Paul C

I still think for DIY, aluminium is an interesting option. More interesting, but more problematic. The key would be to find an alloy which is both corrosion-resistant in water, and easily weldable. It would be a useful weight saving over steel, which means a larger (more enjoyable/practical?) boat can be made and still trailable. I am thinking more of this kind of thing: Than this:

Do Sea Otters suffer from this?

Huh? Wouldn't it lead to the least unfair distribution of funds?

CRT sometimes uses metric but pretty much everything else is referred to by imperial units for canals, even today. The typical max length that will fit on a canal is 70ft but some canals its 56-60ft. There is no "licence" on the person driving a boat (for leisure) but there's a boat licence, insurance and BSS (or RCR if its new) that need to be complied with The typical material for construction of a canal boat is steel, for a reason - that reason being the knocks and bangs etc with locks, etc. But wood, fibreglass and aluminium are alternates especially for smaller boats. Aluminium would be an interesting material to DIY construct a hull out of. I've never welded it but I've heard its harder to weld than steel. I'd say steel or fibreglass is easier from a DIY perspective. Wood is difficult but possible and rewarding to work with. Outboards are typically petrol, which is difficult to obtain on canals. Also they tend not to have good electricity generating power, which can be important on a boat. Canal boats typically use an inboard diesel fitted with alternator(s) (sometimes quite high power) and will also have their cooling circuit connected to a calorifier, to supply 'free' hot water. As above, check your local canals you wish to go on before deciding on width. Most are 6'10" (okay, historically its 7' or 7'2 or whatever, but 6'10" is considered a good max to work with, because it will allow you through the network's 'pinch points'). But there's broad canals and rivers to consider too. If I were a keen DIYer with plenty of time for an interesting project, a small open boat with a small outboard, say 18' long x 6'10" wide, would be a good starter. This would likely weigh little enough to be trailered and launched with a car too - saving you the hassle of mooring and building near the canal (or transportation then launch by someone else). Good luck in your project.

Ian, what you don't appreciate is that boaters who go boating (move) are a minority of a minority. Lots of people in the country aren't bothered about the canals; and certainly aren't bothered about them remaining navigable for boaters. A proportion (let's call it under half, as an estimate - canals aren't ubiquitous in the country) might semi regularly or regularly "use" the towpath to eg walk a dog, or go fishing, or a nice day out. There is a weak argument that the canal being navigable and boats being on it is a benefit to others (ie other than the boater). The VAST MAJORITY of boaters don't boat much. A lot of them wouldn't move at all, if they had a choice. A number of them have a long term mooring and don't actually move. Your approach so far is that, despite it being made clear by the government of the time, you are seeking the shortfall in funding comes from the central government. I think we need to accept the argument for that is weak, and move on with other more realistic scenarios for the future. I appreciate different people on the forum have different levels of investment in the canal - a new boat owner is going to naturally want the canals to continue. An owner of (say) 10+ years, or a shared ownership boater, or a hirer, etc are in a better position to "cash in" and its not such a pressing matter for funding, when they turn on the telly and see the news that the NHS is on its knees, the FTSE is down, or whatever next financial issue for the country as a whole is on the horizon. Some people see a bigger picture. The other issue is that "boaters" have never been a coherent group anyway.

its not significant though, certainly not enough of a reason to forego much needed extra funding

The Llangollen flows and it is NOT a detriment to boaters. If you're doing and out and back trip (which everyone is, because its a cul-de-sac) what you lose on the way up you gain on the way down. And........rivers........

I know. My point is that, while a "region based" licence is in theory legally possible, it is a) subject to legal challenge and b) very difficult to enforce or administer. Much easier would be to create a much more widespread application of elevated (above the typically current price of £0 over & above the boat licence) mooring fees at honeypot sites. Part of my reasoning is that the "problem" isn't just a regional-based thing. It happens all over the canal network to a greater or lesser extent. For example, Nantwich is a honeypot with an overstaying problem; Stourbridge; Stratford-upon-Avon (Bancroft Basin), Anderton, etc etc are also "honeypots" in otherwise quiet regions of the country. I am sure you can think of others in your cruising area. Simply basing the licence fee on region would be a blunt instrument. Charging for honeypot mooring locations would be more focused and easier to "sell" to boaters since you could clearly see what you're getting for the extra money. And its positive, in that more nice mooring spots could be created and produce an income for CRT. It would be an interesting development if it were floated and CRT might not want to risk an adverse judgement on it by judicial review. There's been relatively few judgements which have altered their policy of licensing/enforcing/charging etc.

No but everything is subject to challenge by judicial review as being “reasonable “.

The legislation says they can charge for services "as they see fit". Just being in one place isn't really a "service" over and above another different place - so I don't think it would be "reasonable" to simply do that. BUT they can charge for extra things offered which counts as a "service", for example a straight edge to moor against, rings/bollards, the mooring area being dredged. So, make something of honeypot sites and they can happily charge (extra) for mooring there. Add a (for example) "London" surcharge to the licence simply for being in a geographical area of the country, is likely to be robustly challenged - probably by our friends at NBTA.

As someone who has had a marine mortgage on a canal boat in the past - it doesn't. Correspondence from the broker (who is the one who receives the money from the finance company, after all) was enough. You fill a big form in, get credit checked, sign a few things, that's it.

Is (navigable) canal vital infrastructure? Sure, canals being in-water (for their drainage function) but no need for navigation etc

You can't sue someone/something who has "no money" (well you can, but you can't make them pay etc). I imagine that scenario might occur (well into the future), and that while DEFRA does have the ultimate option to take back control of the canals, they would not exercise it even if CRT was sued by one/multiple others - after all they'd be reversing the sentiment of hiving it off to a private charity ( U turn) AND they'd expose themselves to the future costs of upkeep. The government are happy just the way things are, letting CRT take the hit.

Or..... (As in, if they don't uphold their legal obligation to maintain its navigability, what enforcement action and by whom, is taken against CRT?)

This. I disagree that canal closures are difficult and expensive. I think we'll see a "managed decline" of many canals, with some through routes becoming de-facto unusable (Rochdale?) leading to a spiral of lack of boats/movements and lack of money spent. CRT don't actually need to bother with the official/legal "closure" route. At the moment they're fairly evenly spreading the lack of maintenance (stoppages on more important cruiseways, timely fixes (after a stoppage obvs) on less important ones). It is only a matter of time before we see a prioritisation of certain routes. We could call the remainder................err, remainder waterways.

Pretty much all the above posts assumes that CRT has "keeping the canal navigable" as a priority. Sorry to say but........they don't. And why would they? As an example, yesterday we did 13 hrs cruising, on a Sunday in the admittedly not school holidays but certainly not off-peak, and we passed 3 boats. Either there's some weird anomaly with everyone going in the same direction as us; or boating numbers (as in moving boating) is down, a lot. So why would they spend disproportionately more money on a handful of boaters when they can do something else with the money they have?

There are some waterways which are a pleasure to do over and over; and others which are boring even the first time and don't get better. As in houses: location, location, location (of where the share boat is moored) is an important consideration. And don't forget it might be in an ideal place, then the syndicate decide to move it because its been there a number of years and they're bored of it, and it moves to a less desirable area, miles further away.....

But its the cash bit which is illegal, not the collection or the scrapping/recycling service.

Its "easy" if you can 1) get the batteries to a car eg you have a home mooring and park near the boat to load/unload it, 2) have space in the car at the end of your boat trip to take them home, 3) are going to the scrappie anyway in a forthcoming trip, or its on the way home (and its open) or its not too far out of your way to make a trip to it later, 4) you have the time to do it (within their working hours). I took my boat batteries home once and did that, got about £30 or whatever the going rate is. Its obviously more "worth it" than scrap steel, but for a lot of boaters its not really logistically possible.

If we had a "long hot summer" (ie, very sunny, not the miserable one we've had this year) would it have made a noticeable difference?

No

Boat moored vs boat moving: if one hits the other and causes damage, it’s clearly the fault of the moving one.

You post regular ill-thought out arguments.

Do you carry and all-makes level 3 code scanner too?

When's the last time you actually had a puncture, and needed to change the wheel at the roadside?