In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roger Millin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Julian wrote: >> Sorry Roger Adrian is right here. >> However the canals have to be got back to their original profile that >> will cost more, but once they are there then there is no more cost >> keeping them there than keeping them at any other arbitrary level. > >Well bless my soul. So how do they get them back to the wide-beam >(correct) profile then? Magic them? >So my point is made, it will cost more to 'restore' and maintain at >wide beam standards. QED. I rest my case. It was the restoration aspect >at present funding levels that I knew wasn't going to happen, not >maintenance 'after' some mythical, magical, transformation of the >system by persons unknown.
No Roger your point was to "maintain" as was Adrian's not "restore". So as said, you are wrong and have moved the goal posts to "prove" your point. Would you argue that the mainland canals should be left to get like the British canals unable to take boats of the design gauge, possibly you would. It is getting on here much like the sailing/motorboat divide that exists on YBW, sad really as they are all boats -- Julian Tether Barge Parglena e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
