Leaderboard

My perspective, and that's all it is. We are leisure boaters with a home mooring. We boat within the rules, so that defines a range, particularly since a lot of our boating is limited to a weekend at a time.We have had our mooring for nearly three years. In that time, I have become aware of three boats operating outside the rules. I have spoken to the owners of two of them (not about the rules, just a general conversation). One has not moved in the time we have had our mooring. It has holes in the hull and is on the edge of complete collapse. I do not know specifically whether it is licenced or insured, but it looks likely that it is not. The owner has no particular means of financial support, and upgraded to this from living under a tarpaulin in the woods. If you were to pass the boat, you would identify its condition, but there are no other signs of how long it may have been there. The boat is in an isolated spot, well away from amenities and is in no way causing an obstruction or adversely affecting other users. There is nothing on the towpath and the area is neat and tidy. The owner is likely to be seen outside the boat and give you a cheerful wave. In a purely commercial sense there is non-payment of a fee due but practically speaking the fee would be derived from the government (ie taxpayer) and there is no use of resources or observable negative impact on either other users or the surrounding environment, so I feel that pragmatically there is no advantage to be gained in changing the status quo. The second is a grp cabin cruiser. It would not particularly catch anyone's attention on passing - a bit patched up on the plastic windows and it must be very cold. It moves (the outboard is fitted) but definitely not far enough to 'satisfy the board' although it does not overstay at any particular location. Again, the choice of moorings is rural locations, mainly near bridges, because the owner has a child at primary school (who does not live with them) and stays close enough to regularly see them. They are not compliant, but they are doing the best they can and again are not having a negative impact on other users or the surrounding environment, and I cannot see another reasonable option so again, pragmatically I see no advantage in changing the status quo. I have not met the owner of the third boat. This is moored much closer to amenities and is occupying a location where visiting boats moor adjacent to it or a regular basis, although the area is not so heavily occupied that a visiting boat could not find a mooring. The boat is newer and in better condition. The owner has begun to fill the towpath adjacent to their boat with sacks of coal, a large cargo bike etc. This boat is just beginning to annoy me because its owner appears to have a sense of entitlement to behave in this way. Another boat in the area creates a similar general impression but is on a residential mooring on the offside bank where they have permission from the owner to store coal etc. and I compare what these two boats are contributing/taking. The first two boats do not create the same impression as the third. I don't think this is because I have had conversations with their owners, I think it is because the first two owners have taken a conscious choice to minimise the impact on others of the situation which has been imposed on them and the latter has not. I have had no personal dealings with NBTA, but the press content they issue has this similar sense of entitlement which is what grates with me. Alec

The term "CMers" is applied to rather more than the relatively small band of boaters who have no intention of moving in accordance with their licence. I've also never known anybody on CWDF - even in the days when it had a far larger and more diverse representation of boaters than it now does - support blatant overstaying. The vast majority of liveaboard boaters without a home mooring operate in a manner that CRT deem sufficient to fulfil licensing requirements. If you are spotted in the same location on two consecutive occasions more than 14 days apart you will receive a reminder of your obligation to keep moving. The entry level of the enforcement regime does work and it serves to keep boaters moving, because ultimately the majority want to renew their licence. A lot of folk would do well to leave CRT to go about their business and work on the assumption that if boats are on the water they are licensed and compliant. The lack of an up to date licence displayed on a boat is not an indicator that a boat isn't licensed. Nor does a boat that gives the the appearance of looking well settled in, or with a rear deck from which it might look impossible to steer - mean the boat never moves. As someone that cruises long distances on a near weekly basis and uses visitor moorings as my preferred option for mooring I can say I rarely find it difficult to moor and if I do it will be because boats have occupied the site, not any particular sort of boat or boater. In any case how do you know which boats on a visitor mooring have a home mooring and which ones don't? My experience of boating in the Home Counties is that liveaboard boaters tend to avoid visitor moorings. Something I see another boater has also mentioned. Of course it's perfectly acceptable to argue that the rules - or the enforcement - should require more movement than they do, but that does not make it OK to apply a derogatory term to those who would be impacted by such. It's a complex subject that involves outside influence and agencies and any serious debate should treat the affected persons with respect - a mark of tolerance in itself - and that means using the correct terminology. I don't like the term "CCers", it has no legal basis and misleads folk as to what they think is required of others. Unfortunately CRT use it themsleves. The use of the term "CMer" belies prejudice and undermines the point of view of the person using it.

Since we have relocated our "winter canal" from the K&A to the Rochdale I have very much changed my thinking about "short distance CC'ing. Canals need boats, amd especially they need good boaters. A good boater is anyone that adds a bit of life to te canals and does not antagonise the locals. The only real issue is massive overcrowding that prevent other boates from visiting the area, and even this is a relative sort of thing. Trying to encourage or even force boats to move a longer distance is not a good way to tackle congestion. CRT are a bit limited by the waterway act but with a bit of thought and luck there are probably better approaches. Some places are popular and will always be busy even without over stayers. Stone springs to mind. I am with Goliath on this, its ok if its difficult to find a mooring, or a long walk to the pub, its only a real problem if you go somewhere and there is just nowhere to moor. Visiting places that are popular and rammed, and then moving to the lonely widerness, is all part of the fun.

Price list from the Holy Inadequate last week... 😉

Do you hold that changing the management would help then?

I’m certain that the painter is Frank Nurser of Braunston. In these modern times, he is regarded as a master of traditional boat decoration, his apprentice Ron Hough carried the tradition in to the pleasure boating age. The work is prized by collectors, I have several examples of his work among mine. The two cans mentioned earlier were painted by him for the film “ Painted Boats” made in the late 1940s, the current owner also owns the boat featured in that film. I would keep it as it is, personally..on the auction market it might raise a sizeable sum…but that’s only money…..I’m not bidding, by the way.

Colonising the pavement and sometimes blocking the road is still quite common in the backstreets of Hebden Bridge, and a couple of spots in Todmorden. 😀 and the most common colonisers of the towpath are a certain type of leisure boater who set up picnic tables and foding chairs outside their boat sometimes totally blocking the towpath. I am not too bothered about really bad stuff like mooring on a lock landing (which I have done many times), its fine if you arrive late and leave early and its not a busy canal. I think its the attitude that matters and quite often it does feel llike some boat dwellers are just putting two fingers up to other canal users.

Here is another couple of shots. Are there plenty of these old cans about? Is it worth trying to keep it in fair order? It is far too heavy to use. We have had newer ones, much lighter and useful in emergencies.

What a great trad boozer lovely locals for the craic . Recommend a visit x

Absolutely spot on. My attitude to towpath moored liveaboards has changed over the decade I’ve owned a boat. People are as much a part of canals as the boats and the infrastructure. The one thing I really don’t like though is those that colonise the towpath. You can have your space on the water for 14 days but the towpath isn’t an extension of your home anymore than the street outside my house is mine. On the subject of mooring anyone with a licence is permitted to use a visitor mooring. The status of the boater is irrelevant if they were there first and are not overstaying. If they are routinely full the solution is to extend the VMs. One thing that is perhaps worthy of change is the default to 14 days for visitor moorings between October and March. You will be familiar with live aboard communities that pitch up in one place for a couple of weeks then move on to the next. In summer VMs are generally not of interest to these folks but I have noticed that once October comes around they may occupy VMs for 14 days. I wonder if perhaps it should be take a winter mooring - which usually are on VMs - or make do with the general towpath all year.

Impatient to get afloat after years of hiring but just wanted a leisure craft for ourselves and the family in 2016 I approached a number of yards with the same response. You`ll have to wait at least 18 months to 2 years. Disgruntled I saw a sailaway ( engine ballast flooring windows etc in)-right length for us (57 ft) and design (semi trad). Having been in property development building new houses with qualified tradesmen ( and our own joinery workshop) I decided we could fit out the craft far quicker. 8 months later it was in the water and away to get painted and the hull treated at Debdale (zinc plus 2 pact)

personally and honestly, whilst I might take a cursory look at another boat and perhaps wonder about them, generally I shrug my shoulders and move on. I really do. It’s not my call. I’ve other stuff to fill my head space with. I believe CRT are more aware than we might give them credit for. I’m now meeting boaters who are being told they’ll only be getting a 6 month license unless they move and cover more mileage. And these boaters take it seriously and are moving. Sometimes moving excessively to prove a point. I’ve said it earlier in the thread I’m looking forward to going back through London to test how easy or difficult it is to moor and find out how boaters manage or not to follow the 14 day rule in such a congested area. I think that’s a very good post and needs to be read again. It may not change the minds of the die hard bring back hanging brigade on here but for folk out there reading and not posting it might offer them a well written view on things to mull over.

Some examples (Page 207) BWB have disposed of more than 160 km of waterway. Transfers to other authorities covering some 45 km include: (1) Monmouthshire & Brecon Canal; the Monmouthshire length and Crumlin Arm (17.5 km) to various District Councils for redevelopment. The Board retain rights to transport of water and sales but the Councils are responsible for water-channelling or piping as necessary. (2) Grand Western Canal: transferred intact (17.5 km) to Devon County Council for amenity, including light boating. (3) Cromford Canal; the upper section (8 km from Ambergate to Cromford) to Derbyshire County Council for amenity, including light boating. 15.5.8 Substantial sales totalling some 110 km have been made piecemeal on the following Remainder waterways:- Ashton Canel, Birmingham Canal Navigations, Chesterfield, Cromford, Lancaster, Manchester Bolton & Bury, Nottingham and St Helens Canals, Shropshire Union Canal (Newpart, Trench and Shrewsbury Branches}, Swansea Canal. No navigable lengths have been sold. There is quite a bit more.

Hello again all, and thanks again for all your help so far. I got in touch with Anthony at Rose Narrowboats, who was quite sure that Badger wasn't a part of his fleet as he didn't recognise the name Sunray II and was sure none of their boats had the offset stern hatch and door. He mentioned another hire company called "Plus Pleasures", of which there seems to be very little record other than a couple of mentions on this forum. Does anybody have any memories of this company? Thanks!

No, I was merely pointing out basic truth. Not only good prices, but good beer too.

"(d) a new obligation imposed on the Board to deal with all waterways not in the category either of Commercial or Cruising waterways, i.e. the remainder (termed for the sake of convenience the ‘Remainder waterways”) in the most economical manner e.g. either retention, elimination or disposal, as most appropriate. (e) local and certain other statutory and charitable authorities were given powers to enter into agreements with the Board for maintaining or taking over any Remainder waterways or parts thereof and to assume full responsibility or (in the case of local authorities) for making financial contributions towards the cost of maintenance in inland waterways". "3.6.3. On the other hand the Board has certainly acquired or assumed obligations in the course of years from which it would now be extremely difficult, if not impracticable, to get free. Before deciding — in the case of a Remainder waterway, for example — that it could be closed or eliminated, consideration needs to be given in each case to the nature and extent of the obligations involved. These questions are reviewed in Chapter 15." Section 15 of the Fraenkel Report (20 pages) Reviews the staus of the remainder waterways, costs of maintaing them vs costs of closing them etc etc etc and is a 'good read'. The first of the 1974 reports was limited to 234 navigable kilometres and strongly recommenced that they be upgraded to the Cruising category, For the first group maintenance agreements bad already bean concluced:- Ashton and lower Peak Forest Canal (22.5 km, agreement pending), eyewash Canal (17 km), Grand Union Canal, Slough Arm (9 km), Monmouthshire & Brecon Canal (52 Km), Caldon Canal (28 km). The second group lacked agreamendt: - Birmingham Canal Navigations (82 km), being priorities 1, 2, 3.1 and 3.2 of the 1970 Working Party report, see paragraph 15.5.3), Grand Union Canal, Welford Arm (3km), Kennet & Avon Canal (9 km), Hamstead Locj to Hungerferd), The Board was unable to support the Council's recommendations for the second group “owing to thelr limited liabitity”. The summary shows a table of the costs. No miracles involved , just an outsider looking in with an open mind and identifying alternative sources of income from existing resources.

As I said, the chargers make no distinction.

There is no distinction to be made, except that one group follows the rules and the other group doesn't.

Actually there is. 1995 British Waterways Act 17(c) either— (i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or (ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances. Yes there is an exemption in (ii) for boats being "used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid", but boats CMing do not pass this test.

I have loads of tolerance for people with different lifestyles to me, regardless of their appearance or wealth or canal usage or anything else, so long as they follow the rules/laws and have consideration for others -- this applies on the canals as much as anywhere else. I don't have much tolerance for piss-takers who ignore rules/laws when it's convenient for them, and act selfishly to the detriment of other people or users of a shared resource like the canals. "CMers" is the label that has been generally used for one group of boaters who do this, with the vociferous support of the NBTA -- and like many others I don't see why I should be nice to them, any more than I should be nice to any other group who flout/break the laws, which after all are one thing that keeps society functioning. There are poor people in all walks of life both on land and the canals who deserve sympathy and support, but the way to do this should be to provide them with a liveable income and perhaps try and make life cheaper for them, for example with a reduced license fee for older boats -- which for some reason many people seem to be dead against, possibly because they might end up paying more as a result -- or in some cases, just because I suggested it... 😉 Though going by the ages of many of the people and boats on CWDF, I suspect they would end mostly up paying less, not more...

But, would it matter who the 'management' is, they only have so much income and too much needed to do with it. Result = rationing ! Maybe they should increase their income to match the required expenditure ? (I wonder how that'd go down with the public)

Adversely impacts the canals I'd suggest, by providing a massive financial incentive for boaters to keep their boats out on the public towpath rather than on a formal mooring.

The underlying issue is that the intentions of a poorly worded law are being misused on a scale that adversely impacts home moorers and is increasing. Surcharging may make some think twice. This is the same approach as charging extra for widebeam boat licences.

That’s a bit of a confessional, Ian. I’m not sure why you dedicate three long paragraphs to the surcharge for boaters with no home mooring; other than perhaps to force your own agenda. In principle I have no objection to it. What I do observe though is that CRT - along with some folk on this forum - fall into a trap of stereotyping those boaters. The point I do have issue with is the conflict between what CRT have previously described as a home mooring in their licensing guidance and what they define as a home mooring for the purposes of the surcharge. Ultimately I’m not sure why people in the fortunate position of being able to go boating in the manner of their own choosing would be so publically antagonistic toward what is largely a less fortunate group and who I observe have very little, if any, direct impact on the chief protagonists on this thread. For sure there are piss-takers on the canals but where in life aren’t there? Mostly though it’s people trying to make the best of their situation within their own broadly reasonable interpretation of the rules. They really don’t deserve the language that is directed at them by some other boaters. NB - I had considered myself to be a wealthy leisure boater but given I own what is possibly the oldest purpose built welded steel leisure boat on CRT waters I may have to rethink that.

Not at all. Someone (allegedly) offered CRT £2m for something. CRT sold something else to somebody else for £1m. The £2m person did not bid on what was actually for sale because they didn't want it. If that doesn't demonstrate CRTs incompetence, nothing will.

If I had to it would be a bowline. However mine were attached in the same way a tent guy rope is, easily adjustable.

Get on YouTube and search for eye splicing, quite straightforward to do.

If they own a historic boat then they are probably 'ex' well off owners.

At least for me, your second post quoted answers the first one. I don't care much about individuals, unless they're hogging a spot in a high-demand area with no spare moorings. I do see the requirement to move frequently over a meaningful distance as a way to differentiate between those who want to live on a boat, and use it as a boat , and those who really want cheap static accommodation. As such I think it needs to be enforced better (and have a significantly higher bar than the '20 miles') because in recent years it's clearly failing to do that. Raising the 'surcharge' doesn't differentiate at all between those groups, until it goes above the price of housing in major cities by which time many of the 'boat for its own sake' people would be priced out too.

It seems a meaningless question to me (as a continuous cruiser myself). If people consistently move just once every 14 days, to my mind they'd have to move many miles each time to be in the spirit of things. If you're travelling hundreds of miles overall and feel like moving a few yards around the corner one time, who cares? It would matter if CRT tried to rigidly police every movement in isolation, but they don't. Taken over months it's obvious who's really moving and who's shuffling.

Which are the Boat Wiring requirements not being complied with, please? I fear you may be conflating a view on best practice with compliance and requirements.