Sounds like you are to me.
I want a subsidy from others so I don't have to pay as much is pretty
much the same as harry IMO.
The big difference is that the government wanted people to do what harry
has done, they don't want you to have a boat.
Well, it might to you because you are easily confused. I'm going to
take my batteries round to harry's anyway so he can charge them on his
panels, as I'm already paying him. ;-)
Of course it is (to you). There is a massive difference between
forcing other people to pay for something that you use AND GAIN
FINANTIALLY FROM personally ... and off-setting the (in my case
'arbitrary) cost of making use of an existing recourse because of the
benefits my use will bring (and many of the waterway authorities seem
to agree because they do reduce the licence fee for those who don't
pollute the water and air (fuels and oil in the water and fumes and
noise in the air). Similarly I don't use many of the services the
licence helps support, like pump-out, hard moorings, water / electric
hookup or even locks for that matter (as we can portage round).
Part of the licence fee will also be used to 'clean up' the pollution
made directly into the water by spilt fuel, leaking oil or underwater
exhausts. I won't be doing any of that and I won't be using the
waterways any differently than those who row (at the point of use
etc). Many authorities do indeed treat electrically propelled boats in
the same way as they might sailing or rowing craft or at least reduce
"The Authority encourages more environmentally-friendly forms of
boating with reduced charges for electrically propelled motor craft."
But all under false pretences and using questionable ethics.
Of course they do. We are positively encouraged to make use of the
facilities open to all of us (not just those who happen to own a roof
that faces in the right direction and are looking for a cash cow).
'Use it or lose it'. My licence also helps towards the upkeep of the
towpaths but I haven't seen a horse drawn boat on any waterway for
years and the walkers and cyclists (who create most of the wear)
contribute nothing (but I'm happy to subsidise them). ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Generally Horses are prohibited from using most canal towpaths so
using a horse drawn boat to navigate everywhere would be awkward.
There are exceptions , some sections of towpaths have been
incorporated into bridle paths and there are a few horse drawn
tourist/ trip boats that have been granted the right permissions for
use of a regular section.
There are often complaints from the horsey community that this is so
and they frequently wail that the Towpath was built for horses.
Ignoring the fact that the horses were not being ridden and proceeded
at a gentle pace operated by people who knew that for the system to
work a degree of cooperation was required with each other aided by the
fact that canal towpaths then were not legally accessible by the
Now there are with all sorts of users the last thing needed is the
towpaths being cut up by horses hooves from gaggles of teenage girls
and their mothers pushing their way past other users.
They tended to be too big for use on most UK canals. When Horses were
used as motive power they tended be something smaller both to fit
under the many low bridges and pass each other on the towpaths, Mules
were sometimes used instead of Horses .
The bigger breeds were sometimes used on canals where barges rather
than narrow boats were able to be used where things were engineered
with larger proportions anyway.
Yes , some canals. Don't know of a river navigation . the Canals were
smaller ones so the bridge sections which were only supported at one
end need not be too large.
The canal to Stratford upon Avon was one and some bridges remain
though the gap has often been removed in recent decades so they can
This one still has it.
But the gap wasn't solely for that reason, it was because there was
no towpath through the bridge at all so the horse would pass by the
bridge past the ends, sometimes they crossed other times they went
back down to the same side.
The better method for crossing from a towpath on one bank to another
was to use a what is called a roving bridge where the towpath crosses
the bridge and spirals back so the crossing is completed before the
horse passed through the arch. some of the more elaborate ones had a
seperate bridge on a bridge as seen here.
What I meant was that I did not know of any fixed split bridge on a
River Navigation as opposed to a narrow canal, not that I did not know
of any river navigation's of which there are quite a few.
The Lea( Shouldn't it be Lee which differentiates it from the other?)
is quite wide and I don't think such a construction would suit.
Some commentators mention that the Stratford was unique in having them
but there is one about 15 miles away from me as I type and I'm sitting
in North Devon.
picture 25 on this gallery
That has been strengthened in the 130 or so years since a the canal
closed but photo 9 in the same set shows recovered sections of
metalwork from another bridge nearby that no longer exists.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:05:37 +0100, email@example.com wrote:
A barrister I used to work for insisted that up till the 1947 town and
country planning act bridle ways were just roads along which horses
had to be led by the bridle.
Also as most navigable rivers were established by act of parliament
the rights granted for their towpaths were strictly for the conveyance
of goods, as time went by and powered boats took over the towpaths
fell into disuse and the original landowners took them back in hand,
often developing them such that a continuous pathway no longer exists
at all. OTOH the towpaths on canals were established as the canal was
built on land acquired through an act of parliament and as the canal
companies passed away and the canals were acquired by the current
trusts so the towpaths became permitted footpaths and a great resource
they are too.
A famous name on the bit of canal I frequent (on foot, bike and
"Isabella" when she over winters).
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 15:53:15 -0700 (PDT), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
As can Li, but not generally on their own simply because you have
Sue, but I'll be wiring it all up so there won't be any of those. ;-)
Whilst I'm not saying there are *no* risks, I'm saying there are much
fewer risks than say with Li. Like, I can't remember where I read so
much advice about you *must* never leave a lead acid battery on charge
unmonitored or that you can buy a fire safe / bunker for charging,
transporting or storing lead acid batteries in.
I don't think I need to <weg>.
Such as? I thought I made the pros and cons pretty clear and were
no-brainers for our needs?
Cheers, T i m
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 04:57:30 -0700 (PDT), email@example.com wrote:
Assuming you are talking about the only bit I don't have control of,
eg, inside the battery itself then yes, you are right.
Outside of the battery, nope, there will be no poor connections
because I will be making them.
Well, a part of it is that of course but the underlying reason is the
poor fit of anything other than Lead Acid for me and this roll.
Cons for anything other than Lead Acid (and ignoring Nicad, NiMh or
anything exotic here), eg, mainly LiPo / Li-Ion.
1) Highly intermittent use (where LA can be left on trickle charge
2) A higher chance of spontaneous combustion if overcharged or
3) Massive investment in the batteries (and Li technology is still
4) Massive investment in the charging equipment (because) ...
5) Batteries need to be stored at a storage charge level requiring
fast top-up when required at short notice.
6) Batteries need to be discharged to a storage charge level if
charged and not used.
7) Batteries cannot be left unsupervised on charge.
8) Batteries ideally need to be charged, stored and transported in a
On the pro side for Li-xx, they would be lighter (for the same kWh).
Cheers, T i m
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.