|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Aug 22, 2022 10:28:24 GMT
Because we're all noddy-boaters these days there is no NEED to boat ... it is simply a leisure activity ... and the demand to use the Millenium Ribble Link is not great enough to have staff available 24 hours a day. The times change, and it has been suggested in many posts that the link operates as it always was intended to do ... a balance between costs, manpower and access. Rog Do you EVER actually give any thought to anything before making a post about it ? You say - " it has been suggested in many posts that the link operates as it always was intended to do. " Who are the authors of these "many" posts, . . and how have you assessed them as to their fitness to comment ? What practical experience have any of them had in working out running schedules for tidal passages, . . schedules that can be adapted from day to day to compensate for such as changing river and weather conditions, including wind speed and direction, any extra 'fresh' coming on after any significant rainfall, . . and what effect any or all of these factors will have on predicted tide times ? As for the daft notion about staff being available 24 hours a day, . . where, and who, did that come from ? What would be the point in 24 hour a day staffing when there are only 2 tides a day, and when passage making, other than the time taken up in, and in getting through, the non-tidal Savick Brook section, is governed by the state of the tide, and tide times. Another point you can clear up -- commercial boating versus pleasure boating -- how, and why, do think working out tidal passage scheduling, and compensating for changing conditions is any different for commercials as opposed to pleasure craft ? Same tides, same rivers, . . or hadn't that occurred to you ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 10:48:49 GMT
I am entirely content with existing operation of the MRL, and C&RT's (BW before them) and their agents thought processes in introducing the link 20 years ago, and operating it unchanged throughout.
I believe it to be a balancing act between availability and costs of manpower, weather and tide conditions, and consideration for the skill levels and knowledge of the 'tourists' who may choose to use it.
It makes perfect sense to me in its current and only (since opening) guise.
I have seen no evidence of creeping subversion of authority, no impinging on ancient rights ... just a route for noddy-boaters to visit the Lancaster or the main system.
According to C&RT sources you quoted (and some of those who have actually done the trip) when weather conditions postpone booked passages, it is possible to permit extra crossings to attempt to catch-up.
The basic premise of your hypothesis or speculation (for that is all it is) is that you could design operation of the crossing to be carried out much more frequently and much more effectively.
I entirely accept that is possible ... through ignorance of the waterways I wouldn't be able to comment.
But is there a demand for such increased crossings and at what additional costs to us all in man hours alone.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 22, 2022 11:02:49 GMT
Shocking Results.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 11:10:29 GMT
The 'No it is too restrictive' party has formed a coalition with the 'Yes - extra money should be spent elsewhere faction'. But it's still a hung vote. Everyone is trying to rally the 'I'm entirely uninterested' upon whom ultimate power now depends. However they are busy necking a cold one.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Aug 22, 2022 11:15:56 GMT
I don't mind the discussion, it's the insults I don't like. Rog Twat.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 22, 2022 11:18:12 GMT
I don't mind the discussion, it's the insults I don't like. Rog How do you have time to discuss? With all that boat stealing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 11:21:18 GMT
Also bear in mind only 10% of the electorate bothered to vote so it's not as conclusive a vote as Brexit.
We need a higher profile campaign promising £30,000.000 a week in extra funds but at this stage it's unclear where the funds will come from. Money doesnae grow on trees my laddy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 11:30:51 GMT
Also bear in mind only 10% of the electorate bothered to vote so it's not as conclusive a vote as Brexit. We need a higher profile campaign promising £30,000.000 a week in extra funds but at this stage it's unclear where the funds will come from. Money doesnae grow on trees my laddy. Rumour has it, a rather affluent, generous, good looking philanthropic member of the thunderboat forum will shortly be making rather a substantial, and I think you will find, generous offer to the thunderboat coffers. Not you then.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Aug 22, 2022 12:18:23 GMT
I am entirely content with existing operation of the MRL, and C&RT's (BW before them) and their agents thought processes in introducing the link 20 years ago, and operating it unchanged throughout. I believe it to be a balancing act between availability and costs of manpower, weather and tide conditions, and consideration for the skill levels and knowledge of the 'tourists' who may choose to use it. It makes perfect sense to me in its current and only (since opening) guise. I have seen no evidence of creeping subversion of authority, no impinging on ancient rights ... just a route for noddy-boaters to visit the Lancaster or the main system. According to C&RT sources you quoted (and some of those who have actually done the trip) when weather conditions postpone booked passages, it is possible to permit extra crossings to attempt to catch-up. The basic premise of your hypothesis or speculation (for that is all it is) is that you could design operation of the crossing to be carried out much more frequently and much more efctively. I entirely accept that is possible ... through ignorance of the waterways I wouldn't be able to comment. But is there a demand for such increased crossings and at what additional costs to us all in man hours alone. Rog You're "entirely content" are you, . . well, that is good to know. What exactly is it that qualifies you to exercise any frame of mind or express any sort of opinion on this subject ? Your breath-taking arrogance is matched only by your infuriating stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 22, 2022 12:22:11 GMT
I am entirely content with existing operation of the MRL, and C&RT's (BW before them) and their agents thought processes in introducing the link 20 years ago, and operating it unchanged throughout. I believe it to be a balancing act between availability and costs of manpower, weather and tide conditions, and consideration for the skill levels and knowledge of the 'tourists' who may choose to use it. It makes perfect sense to me in its current and only (since opening) guise. I have seen no evidence of creeping subversion of authority, no impinging on ancient rights ... just a route for noddy-boaters to visit the Lancaster or the main system. According to C&RT sources you quoted (and some of those who have actually done the trip) when weather conditions postpone booked passages, it is possible to permit extra crossings to attempt to catch-up. The basic premise of your hypothesis or speculation (for that is all it is) is that you could design operation of the crossing to be carried out much more frequently and much more efctively. I entirely accept that is possible ... through ignorance of the waterways I wouldn't be able to comment. But is there a demand for such increased crossings and at what additional costs to us all in man hours alone. Rog You're "entirely content" are you, . . well, that is good to know. What exactly is it that qualifies you to exercise any frame of mind or express any sort of opinion on this subject ? Your breath-taking arrogance is matched only by your infuriating stupidity. opinions are like arseholes everyone has one. Apart from you Tony who seem to have one at each end of your body.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Aug 22, 2022 12:41:31 GMT
I am entirely content with existing operation of the MRL, and C&RT's (BW before them) and their agents thought processes in introducing the link 20 years ago, and operating it unchanged throughout. I believe it to be a balancing act between availability and costs of manpower, weather and tide conditions, and consideration for the skill levels and knowledge of the 'tourists' who may choose to use it. It makes perfect sense to me in its current and only (since opening) guise. I have seen no evidence of creeping subversion of authority, no impinging on ancient rights ... just a route for noddy-boaters to visit the Lancaster or the main system. According to C&RT sources you quoted (and some of those who have actually done the trip) when weather conditions postpone booked passages, it is possible to permit extra crossings to attempt to catch-up. The basic premise of your hypothesis or speculation (for that is all it is) is that you could design operation of the crossing to be carried out much more frequently and much more efctively. I entirely accept that is possible ... through ignorance of the waterways I wouldn't be able to comment. But is there a demand for such increased crossings and at what additional costs to us all in man hours alone. Rog You're "entirely content" are you, . . well, that is good to know. What exactly is it that qualifies you to exercise any frame of mind or express any sort of opinion on this subject ? Your breath-taking arrogance is matched only by your infuriating stupidity. forum/ˈfɔːrəm/ 1. a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. And in fairness Tony, Dogless has done the Ribble Link just as many times as you.
|
|
|
Post by twerp2 (Asleep) on Aug 22, 2022 13:14:22 GMT
Disappointed to see only two of us not giving two shits about the subject
|
|
|
Post by twerp2 (Asleep) on Aug 22, 2022 13:27:08 GMT
Yes, just worded more eloquently
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 14:36:57 GMT
I am entirely content with existing operation of the MRL, and C&RT's (BW before them) and their agents thought processes in introducing the link 20 years ago, and operating it unchanged throughout. I believe it to be a balancing act between availability and costs of manpower, weather and tide conditions, and consideration for the skill levels and knowledge of the 'tourists' who may choose to use it. It makes perfect sense to me in its current and only (since opening) guise. I have seen no evidence of creeping subversion of authority, no impinging on ancient rights ... just a route for noddy-boaters to visit the Lancaster or the main system. According to C&RT sources you quoted (and some of those who have actually done the trip) when weather conditions postpone booked passages, it is possible to permit extra crossings to attempt to catch-up. The basic premise of your hypothesis or speculation (for that is all it is) is that you could design operation of the crossing to be carried out much more frequently and much more efctively. I entirely accept that is possible ... through ignorance of the waterways I wouldn't be able to comment. But is there a demand for such increased crossings and at what additional costs to us all in man hours alone. Rog You're "entirely content" are you, . . well, that is good to know. What exactly is it that qualifies you to exercise any frame of mind or express any sort of opinion on this subject ? Your breath-taking arrogance is matched only by your infuriating stupidity. Really ? As neither of us has ever done the MRL , and there's a greater likelihood now that you'll swim it than I'll do it in Paneke, what makes your speculation any more meaningful than my satisfaction with how it currently operates ? How is it arrogance to express an opinion that the MRL operates just fine? Surely the real arrogance is very clearly demonstrated by someone shouting how they know better , even though they have no direct experience of the MRL And a final word ... I got involved in MRL discussion by agreeing with thebfg that the MRL is closed October to April each year. It is still the case. Rog
|
|
|
Post by patty on Aug 22, 2022 15:08:13 GMT
This thread has its lighthearted moments....
|
|