lady, she responds with "explain to them the error (and why), that way they will hopefully learn". She is right (of course, she usually is).  If the miscreant doesn't want to know or gets heated just shrug, and walk/drive away - no harm done.

Keep smiling

Orph

Surely the moral was in the bridge story. A guy sets himself up as the sole arbitrator of what is dangerous, demands that he is obeyed, calls everybody and gets ignored. He then finds it was not dangerous at all as the hirer returns totally unscathed. Something like crying wolf? He then wants extra  powers to enforce what he thinks despite being proved wrong.

It's the guy at the helm who takes the decisions, not the guy on the bank. A quick re-read of Boris Johnsons  excellent comments on swimming in the Thames in London is in order.

I suspect BWML are just covering their own incompetent backs. I know of one of their sites which I believe has planning permission for just one residential (the marina managers) berth, but has many more liveaboards than they realised until recently. BWML refer to these berthholders as "Extended Users" and when asked deny they are "Residential", perhaps to avoid any possible action by the local council for breaching planning regulations?

As for protecting those who live aboard, wasn't it BWML itself who put them in the vulnerable position by allowing them onto sites which have no planning consent for residential use?

I am afraid that I must take issue with Derek Newton (BWML) who wrote in an article in narrowboatworld on Monday 19th Sept that:

"BWML are the only marina company pioneering a way through the legislation and the regularisation will be extremely beneficial, removing the threat of Local Authority action against our customers."

They are in no way pioneering this. Here at Oxley we have been there and done that! Over three years ago!

Orph

Oxley Marine

Orph

It's really heartwarming to know that the Basingstoke has 'friends' in all places - we owe it to those that went before and did so much (and sadly have subsequently died - Peter Redway, Stan Mellor, Vic and Shirley Trott come immediately to mind) to stand tall and strong to ensure that no restored canal falls back into a state of dereliction.

If we need the 'troops' to bend a few ears I'll be the first one to raise a 'call to arms'.

No work yet at Brookwood bottom lock but Surrey CC now say they will start 'week commencing' 10-September-12 - playing with words again.

Thanks Kathryn for your very concise but detailed response to my article.

I was prompted to write the article due to my concerns that, knowing a little (but nowhere near all) of the set-backs that the Basingstoke has received over the past months I was hoping to raise awareness of the precarious nature of its future.

As I stated, I am sure that the S&HCS is doing all in it's power to improve the situation but wanted to try and get some awareness going so that if you do need general support in the future, some ground has been broken.

Having lived close to the Basingstoke in Farnborough for some years I am fully aware of the financial constraints on local councils and difficulty in dealing with them.  I certainly don't want to rock the S&HCS boat with any ongoing discussions.

Thanks again for your informative post - Orph

No true boater would want to see this canal that was restored by so many volunteer navvies, now be lost!'.

As a member of the Surrey and Hampshire Canal Society Committee (now Surrey and Hampshire Canal Society trading as Basingstoke Canal Society) I can assure everyone that the Society is taking matters up with the appropriate County Councils and members of the Joint Management Committee - JMC) and has been for quite some time.  We are not happy with the state of affairs (and neither seemingly is the chair of the JMC) but one has to remember that we must work with these people on a ongoing basis so there's not a lot to be gained from 'going public' and alienating those we must work with. We continue to support the Tuesday Volunteer group and also provide a weekend volunteer work party more often than not.

The death of Peter Redway (as Society Chairman and Working Party supremo) left a huge void in the Society and its knowledge base which has taken some time to fill - but we have made huge strides in that direction.  Everyone needs to have a succession process if at all possible.

Local authority reorganisations in these difficult times hasn't helped one little bit either.

We are very aware that the boating fraternity and bodies such as the IWA (who did so much to help restore the canal originally) can help but it is the challenge of working with the County Councils balanced with a (as I see it) heavy handed approach by calling in the 'troops'.

The work to make Brookwood bottom lock serviceable begins today - 10-September-12 (according to Surrey CC) and I shall be on my bike before too long to see they are actually on site and delivering to plan (it's only 500 metres away).

Added to all of this the Basingstoke Canal Authority (the body set up by the two County Councils to run the canal) lost its director (Ian Brown) at the end of June due to retirement.  We've had an interregnum (as they say in the Church of England) but I am happy to report that interviews were held last week to appoint a successor although at this stage we don't know the outcome of those interviews.

The number of rangers (or lengthsmen) has been reduced recently and we now have 6 for 32 miles of canal with a difficult flight of 14 locks (Deepcut) built on Bagshot sand so making the surrounding land quite challenging to work with.

Will the Basingstoke go back into dereliction - well despite my age over my dead body and we reserve the right to 'call in the troops' if that's what's needed but in the meantime I think careful negotiation between the Canal Society, the IWA and the County Councils will bear fruit and I'll be keeping a sharp eye on the repairs to the Brookwood 3.

CART speaks of the costs of enforcement. No doubt this is not just of licence avoidance but also that of boats permanently moored  for years and refusing to move or pay a mooring fee? There is a very long running example of the latter in the northwest, which appears from what I have been told, nowhere near resolution and likely to run well into yet another year.

If CART fail to take decisive action to stop these people getting away without paying, then many boaters may well take the view that they do not need to pay either. Failure to prosecute or win such cases will only reinforce this view over time. Particularly as CART has totally failed to win the confidence of boaters, or appearing interested in them as anything but a cash cow. Also allowing the canal system to deteriorate to the lowest level in years. We may well take the view that we should not be asked to pay for cycle tracks, silly attempts at funding ventures and overpaid fat cats. I think CART should think very carefully at this point about the costs of NOT taking those who don't pay their way.

Alan's point about the law of diminshing returns is spot on and off the record BW, as they were at the time, have previously admitted that this is a challenge for them. It's definitely the case that the 'rump' of enforcement cases will be the most difficult and potentially the most expensive to resolve.

But that doesn't let CRT or anyone else off the hook. What you need to do is have a clear transparent approach about how you plan to deal with these difficult cases and chip away at the problem, maybe not as fast as you would like if resources were not a constraint.

Hi Pete

I'm afraid the claims made by BW regarding reduction in licence evasion are contradictory -

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/leatest/4729-oh-yes-they-do

Having said that, I suspect that licence evasion is a classic case of the law of diminishing returns..

For example, the cost to BW/CART of reducing evasion from, say, 3% to 2% may be many times higher than reducing it from 4% to 3%.

Obviously, a break even point exists such that enforcement costs outweigh extra revenue.  I guess that many years back BW set the break even point to 3%.

Regards

Allan

What would John Wilkinson have CA&RT do then? There will always be costs in enforcing the rules. If you want to look at the figures then unlicensed boats have come down by 7% over the last 5 years. So that's about 2100 boats that have bought licences who didn't previously have one. My licence is about £800 but assuming some of these boats are shorter then I make that a lot more than his salaries figure of £440,000.

Even if I'm wrong, should we just sit back and let these dishonest people get away with it? If there was no enforcement there would be a lot more unlicensed boats. The Police force costs us money but if they were not there, there would be a lot more burglaries.

Regards

Pete Earley