Mike Todd

Each time we have been held on the pontoon or quite some time for the headroom under the bridge to be OK. I must admit that I do not fully understand all of the complexities of the tides in this crossing but I do realize that because you have to go down one rive and up the other it is usually a matter of small differences in big numbers. Also, the height and depth requirements at the start of the Link add to it. The windows are often quite short which is why there are usually only a relatively small number of slots that cannot be expanded.

Preston Dock is not an automatic backup. If you miss the Link entrance then you may not have a lot of time to get into Preston before it closes. We were diverted on our first visit and they staff at Preston were on the phone to us to get us to hurry along! When we got there we could see why. Luckily we did not have to spend the night on the mud in the lower lock! The timing is also about having enough head room on the adjacent road bridge. Which is why you often have quite a wait on the pontoon as conditions for one are not the same as the other! Beware the staff opening the rotating lock too quickly to let you out - we had a rather alarming experience as a result!

I would say that the K&A was the most travelled, perhaps the most moored.

The days in the advertised schedule are pretty much the only dates when the tides work for a crossing. We had a problem when last there (a couple of years back) when our crossing was cancelled the day before as key staff had Covid. We were only offered the next available date by which it was meant one that had not already been advertised and booked - that is, we went to the back of the Q. When I last looked, CaRT were unable to change the tides to suit our convenience!

No, I was just thinking of the mentioned widow.

Perhaps the executors should sell it esp if more than one beneficiary?

Isn't that all LTMs now?

EA have tried that but it did not go well.

I have yet to see evidence that boat age and licence holder income are sufficiently well correlated to make a viable basis for differentiated charging. Insofar as government subsidies help to maintain the network then there is already a degree of income related charging.

Reminds me of a story that I was told many many years ago. There was a belief that there was a certain maximum size for ship's propellers and various theories based on, mostly, pseudo hydro dynamics. Turned out to be the width between the factory gateposts of the only UK manufacturer!

The important test to apply to any such ideas is to consider the costs of issuing, enforcement and tracking. Midt will gobble up a large part if any realistic increased charges.

But the proposal on which I was commenting was to charge everyone per night when not on a home mooring.

I thought that there was a mechanism to be invoked if CaRT become non-viable - ie they cannot fulfil their duties. But can you devise a system for collecting that does not cost more than £10 a night? (or, more realistically £1 a night of it is to make a difference)

Now you ask I am not sure as the last two times we passed that way we were principally concerned about elsan and rubbish as well. But I do not recall seeing a functional tap.

MAny charities operate in regulated activities where the regulations have statutory force. For example, anyone providing care has to comply with the very extensive conditions set by CSCI (or its predecessors). In neither case do they wholly prevent problems but they do make it a whole lot better.

Beware that those at Worsley are no longer functional.

And, in general, canals were not built to facilitate mooring in at arbitrary 9spots. A boat not moving was a boat not earning.

Unless your budget depends on Total Return . . .

No, it reflects that fact that many new entrants do not realise the effort and involved in keeping a boat shiny (ever had a quote for a proper re-paint?) It takes time for a boat to get a 'lived in' patina . . . But it is inevitable . . .

Try looking back at past vlogs from Foxes Afloat - I seem to recall that they hired somewhere north of the border when thinking about a move that way. Even contact them. I recall that they had a good time - enough to persuade them to buy a croft!

There does seem to be a lacuna at that point - almost all moorers renew their mooring agreement at a different date in the year than their licence - even if they did once align the Covid-month changed that. Most marinas offer no commitment to renew at the end of the existing agreement - indeed they can probably terminate earlier in some events. Hence, for the period after the end of the current mooring agreement, a boater does not have a home mooring available throughput the period. Not sure how that will be dealt with!

No it is not a usage charge - if it were then that usage would have to appear contractually in your licence documentation from CaRT. It was an argument batted around in the debate but in the end all that the surcharge does is allow a boater to cruise (within movement rules) the network and not have to declare a home mooring.