Mike Todd
Patron
-
Posts
5,493 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Mike Todd
-
-
13 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:
Yes, but that's not a potential problem. Once you are across the sea lock cill you are either on your way on a flooding tide or you are moored between two locks and putting the kettle on.
I know a few people who have had to wait 24 hours on the pontoon as weather conditions prevented their scheduled passages.
Yeah, if you miss the timing to get into Preston Docks it's quite important to moor over the deep water channel on the Bullnose. There's an alarming slant on the drying mud by the river bank.
Tie to the floats/risers please - tying to the ladder is a very bad idea on a 25 foot tidal range ...
Oh, and if you have a dog, it had better be either very small or very good at climbing ladders!
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.
-
7 hours ago, Philip said:
Thanks for the video links, the guys on the Foxes Afloat give a good summary about how to tackle it. The CRT say that you can mention a smaller engine & prop in the booking notes and can arrange to let you go first if it's likely to take longer, and there's always Preston Marina as a backup option. Providing the boat can make headway against the tide then it should be OK, it's only 25ft so the 16hp engine size is about right for that length. I have an engine coolant air heater which should assist with the cooling at higher revs.
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!
4 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:I've not been towed, but I have seen boats be towed past me on the Ribble. At waterskiing speeds - it looks fun!
You're very unlikely to divert to Preston on the way back off the Lancaster (unless you deliberately want to go there.)
The timing limit for the Ribble Link is actually the depth of water over the cill at the rotating sea lock, so if you're taking too long coming from Tarleton the tide ebbs too low to navigate that bit.
On the way back to Tarleton it's the first thing you cross - you'll be held on the pontoon until it's deep enough, then off you go.
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!
-
9 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:
Welcome to the forum. The canals in Birmingham just don't get the traffic. You were in probably the busiest part. The contrast with the K&A, probably the most travelled canal would have been stark. A shame really, as they are very interesting. Well done for going there. Brum does have a bit of a reputation, which isn't justified, as long as you take some precautions over where you moor. The lock flights to get up and down to the plateau also put people off, but they are easy to operate and generally better maintained than some flights on the system.
Peaky Blinders hasn't helped the reputation of the BCN either. 😀
I would say that the K&A was the most travelled, perhaps the most moored.
-
1
-
-
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!
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, MtB said:
You are saying executors are exempt from the RCR regulations?
No, I was just thinking of the mentioned widow.
-
3 hours ago, MtB said:
Yes totally agree. More pertinently when selling what might turn out to be an 'in scope' boat, I'd suggest there needs to be some documentation signed by the buyer that they know they are buying a boat 'as seen' with no RCD documentation.
Even then the seller is perhaps at risk of being prosecuted by Trading Standards. Maybe I should try reporting my current boat and see if Trading Standards will mount a prosecution of the (private) seller I bought it from. I can imagine them just ignoring me or telling me they have better things to do with their time.
Swerving off at a tangent, what is someone supposed to do if they own a boat now defined as 'in scope' when it didn't use to be?
A widow for example inheriting a boat owned by her deceased husband and she needs to get rid? Is she supposed to keep it until it rusts away? Scrap it? Give it away? How can she dispose of it lawfully?
Perhaps the executors should sell it esp if more than one beneficiary?
-
On 18/04/2024 at 16:17, PeterScott said:
We've often used the moorings towards Grocer's Wharf on the extra bit of the Bridgewater Canal Mancheter past the junction with the Rochdale at Castlefield. About 6 stops on the tram ...
... and this day in 2007 from the limit of navigation hereabouts
Isn't that all LTMs now?
-
18 hours ago, Peanut said:
Maybe the answer lies in enforcement. As this would cost money, franchise it out to wheel clampers. They have the skill set needed.
Unlicensed boats, over-stayers, and dumpers, could pay a fine, say £150 initially, and then if still non-compliant be towed to a location, away from anywhere convenient, padlocked and pay, say £500 to be released, and a storage charge of some £50 a day. With last resort, the option to gain possession, and sell the boat for non-payment. In addition, all unlicensed boats would need to pay all back fees, comply with the BSS and insurance, or be sold.
It would take a while for the message to sink in, but soon enough the problem would go away. CART, would refer all complaints back to the clampers. 🙂
EA have tried that but it did not go well.
-
3 hours ago, IanD said:
Since that's clearly a dig at the likes of me, I'll rise to the bait... 😉
CART need more money, and some of this has to come from boaters. CCers have for many years been making a smaller contribution to CART funding (which pays for the canals their boat is on) than home moorers -- some of who pay CART directly, some via the 9% levy on other mooring fees -- and this low-cost living aboard is one factor that has lead to the large rise in the number of CMers, many of who (not all) seem to do their best to bend/break the rules which law-abiding boaters follow.
The CC surcharge on the license fee goes at least part-way to correcting this anomaly (and increases CART income), and simply means that everyone -- CCer or CMer or HMer or EOGer -- pays a similar amount to CART. Or at least CCers don't continue to pay less -- some HMers who pay CART directly or via EOG obviously pay much more. It's a bit like closing a historical tax loophole that some people have taken advantage of but now protest when this is corrected... 😉
You might also care to note that I've suggested several measures to raise further money for CART (like boat-age-related surcharge/discount) which would result in "wealthy leisure boaters" like me paying more money *and poorer people in old boats paying less* -- which hardly smacks of self-interest or prejudice against poorer boaters, does it?
Nothing to do with self-satisfaction, just fairness (those with the broadest shoulders carry the heaviest load), and trying to help close the gap between CART funding and the expenditure needed to maintain the canals.
Now expecting accusations of being a "champagne socialist" -- well if that means being well-off and thinking I should pay more and those less well-off should pay less, guilty as charged... 😉
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.
-
On 16/04/2024 at 18:05, Tracy D'arth said:
Excellent, I knew that the stern was familiar. 24 years ago I welded all the interior stern panels around one of these. I was told by the owner that 41 feet was a popular size for Minden Marine as it fitted in the workshop!
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!
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:
Did you read what I suggested ?
If attempt to remove it was made it would be destroyed - a bit like the security seals, and if it was destroyed then ............
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.
-
3 hours ago, MtB said:
Yes that's easy. CRT asks "Do you have a home mooring?"
Answer no and that means you must be mooring out on the towpath all year round so a bill is issued for 365 nights at £10 a night. Cheap and easy. I can't imagine that costing £10, let alone £10 a night.
But the proposal on which I was commenting was to charge everyone per night when not on a home mooring.
-
2 hours ago, magpie patrick said:
Any care charity has the option of not providing the care if it can't achieve the standard - CRT don't have that option - they don't just have to meet statutory requirements, they have statutory duties.
There is a difference between holding CRT to account and "being on their case" - one frequent FOI user was found to be vexatious and CRT no longer have to comply with their requests.
Those who want CRT to improve (and that's probably most of us) should pick their battles, not just try and make CRT's life difficult.
I thought that there was a mechanism to be invoked if CaRT become non-viable - ie they cannot fulfil their duties.
1 hour ago, cuthound said:I wouldn't object to.CRT charging all boaters say £10.a night to moor on the towpath if they stayed longer than one night.
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)
-
2 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:
Has the water tap gone now, it was the only operational bit last time I was there
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.
-
7 minutes ago, Ian Mac said:
The other thing that C&RT have to undertake are the 47? statuary obligations which they inherited from when they were a government body. I am not aware of any other charity which has such legal obligations. Anybody know of any?
Would be interesting to know just what the 47 obligations are, I suspect someone on here will have the list.
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.
-
17 hours ago, Pie Eater said:
There is a full list of services on the Bridgewater Canal Company website.
Beware that those at Worsley are no longer functional.
-
3 hours ago, Tam & Di said:
The boating families lived on their boat because the boat was a working tool; they moved because that was the whole point of the work, not just in order to do the minimum they could get away with. Their 'travelling' was the real thing, but I'm sure the NBTA people don't seriously pay much mind to that - it's just part of the fable they use to get public sympathy with their self indulgent way of life.
And, in general, canals were not built to facilitate mooring in at arbitrary 9spots. A boat not moving was a boat not earning.
-
18 hours ago, David Mack said:
But the purpose of the property portfolio is to provide income to CRT. Changes in the capital value of the property portfolio are inevitable given what happens in the rest of the property market, but are largely a paper accounting issue. What matters more is whether there is a steady stream of income from property tenants.
Unless your budget depends on Total Return . . .
-
1 hour ago, Momac said:
Do some people think a well kept / nicely presented boat is something that only novices do?
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 . . .
-
1
-
-
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!
-
2 hours ago, Momac said:
A CC'er can take as many short term paid for moorings as they like.
A 'HM'er ''is required to have a long term mooring agreement that is in place and available throughout the period that a license is held.
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!
-
On 06/04/2024 at 09:10, Higgs said:
Which is already a fallacy. What this surcharge has done is introduced a usage charge, above and beyond the right to float your boat.
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.
-
11 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:
I know it's pointless trying to educate you, but when I started boating there were no BW mooring fees, there were boats that cruised continuously and there were boats with home moorings for which they paid no fees to BW. And no home mooring requirement.
It's been pointless debating with you since you were whinging about licences in marinas. I shan't respond again.
PS ghost moorings were a myth.
We had our first boat in 1968 and paid a fee to BW to moor just above Bishops Meadow Lock where Jack Monk lived at the time and wd received a disc with a large M on it.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:
1971.
The REGISTRATION (not licence) expired at the end of December and was the same price irrespective of if you took it out Jan 1st or Nov 30th
#
£18 in 1971 is equivalent in purchasing power to about £318.86 today, an increase of £300.86 over 53 years. The pound had an average inflation rate of 5.57% per year between 1971 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 1,671.42%.
However how many miles of canal were available to cruise in 1971 ?
Not as much of a difference as many would imagine. I think the major additions are Rochdale and Huddersfield (funded Millennially so not much chance of any immediate repeat!), Ribble Link and Liverpool Link. All very welcome but there was certainly plenty available in 1971 (even if almost all towpaths were impassable) - enough anyway to get us hooked in 1967.
-
1
-
Where are all the boaters?
in General Boating
Posted
I do not believe that to ge true. They do as much as their budget allows, which when it comes to the ultimate action, us not very much.