Leaderboard

Not staff, but my opinion is let the mods get the greenies. I quite often find myself trying to do it for posts I approve of then realising I can't because the poster is a mod. I still insist we need a "groanie" though for some of the awful jokes ....

Don't bwe so modest, some of yours are highly amusing. If I remember rightly, we used to have "dislike" points, which were red. Can you imagine how the Politics section would look if we had them now, great long rows of red blobs at the end or every post?

It appears we can now give greenies to moderators. I'm pleased, the virtual greenie was never the same. Is this part of the badges tweak @RichM?

Maybe you will find a big change when you come back onto the water, things have changed in the last few years with a lot more CMoorers, even on the once quiet Northern Canals, with places like Woodlesford, Lemonroyd, Whitley, Barmby Dunn often filled with the same boats for months. Then just moving on a few miles to the next services. A lot of these are new boaters, having bought their boats in the last couple of years, after watching Lockdown “living the dream” Vlogs, through Rose tinted glasses. Yes maybe CaRT should be more active with overstaying/CMoorers, but maybe it will be easier to deter them with a big increase in license fee, unfortunately genuine rule abiding CCers are set to suffer if this happens.

This is a vote not a consultation? 🤣

It's not really a survey It's just a choice of who will suffer more under the cost increases that are coming... "Would you be happy for everyone to be slapped in the face?" "Or would you rather that person over there be punched in the face, whilst you receive a slightly less hard slap in the face" "Or we could give a real kicking to that other person whilst you and that peep over there gets a slight slap to the face"

Exactly why CCers (Liveaboards) should pay more. They produce rubbish all year around which needs removing and that has a cost to C&RT They need the toilet emptying (either oump-out of cassette) there is a cost to C&RT of sewage disposal They use the locks more than leisure boaters, more lock operations more wear & tear to the locks - all more cost to C&RT. Thre should be a philosophy of 'user-pays' which has unfortunatley been absent in C&RTs planning. It was not previously (in BW days) a big problem as there was not the demand for cheap housing that the canals have now become.

So I feel the only fair way is to increase the licence fee for all. I don think it should just be CCers just because they choose not to be tied into a marina. They pay the licence fees for the facilities and for being on the water. for those saying that CCers use it more is ridiculous. All boats ( unless out of water) are using the water, so we should all pay for it. If people choose to be in a marina then it is your choice, as its the choice of CCers not to use a marina. Yes they (ccers) are not paying the marina fees, so does that mean they should be penalties imposed for that? That is like saying for those who pay to be in a marina, that once you venture from the mouth of the marina you then should pay the same as a CCer for the time you are out using the canal.......................................................................Yes its ridiculous isnt it.

Seems to have changed during last update. Getting bit bored of turning stuff back off but I have asked the mods what they want me to do with it. Still waiting on more feedback in the staff forum.

It's not a vote, certainly not a yes no, or choose option A or B vote. Various different options are given in different questions and you choose which of those you prefer/have least objection to, and there are boxes for comments. So the results of the consultation do not have to be conclusive unless everyone answers the same way which they won't, and not everyone will reply from self interest eg some narrowboat owners don't think widebeams should pay more and the option to maintain the status quo is included in every question. They do say fees will rise above the rate of inflation for the next 10 years, so that major decision is not up for consultation, and from the questions in the consultation it seems likely CCers and widebeams will have a bigger increase. So in my opinion the consultation is only likely to have a limited effect on how much extra the CCers and widebeams will pay, and how the widebeam rate will be calculated.

First they came for the widebeams and I did not speak out— Because I don’t have a widebeam, Then they came for the ccr’s and I did not speak out— Because I was not a ccr, Then they came for the weekend warriors I did not speak out— Because I was not a weekend warrior, Then they came for what was left and there wasn’t anything left.

A lot with surveys depends on how the results are presented. If they don't show the results CRT want, they will be accompanied by a sorrowful statement that they tried their best to accommodate boaters' wishes, but sadly they have to take into consideration other factors, as well as protecting the interests of other users and their bonuses. No, forget the last bit, they won't say that but trust me, it's the bottom line. And of course, they can tick the box that says they listened to us. Hell of a lot of difference between listening and taking any notice, though. Any fool can listen.

Might need to add some thistles... 😄

I built a PBK 56 Gannet at school. It was a hard chine plywood canoe. EVERY screw slot (and there were thousands) had to be either horizontal, vertical or in the same plane as the structure. 'Woody' Walker, the woodwork master was a hard taskmaster.🥵

Deaf as post. Has it’s advantages. I can have a boat with a old thumper. That sounds to me to be electric at lot less than £200000 😜😜😜😜😜

Because first the NBTA get involved, then the press, then the internet ("think of the children, families torn from their homes..."), then this all comes to the attention of DEFRA who think "CART aren't doing a very good job of managing their canals, why should we increase the grant like they ask for?" (or even keep it the same in real terms). You might not realise it but bad PR travels quickly and spreads a long way nowadays and can have real negative effects, which groups like the NBTA (and CART) are very well aware of... 😞 If the consultation avoids some of this by letting CART play the "boaters voted for it" trump card, fend off the NBTA and friends, and get more money from license fees more quickly as a result, it'll probably be good value for money... 🙂

Some breakdown companies love them "just happen to have a new battery on the van Sir"

I agree C&RT are under no obligation But the C&RT consultation questions are loaded in favour of the steps C&RT want to take . C&RT then hide behind the consultation results and claim to be doing what the consultees want. Consultations are very dangerous things .

Have a red blob. I didn't really love your post, I'm just making up for the ones I did like in the past. I'm going to go back through all your old posts now and greenie the ones I liked. Back in 5.

That's not the argument. Ignore marinas for now. There are a lot of CRT and private online moorings that people pay for. Question: what are they paying for? To moor against the side of the canal. What do CCers do? They moor against the side of the canal. Is the fact that they might use a different bit of it every couple of weeks relevant, and if so why? They are doing exactly what home moorers do, but for free. The original logic was that home moorers paid to stay in the same place instead of having to move every 14 days, but now the vast majority of CCers don't move much - there are plenty on the two halves of my canal that have never been through a lock. So, really, thinks CRT, they should damn well be paying too, especially as they use the facilities more than the homebodies. I'm not saying whether I agree or not. But it's a valid point of view.

Yes - C&RT have 'previous'. If they don't get what they want to hear, they it will not be applied. In this case I expect there will be an 80% support for increasing widebeam by a lot more than NBs, and a 90% support for CCers to pay much more than a boat with a home mooring.

They did it to channel you to the answers they wanted! As I said they already have the answer they want

CRt have to consider w hether the y w ill lose miney by putting various fees up, that's all. Biaters have been screaming and shouting about maintenace issues for years, which have resulted, eg, in Northwich getting flooded after a perfectly avoidable breach, Todbrook because lack of inspections, and they haven't listened yet. So why on earth do you think they will do anything with the consultation except prepare for a bit of flak? There's nothing we can do except pay up or sell up. CRTs constituency is NOT boaters. It's fishermen, cyclists, walkers, conservationists and the government who pay a bit for it all. Boat owners are a tiny minority, and an even tinier minority of the small percentage of them that actually use the system for anything other than a holiday cottage or somewhere to squat, and an even smaller chunk who genuinely CC. No-one is going to care if we get upset.

So it isn't a vote then. There was not a single list of options (courses of action) and a requirement to pick the one you most preferred. There were a few different lists which you had to choose from, and boxes to write comments in. CRT have not said anywhere they will go with what the majority or largest single group want. They have said they will make a decision when they have "considered the responses to the consultation" So can you quote the bit that says it is a vote? And the bit that says CRT will be bound by the "vote"?

It isn't a vote it is a survey/consultation.

Wait. That is not the CWDF way. Never admit you are wrong, bluster your way through, regardless of the mountain of evidence against any assertion you have made.

Using a sledgehammer (or a slide hammer, or any hammer...) to remove a prop in situ with the shaft still in place is a recipe for buggering up the gearbox bearings -- don't do it, the damage could only show up (expensively) later... 😞 https://marinehowto.com/a-new-prop-shaft/ Slide-Hammers = NO! Before you engage a boat yard to do this job, I will type this so it hopefully makes sense; NEVER use a “slide-hammer” to remove a shaft from a coupling if the coupling is attached to the gear box! Slide hammers can cause brinneling of the bearings or races in the gear box. The shock loads imparted on the static bearings, by the “slide-hammer”, actually create flat-spots in the races or bearings themselves. Your gear box may appear to work for some time after the slide-hammer event but eventually, the damage rears its ugly head and it’s next to impossible to lay blame on the slide-hammer user as they rarely fail instantaneously.

CRT are currently training 437 volunteers in website management where they can update the weekly, daily and indeed hourly moorings changes as each local manager and enforcement officer attempts to dictate a form of change where none is needed, in reaction to local IWA meeting and dog walker facebook posts. Nominal 24 hour moorings can easily be altered to 2 or 4 hours with a simple blue plate with sticky back developed by a company owned by a CRT director costing only £285 each including installation costs.

It's not clever, they have been doing Consultations on whatever they have already decided for 15 years now if you include the BW consultations once they were forced to do them. The only reason that some of those consultations results changed things is that boaters went out and did the work BW and CRT should have done and showed the farcical or environmentally damaging results of their proposed changes. Blame avoidance is something common in Goverment funded orgs. , cant argue there, unfortunately it damages the Worldwide appreciated golden goose of the lovely English canals further....eventually CRT will kill the influx of tourism if they carry on reducing moorings and increasing the costs of boating, holidays, hire, short term ownership, retirement dreams etc etc etc. No consultation covers the damage that are planning.

I'm happy for historic boats to get a discount just to make a small contribution towards their preservation. Giving an electric boat a discount is bonkers. C&RT need the money. I'm OK with the final one because their cruising range is physically limited. Having said that which waterways would the latter apply to?

I certainly found it more pleasant, both to live on and as leisure, when boats were cheaper and had less electronic gubbins inside. The cut was a lot quieter then as people didn't need to run gennies or engines for hours a day just to do the washing or watch TV. I reluctantly accept that people just want floating mansions now and I suppose they all need microwaves as they don't know how to cook. Anyway, only be the ones with deep pockets left soon.