|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 18, 2024 20:21:47 GMT
Thank you Telemachus Out of interest I read your discussion with Dunk (you quoted him and responded) about a possible alternate route to the Lancaster Canal. I didn't comment for obvious reasons. It appeared utter nonsense to me ... possible but why would anyone choose to do that or benefit from that choice ? I will however be very interested to read the report of your trip should you care to post. Rog If you look at the CRT schedule - days available to be booked per month - it is quite limited. Maybe two groups of 3 days per month each way. This is because these days are the only days with sufficiently big tides to do the trip in one tide - ie leaving Tarlton as soon as there is enough water in the Douglas, and getting to the 1/2 tide lock on the Savick Brook in time for there still to be enough water. Currently there is no availability in May, very little in June and even less in July. So the passage is well booked up well in advance. If for some reason we miss our slot, it seems likely that the transit would be scuppered for this year. So by means of the Dunkley strategy, many more days could be made available and once you go for the 2-tides solution, it makes it feasible to have opposite direction traffic at the same time. So there is merit in his proposal, but for the time being CRT are taking the easy route of keeping it simple and having fairly few days when the transit can be made, perhaps to avoid the situation of having CRT people attending to pass just one or two boats.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 18, 2024 19:13:56 GMT
Just for clarity I'm asking what your preference is approaching wide locks ... to work them alone or for another boat to join you ? We've met loads of lovely folks sharing locks, but I'd still rather do them alone cos we've also met fussy, grumpy, wittering, bad tempered folks. Solo is my preference. Rog Another boat to join us. As fi says, if it transpires you don’t like them, you can decide to stop for a cup of tea /strange engine problem etc. Or just sink their boat and carry on.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 18, 2024 18:49:37 GMT
In other news, Nicola Sturgeon’s husband Peter Murrel was arrested again today and has now been charged with embezzlement. How very sad. NOT! Hopefully the Crankie will be next.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 18, 2024 18:45:50 GMT
We prefer to share, especially going up hill because you don’t have to worry about the boat moving around in the lock too much. Preferably with a hire boat because they are happy on holiday, not Mr and Mrs grumpy-private-owner who seem to hate having a boat. It can be a bit frustrating when the other boat’s driver isn’t very good, in which case be the second boat to enter!
But it is very satisfying when you get someone who knows what they are doing. Exit the lock together, maybe move apart slightly, then come together as you enter the next lock simultaneously. Of course one could tie the boats together, but that reduces the fun. Even better if the people coming way know what to do - one pair of boats parts to let the other (opposite direction) one pass between. This can be tricky if there are 2 boats going each way though, as there may not be enough deep water width. That is the way to do it though.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 18, 2024 13:49:12 GMT
Reading this, I reckon so. I wonder if the likes of Jim will now accept that it was a really stupid idea, that should never have gone further than the wet dreams of a huddle of large government totalitarians. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-68838440The likes of me don't have a problem with it, been to Wales a few times since it came in, just stuck to 2nd gear where it applies. What's the rush? Well, the rush is that life is short and you only have one. I’d prefer not to spend a good chunk of it doing 20 along a road that was previously 40, unless there is a good reason for the 20 limit. And time is money for commercial ops, so time wasted doing 20 reduces the wealth of the nation. Anyway, it’s kind of crazy that the discriminator is street lamps. So on well-lit roads you can only do 20, on unlit roads you can do 60. Where is the sense in that?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 18, 2024 13:43:14 GMT
Apr 18, 2024 11:51:25 GMT 1 Telemachus said: Well I for one would be interested to hear your proposal. Presumably it involves sitting out low water in the Ribble estuary. I have no idea whether there is sufficient depth to do that (probably depends on the type of tide) but surely, even though there would be less fuel consumed, it would take longer bobbing about waiting for the tide to come in? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Not a proposal, . . but a variation on what we used to do running light back to Preston Docks from Tarleton back in the early 1960's on the trial runs for the prospective bagged chemicals traffic for ICI at Anderton. Back then, we would pen out of Tarleton about an hour after half Ebb, then a very steady run down the Douglas (the 'Asland', as some of the older local ex-boatmen called it) to the river's end, hang around for an hour or so in the vicinity of Five Mile Perch/Astland Light, then run up to Preston Docks on the first of the Flood. Now, with only pleasure craft going up to Preston from Tarleton, it would be more convenient, and make an overnight wait for the next Flood posible, if so desired, . . to wait on the floating landing stages at the boatyard that's about a mile downriver from Tarleton. It must be around two years now since I spoke with the boatyard about doing this. They were quite happy about making such an arrangement, . . and appeared somewhat surprised that nobody had asked about it before. I had a look at the tide times for Preston dock, quite surprised that there is such a big difference between ebb duration and flood duration despite it not being very far inland. As in about 2.5 hrs for the flood and 10 hrs for the ebb. But the Astland Lamp is about 1/2 way between Preston and the sea, so the tidal asymmetry is going to be less, maybe 4.5 hrs and 8 hrs at a complete guess. But up at Tarlton the tide times are more likely to be similar to Preston I’d have thought. So, keeping things simple and as a worked example, let’s say high tide at Tarlton is 08:00 and low tide is 18:00 and next high is 20:30. So you would propose leaving Tarlton at around 08:30 with a view to arriving at Savick Brook around 19:30 or so. I’m sure this would be feasible and economical but it makes for a very long duration passage, and whilst feasible with the tide times given I think there would be plenty of days when tide times were different, when the passage couldn’t be completed in daylight especially if you include completing the rest of the “link” up to the Lanky. Stopping overnight at the boatyard would be a possibility but again this adds to the duration considerably, and most canal boaters prefer being on a canal rather than overnighting on a tidal river (not that there is anything particularly wrong with overnighting on a tidal river, it’s just something leisure narrowboaters aren’t used to. And I can’t really imagine that the boatyard owner would be offering this service for free! So whilst there certainly are alternative strategies, they aren’t without their own problems. Your proposal would certainly increase the number of days when the transit was possible, but then we also have to look at the demand and the cost of manning and managing the transits. The transit is for leisure purposes, not commercial purposes, and so it doesn’t particularly matter if transit days are limited, provided the overall number of boats wanting to make the transit can be accommodated within a week or two of desired time. I suspect that if CRT had two alternative booking options, one for a transit on one tide as is current practice, and another one for days when the tides made this impossible but a 2-tide transit as per your proposal was possible but would take 11 hrs or so just to reach the Savick brook sea lock, nearly everyone would opt for the first option and the second option would be very under-subscribed.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 18, 2024 11:01:37 GMT
In other countries, people have no desire to get drunk and make idiots of themselves on the streets. It's a cultural thing. Yes it certainly is. The need is therefore to tackle the culture of drunkenness, not to outlaw alcohol altogether. And bearing in mind you can make alcohol in you kitchen, whereas you can't make tobacco, a ban on importing cigarettes would be feasible whereas a ban on the consumption of alcohol could never work (see USA prohibition for a clue!).
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 18, 2024 10:56:03 GMT
No I don't think it would be feasible to ban all smoking completely, but the idea of preventing (attempting to prevent) young people starting down a path of dangerous addiction, seems a good compromise. Would you object to an identical new law for alcohol? Alcohol misuse is responsible for many deaths. It's also responsible for a great deal of anti social behaviour. Unlike smoking, which isn't, other than being a minor irritation. Obviously such a new law for alcohol wouldn't affect me directly. But as I explained earlier, there is a safe level of alcohol consumption whereas there is no safe level of cigarette smoking. I would agree that alcohol misuse is problematic, but the solution would be to properly apply the existing laws such as it being a licensing offence to serve someone alcohol who is drunk, and being drunk and disorderly in a public place. In this country we seem to tolerate seeing druken hordes causing mayhem on the streets of a Saturday night. In other countries, public displays of drunkeness are not tolerated by the cops.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 18, 2024 10:51:25 GMT
As far as I know the locks at each end are locked, so regardless of whether CRT's strategy can be improved or not (I think it is quite likely it could be!) unfortunately we are stuck with following their schedule. Generally people operating locks do so to suit their own convenience rather than for any particularly good navigational reason - when we wanted to transit from Salter's Lode to Denver along the short tidal section last year, we were told we couldn't exit on the rising tide, which would have given a favourable current and much easier turn up the river, we had to wait for the tide to start going out enough to give adequate air draft and then make a not-very-easy full throttle turn into the current and push against it til we got to Denver - which fortunately is not very far. The reason apparently was in case they couldn't close the gate, it would allow more "fixing time" before the level exceeded the gates at the other end. Although I think at that state of tide, this would never have happened so it was just some "health and safety" bs that someone had thought up, without considering that most of the time (at most tides) it wasn't an issue. But rules was rules, apparently. The half-tide gate in Savick Brook, and the bottom gates of lock No.8 in Savick Brook are a separate matter. The lock tail and outer cill at Tarleton almost dry out at local Low Water, but the lock keepers at Tarleton will pen you in to or out of the Douglas as soon as the Flood has made enough depth to float you over the outer cill and the muck in the lock tail, . . or at any other time whilst there's sufficient depth for your boat over the outer cill and in the lock tail. Once you're in the river there, you're free to follow any passage schedule you want to. At the Preston end of the trip, there's a floating stage you can tie up to near the A583 road bridge over Savick Brook if you're late on the tide, or if it's a poor tide that doesn't make prediction, and the Ebb has run down too far to have enough depth to get up as far as Lock No. 8. But, . . penning out at Tarleton early on the Flood is the crackpot C&RT way of doing things, . . and means your going to be stemming the Flood pretty well all the way down the Douglas to where it meets and runs into the Ribble at Five Mile Perch - Astland Light - where you'll arrive at somewhere near to local High Water, . . just in time for the first of the Ebb in the Ribble, . . and then you'll be stemming that all the way up to the Savick Brook's Ribble outfall, . . and you'll continue stemming the Ebb running back down Savick Brook's narrowest shallowest part up as far as lock No. 8., the first lock on what actually IS the 'Ribble Link', . . about four miles of non-tidal canalised drainage ditch, upon which C&RT operate a strict booked in advance, very limited numbers, one-way working only on alternate days routine. All in all, . . a masterly piece of tidal passage planning by C&RT. The return trip from Preston back to Tarleton is equally well planned, . . adverse tides throughout the trip, . . and falling when you least want them to be. There is in fact a much preferable, easier, safer, fuel saving alternative to the ridiculous amateurish C&RT scheduling (for Tarleton - Preston), which always means being left with no choice other than to leave Tarleton for Preston as early on the Flood as you can. The alternative running schedule - the sensible, professional way to work round tide times - guarantees getting you to and into Savick Brook shortly before local HW, with no possibility of needing to sit out the next tide in Preston Marina (formerly Preston Docks). It also saves you having to stem the Ebb pretty well all the way up from Five Mile Perch/Astland Light. The Flood pushes you all the way up the Ribble, and you've a rising tide for the anything but straightforward turn off the river into Savick Brook. There's a much better alternative to the C&RT nonsense for scheduling/planning the Preston - Tarleton return trip too. Well I for one would be interested to hear your proposal. Presumably it involves sitting out low water in the Ribble estuary. I have no idea whether there is sufficient depth to do that (probably depends on the type of tide) but surely, even though there would be less fuel consumed, it would take longer bobbing about waiting for the tide to come in?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 18, 2024 10:47:00 GMT
There has been talk of this for years. I doubt it will ever happen. The effect of this is smoking will be outlawed but people who are old enough to smoke will be able to carry on. I don't think the country could afford to completely ban it yet. No I don't think it would be feasible to ban all smoking completely, but the idea of preventing (attempting to prevent) young people starting down a path of dangerous addiction, seems a good compromise.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 18, 2024 10:36:08 GMT
It depends on who you ask. The SNP will tell you it's proven to work. However, if you look at line graphs of the four home nations, two of which have minimum pricing, two which don't, the lines follow almost identical paths. Yes as with anything like that which is difficult to pin down to hard facts, it all depends on what outcome you want to prove.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 18, 2024 10:35:20 GMT
The Transport Minister this morning: 'We will prioritise schools, nurseries and places where the elderly congregate, in line with the existing policy, but make changes to reflect public opinion in other areas'. Bullshit. A universal 20mph limit does not prioritise anything. This is a capitulation from Welsh Labour. I think that is what he is saying, they will end the universal 20 limit and just apply it where there is good reason to. Which is more or less back to square one. Apparently it is down to the departure of Drakeford and his sidekick Lee Waters who was some climate change minister. He probably never worked out that cars doing 20 creates more emisions than cars doing 30!
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 18, 2024 10:29:48 GMT
So minimum unit pricing makes no difference. Well it certainly hasn't made a difference to most people. Possibly the alcoholic who buys the cheapest thing with alcohol in it, but even then since they are addicted, they will obtain the alcohol more or less regardless of the price, just cut down on something else instead. Like food.
What is somewhat more annoying than the min price is the ban on promotions. So gin is usually cheaper in an English supermarket, than in the same supermarket in Scotland.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 19:38:40 GMT
I was at a wedding last week, and I noticed afterwards at the little reception, and again in the evening at the pub, all those present between 20 and 30 years old were going outside to smoke, vape and chat. Only two older folk were joining them, my eldest sister (just started cig smoking again after 8 months) and my brother (pipe). I was going out for the chat, and noticed the general opinion amongst the smokers was outside was where the real fun was to be had ... not just at that event, but in general terms. It crossed my mind at the time that the indoor ban was possibly having an opposite effect. Rog Well they would say that, to justify their sad little huddle of drug addicts! But as you also point out, a very much smaller proportion of the general public smoke compared to before the indoor smoking ban was introduced, so a superficial examination suggests that the indoor smoking ban has had a significant effect in reducing smoking. You also point out that most smokers these days are around 20-30, which surely supports the targeting of this age group by the new legislation.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 19:06:40 GMT
Gliding is not statistically risky. Recently one member’s wife suffered a broken leg, and other member’s wife was seriously injured and in a wheelchair for 3 months. One was a mountain bike accident, the other a skiing accident. We did have a fatal accident in around 1979, nothing since then that has caused serious injury. I hope you take the point though. Sea fishing from a kayak is, statistically, one of the most dangerous activities around. I do plenty of it. I take precautions. I have a pfd, marine radio, phone in waterproof holder and I maintain a decent level of fitness. Still, it's risky. Should the activity be banned? This argument is a very old one that is trotted out every time smoking restrictions are talked about. If we are going to ban smoking, we should ban football, horse riding, kayaking, narrow boating in fact anything where people have died. Of course that includes lying in bed, because one thing is certain, most people die in bed so clearly beds are very dangerous. I refer you to the many such public discussions that have been had before on the subject. But I suppose it could be summarised by pointing out that all these other activities the primary aim is not to injure yourself - yes injuries can and do happen, but one can take good care to ensure that most likely they won’t. But with smoking, the sole aim is to infuse yourself with an addictive drug and concomitant carcinogenic tar etc. It is a self-destructive activity. One cannot smoke safely.
|
|