Leaderboard

Really that would rule me out providing any contributions because A lot of my knowledge comes from experience and fellow professions I trust. It may be fine for those from higher academia who giving sources and references is a way of life, but if I have to first get access to the text books and search then for the reference I would not bother. Especially as many of the authors were/are just FE lecturers, much like myself.

That's what used to happen. Boaters declared " ghost moorings" which never saw the boat but BW as it was there cottoned on and started checking mooring sites. Ellesmere port was a favourite I believe

The issue of bad information can be mitigated in the same way as Wikipedia: cite sources and references for information provided. No doubt, due to the expertise of a lot of forum members, a lot of that could be 'i have worked in field X for Y decades'. The idea that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source is quite frankly a little old-fashioned. Used correctly, it is in my mind one of the greatest achievements of mankind. The sum of (mostly correct) human knowledge at the tip of your fingers. I've worked with smaller wikis both professionally and recreationally and often see the quality of their content as a function of the quality of the userbase. It would require work from community members to ensure accuracy sure, but would that really be *less* work than having users ask the same questions, having to provide (or seek out threads providing) that same information, and taking part in the same 'discussions' over and over again? There's a wealth of information that could be provided in a wiki that is *not* really up for debate, and with a little careful moderation, those topics that *do* turn into debate could be either locked, or clear warning given at the top of the page. If the main argument of a wiki not working is 'our community simply argues too much' then it sounds like there's a community-level issue. If communities spawned from places like 4chan can have accurate wikis regarding fairly technical subjects, it seems wild to me that one serving the canal community could not. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good

Just a point Collingwood arnt great boats, on facebook people are always complaining of problems with them. Buy a secondhand boat yes they are expensive as well, and give it a whirl first, I have a 57 x 12 widebeam, I am on northern waters which are designed for big boats, moorings are available and not two arms and a leg! I retired at 57 best thing I did I have had a great time on my boats but sadly think CRT are going to shoot the golden goose and close the waterways down!! Not this year but the death of a thousand cuts has already started, they will turn boaters on each other and the well off ones cant see beyond the end of their nose thinking of schemes that will work. CRT will just put prices up for everybody its the easiest way

Maybe a bad plan for you but not the OP, not everyone is obsessed with home ownership at the cost of their lifestyle. One life, live it.

I have given up posting advise or information on timber treatments for the same reasons. Despite having been trained by a Master Cabinet Maker, and having worked with wood and restoring old furniture for the last 60 years, I now seem to know less about wood treatments than someone who can read all the claims off the back of a tin that they bought on the internet. There are also several other competent woodworking members who no longer post, presumably for similar reasons.

Ooh. Are you going to do a "tasteful" swimsuit photo for your avatar? Also as the list is upside down, does that mean I am under the influencer? You can't really compare those - have an orange instead! 🍊

2.6. Boats without permanent moorings The initial May discussion document suggested that boats that cruised continuously around the network with no long term mooring might pay a premium on their licence. Usage was subsequently ruled out as a cost driver (see para 2.1), but the suggestion prompted by far the largest response to any of the consultation issues. Strong and opposing views came from individuals and groups. This has reaffirmed the imperative for clear guidelines to help customers decide whether or not they qualify for ‘continuous cruising’ status. Separate consultation is now underway on this issue and will be reported as soon as possible. http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/consultations/Reviews_Craft_Licensing_Review_Final_Report_Feb_2003.pdf The initial proposal you keep referring to was scrapped in the first phase of the consultation. It didn't survive the user groups.

I don't like the idea, not because I'm against the concept specifically but more because this place lives or dies on discussion and even though it can be frustrating for the old hands to see the same topics raised time and time again the forum needs new members and that's how new members get involved, by asking questions. And I have a real soft spot for the forum and we need new involved members

I also expect a very significant increase in the license cost for CCers. I'm not sure if its worth getting into the issue of whether it is fair or not- we could be here forever and still not agree. But I do feel an increase is coming. My finger in the air guess would be an increase of between £500 and 1k per year, on the basis that the vast majority of liveaboard CCers will opt to pay the increased fee and carry on. CRT can't squeeze the CCing liveaboards too hard. Although they are only about 7,000 or so in number, that's still a worthwhile revenue to CRT. They cant put the license fee up much for boaters with home moorings, because lots of the recreational/part time boaters will then start thinking that their holiday/recreational pastime has become too expensive to carry on. The CCers are fewer in number, but they are a slightly 'softer' target- but you have to imagine that an increase of more than £1k will force a number of them off the waterways altogether, and I think the waterways will become a less interesting and less diverse environment if that happens.

...though not, evidently, on boats.

I really have no intention of getting drawn into this long, tedious and pointless discussion but walking the whole network every fortnight does not preclude checking the sections where more onerous mooring restrictions are in force more frequently. Neither does walking the whole system every 14 days mean that a boat observed in a particular place 14 days apart didn't leave the place for 12 days and return in the intervening period. If CRT want to enforce continuous cruising rules they need a better system than this.

Unfortunately, your response shows a lack of comprehension. The deal between Defra and CRT was not just about government giving £800m over five years. It was also about transferring most of BW's funding streams and removing some of the restrictions placed on BW (e.g. ability to make loans). The expectation was that CRT would develop these funding streams and the new "charitable giving" funding stream such that future government support was not needed in the longer term. A report by KPMG found that projections against ex-BW and new income streams taken together with grant were reasonable but cautioned that the condition of the waterways might deteriorate slightly. As the contribution from "Investment" and "Joint Ventures" is so low against the projection in 2021/22 (and previous years) and can not be explained, I would suggest financial mismanagement. It is certainly not due to raging inflation because that started after year end. It is worth noting that the deal was stated to be "tough but fair" by CRT's chair who signed it. It was claimed to give "certainty of funding". It is difficult to accuse the government of underfunding because it was agreed that grant together with other income streams was sufficient

I think that was the point I was trying to make at the time, and I stand by that point now. It sounds like lady g took precautions to get back on the property ladder, presumably by investing the proceeds of her flat sale in something that isn't eroded by inflation that allows her to re enter the housing market. You clearly did the same. I just worry for those that aren't as prudent, or as able to do so and end up living on a dingy boat into their 80's when they are either not able or don't want to be in that position. Going boating does not mean buying a 100k plus boat.

One bit of advice that is always given, and worth mentioning here, is to make sure you hire a boat for at least a week, preferably in the Autumn or winter so that you get a taste of the more gritty aspects of the lifestyle- winter mud, lugging bags of coal, the rain, etc. There are some people who realise after a month or two on their boat that the compromises of living in a small space (or afloat) are not what they really want, so try a hire first. Odds are you'll like it, but if you don't its an expensive mistake. The other thing is an idea. Would it be possible to get a used boat for say £50-80k, and use the rest to buy a flat somewhere for say £100k (perhaps up north?), and rent the flat (managed by a property agency) out so that you have both an income (or you can save the rent income), and you still have an asset that will keep its value etc? My worry is the amount of money you lose on brand new boats can be horrific in some cases.

Why are you drawn to Collingwood boats? There quality is questionable and are usually seen as being at the lower end of the market. They are one of, if not the largest builder of canal boats so do have a more impressive website and sales pitch than most of their competitors. Most alternative builders would give a better rather than similar standard (but many would charge more) I would consider a narrow boat as it will give you more cruising and mooring options, and will be cheaper to license and moor.

It is -- and the problem with people being asked questions like this is that some of those people will inevitably not like the answer... 😞 Lots of posters keep complaining that CART "doesn't listen to boaters" or "does things that boaters wouldn't agree with" -- well this consultation is CART openly saying "We need to increase the license fees" (which they have no choice about) and asking boaters "How do you think we should do this?", so you're finally getting what you asked for... 😉 Given that narrowboaters outnumber wideboaters several times over (4:1? 5:1? Anyone got a number?) I think it's a slam-dunk that there will be a huge majority in favour of area-based pricing. That's unfortunate for wideboat owners but it's how voting works. Everyone has known for years that wideboats are a lot cheaper per square foot of living space than narrowboats to both buy and license and that's why their numbers have expanded -- why wouldn't they? -- but there was never any guarantee that the license fee advantage would remain, especially not if all boaters were asked whether it should or not. There's likely to be a similar view on a "CC surcharge", because most boaters are not CCers, and many of them with home moorings resent the misuse of the CC license (OK, no home mooring if you insist) by people who want to stay in one place without paying for a mooring like they do. Regardless of CARTs "CCers use more of the network so cost us more" comment, this is likely to be the overriding reason for voting for a CC surcharge -- and it *will* have a bad effect on all the "real CCers" who do actually roam round the system and are the boaters for who the exception was intended when it was introduced many years ago, but in recent years the license has been so widely abused by CMers that "real CCers" will sadly be collateral damage... 😞 Whether changes like this are "fair" or "prejudiced" isn't the point; if they're what a large majority (not 52:48...) of stakeholders vote for, it's difficult to argue that they shouldn't happen simply because some are disadvantaged by them. This is what happens whenever there's *any* change in anything like taxes, there are always winners and losers, but hopefully more winners... 😉

I don't think he has any experience of boating on the inland waterways, there seems to be no reason to sell up, buy a boat and then decide if it is a good idea. He indicates he has sufficient cash available to purchase a good second hand boat. To me, buying a new widebeam is unwise, there are other options which don't seem to have been considered by OP. I live on a boat, and I know it has both advantages and drawbacks. It suits some people, but not others. I also fear for the future of the waterways, if the government dramatically cuts back on grant aid and boaters are asked to make up the difference, things are going to change, and not for the better.

Not everyone is at the same stage of their life cycle as you are. You may be a "Grade II Veteran" but are you qualified to give lifestyle advice to a 50 year old, who has proven by the fact he can retire 15 years early that he is quite capable of sorting out his life. The OP does not want a suitable (or unsuitable) job - he has worked himself into a position where he can do what he wants, and, he wants to retire,

One reason it is "not looking good for us" From Facebook

I'm really gonna take that onboard. Thanks, your opinion means much. I'm going shopping later, should I buy apples or Bananas?

Yesterday Nutshell Bridge, Stroudwater Navigation and three days ago - nearby

Have you done some on the ground research?, maybe a visit to the K&A to see just how busy it is? and to see if you fancy trying to get a large widebeam past many other moored boats, including an increasing number of widebeams. It looks that just about everybody has the same plan as you at the moment and there is only room for so many widebeams on the Southern wide canals. The chances of finding a bankside residential mooring on the K&A is pretty close to zero.

As you are sound reasonably young and fit are you sure you want a wide beam and limit your travels?

20% is trivial in your book is it, funny how those who aren't faced with having to pay it are so fond of it.

I can't decide about that one. A short boat going through a lock still uses a lock full of water and probably causes almost as much wear on the system as a big one (more in some cases). I am surprised that many marnas charge by the foot when a shorter boat still fully ocupies a jetty. Financially boaters do well, we cost much more than we put in, but then again cyclists put in nothing, and many canal visitors are here to see boats and maybe watch a boat going through a lock so we do provide the character of the canal. I am happy to pay quite a bit more....but I expect something in return..

Yes it’s very often because they come onto the forum, ask “rhetorical questions” ie questions to which they already think they know the answer, or at the very least know what answers they want in order to reinforce their opinion, and then get a sulk on when not everyone spits back the answers they want. And then their narcissistic attention-seeking gene kicks in and instead of just quietly going off and buying a tape recorder so they can be entertained hearing the sound of their own voice giving the answers they want, spend considerable effort telling everyone how unfair it all is, how everyone is wrong and they are right, stamping their feet moments before flouncing off in a dramatic exit stage left. Or at least I think that’s it because to be honest they are forgotten very shortly afterwards.

Don't apoligise, this really is not off topic. The OP was planning to move onto a brand new widebeam and CC so these potential changes might be very significant

Well actually it is about me, and I think you will find all members join because it suits them, not to help other people who they don't even know. The idea of working in a boatyard every month sounds quite untenable, what on earth are they doing? If they are all small minded, then I won't be joining. As far as I can see the local boat club probably rent a line of online moorings from the CRT. What work needs to be done?