IanD
Patron
-
Posts
11,322 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
87
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by IanD
-
-
25 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
Now then, you are the master of twisting words!
Always have been always will be
what I am trying to say is I like to discover for myself rather than rely on here-say and the generally negative comments we get here,
hasd I listened to that I would never have ventured down here,as it happens yes it is chocker block with boats but we could still fit a few more in,
You don’t need to ask me about the NBTA because I have made my opinions about them quite clear.
And don’t bring every discussion down to an NBTA argument. As if that’s proof that your view is better than mine.
I could give quite an accurate list of the few boats that don’t move in some of the Staffordshire area, and that’s a big area.
It’s an insignificant number compared to the mass of non movers in London.
So I would say yes it is primarily a London thing, and very much so.
It’s London and London behaviour that needs addressing.
I bet you had no trouble mooring around the Trent and Mersey or the Rochdale.
Have you ever tried mooring in London? You might find it easier than you think.Thank you for telling me that I was just imagining there being few or no mooring spaces in the "honeypot" spots I've visited in the past few years (none in London!), I'm obviously incapable of seeing them -- must look harder in future... 😉
P.S. Disclosure of interest -- are you a member/supporter of the NBTA? You may have said before, if so saying it again shouldn't be difficult 🙂
-
Just now, David Mack said:
Can you imagine the hoohah NBTA would make if they were 'banned' from having a stall at Cavalcade? Better to have them inside the tent p*ssing out, than outside p*ssing in.
Like Farridge in Belgium -- I'm sure he *wanted* to be banned, because he got *far* more publicity that way...
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
primarily a London thing then?I tend to take the observations of other boaters, such as yourself,
with a pinch of salt,
Definitely a London thing, but by no means only a London thing -- which is exactly what I said, so please don't try and twist my words 🙂
But not your own, then?
Sounds to me like a case of "I don't believe things which disagree with my opinions" -- you seem to be trying pretty hard to defend CMers, and attack those who dislike the negative effects they're having on the canal system.
For the sake of disclosure of vested interests, are you by any chance an NBTA member/supporter? 😉
-
2 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
it’s really a London thing then?No -- it *is* a London thing, but not *only* a London thing -- from my observations (and those of other people) it happens all over the system in "honeypot" locations.
-
6 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:
It won't. I think CRT just realised that the vast majority of those registered as CC were taking the mick and decided to penalise them, and that those that were being unfairly treated were so few they couldn't raise much of a fuss.
All other justifications were just made up to make it look better and avoid the accusations that CRT wasn't really addressing the root problem.
Which is...?
5 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
no, I know,it was really a remark to IanD to find how he identifies them,
By seeing them regularly on the towpaths and moorings round here, obviously... 😉
And the fact that whenever I'm out on the system boating, lots of visitor moorings nowadays seem to be chock-full of boats-- often with no sign of life -- in a way that they weren't before the rise in CMers over the last few years.
This could be either coincidence or for some other exotic reason, but Ockham's Razor suggests otherwise... 😉
-
1 minute ago, Tonka said:
My engine room side doors only have steps one side as the alternator is in the way to have steps fitted both sides
So you can't use the alternator side for normal entry/exit, so it doesn't need steps... 😉
-
1 minute ago, blackrose said:
A side hatch is more likely to have steps below compared to side doors without a top hopper.
True, side doors without a top hatch (like mine) are really intended for light/ventilation and as an emergency exit which will hopefully never be used -- ones with a top hatch are more likely to be used for non-emergency entry/exit which means steps are needed.
-
11 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
My license will be going up £17 per month from May 1st.
Hardly enough to give up a parasitic life style.
Were it an extra £170 then I’d simply not pay a license.I’d reckon those living a ‘parasitic’ life style are not paying for a license either way.
How many parasitic boaters do you reckon you saw on your most recent boat trip? and over how many days?
and where was it to and from?
and what does a parasitic boater look like? How will I recognise one?
How shall we identify them?
The boats lots of people complain about who sit on short-term moorings (or the same place on the towpath) for weeks/months or even years, and only shuffle round a tiny area if they move at all. Maybe they're NBTA members/supporters or not, but if not their aims seem rather similar, which is to bend or break the CC rules as far as possible. "Parasitic" seems the right term to me -- do you have a better one?
To see this you need to observe one area repeatedly over a longish period of time, which obviously I didn't do on a one-way trip of a few days -- though I had suspicions about boats on visitor moorings in several places with no signs of life, this isn't proof. However many posters on here have mentioned such unmoving boats, again based on repeated sightings over a considerable time.
But I do see this all the time (over repeated sightings) on the canals here in West London, and there are *plenty* of them... 😉
-
30 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
I’m still waiting for someone to explain how charging anyone more for a license will discourage those who continuously moor from staying in the same spot.
Or why it’s thought those who continuously moor have bought on the surcharge for those without a home mooring.
🤷♀️or have I misunderstood?
It will discourage CMers by making their cheap rule-bending parasitic lifestyle more expensive, so either some will change lifestyle as a result (get a home mooring/leave the canals) or fewer new people will be encouraged to become CMers to get a cheap home on the water which moves barely or not at all -- result, fewer CMers bending the rules and clogging up the canal system, and more money for CART (because the numbers who leave will be smaller than the money raised by the surcharge or switchers to HM).
It won't discourage CMers (who pay the extra surcharge) from staying in the same spot, that's an enforcement problem which is quite separate from funding.
But it does get more money for CART to try and close the funding gap.
17 minutes ago, Paul C said:I suspect tracker is a non-starter.
What is the “problem “ the tracker will “solve”?
1984?
It solves the problem of "real CCers" who do a lot of miles paying more, so they're all in favour of it.
But this goes against one of CART's stated reasons for the CC surcharge which is that 20% of boaters (CCers) are responsible for 75% of boat movements, which adds to wear on the infrastructure.
-
4 minutes ago, Rob-M said:
But when the data shows multiple numbers boats traveling through a narrow lock at the same time there may be suspicion raised and licenses revoked.
The tracker idea just adds cost and complexity and Big Brother concerns and another way to try and cheat the system, as well as arguments about whether real--CCers or fake-CMers should pay more -- it's a solution looking for a problem (and not finding one)... 😞
-
53 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
Tracker 'breaks' or is 'lost' then no rebate - licence costs you £5000.
There is a financial incentive not to damage the tracker.
It could certainly be made to work, and would mean CMers paid a lot more than today and possibly that "real CCers" who do a lot of miles pay less.
However there's the opposing argument (put forward by CART) that CCers account for most of the use of locks/facilities which puts a bigger strain on the system -- in which case "real CCers" should pay more and CMers pay less. Which at least would keep the NBTA happy, if anything ever could... 😉
Whichever way the fees are tilted there's bound be a lot of protest from whoever loses out. So probably the least contentious solution -- which also avoids the need to track boats -- is a percentage surcharge on the license fee paid by anyone without a home mooring, which is exactly what CART have adopted.
Like democracy it's the worst possible solution, except for all the others... 😉
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Midnight said:
"So the solution is to make the charge (e.g. £3/night) for every night including the first one. Then a boat without a home mooring would pay £3*365=£1100 per year, at the same time they pay their (similar) CART license fee. Still *much* cheaper than a typical home mooring"
??? 'cos it would be a lot cheaper.
But more expensive than it is today -- in other words, less incentive to move out than today.
5 hours ago, magpie patrick said:A lot of us keep our boats on long term moorings now even though the towpath is free, so why would we change that? I have to admit thar, on the Kennet & Avon, I'm very happy paying a premium to be on the Coal Canal arm at Dundas where the summer crowds pass me by!
I wasn't suggesting that this "charge-per-night" is a good idea, it's really a big "CC surcharge" in disguise but more regressive since everyone pays the same, and also harder to administer.
CART already know if a boat has a home mooring or is CC/CMing, and whether this status changes during the year. If they want to extract more money from CCers and discourage CMers, a bigger "CC surcharge" seems the best way to go about this.
-
38 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
I can’t argue that one,and I don’t expect there to be an all encompassing community
but there are small communities that are unified,
Except they are not unified even with each other, many of the small vociferous communities (e.g. NBTA) have interests which are opposed to those of many other boaters, and there is certainly no overarching "boaters community" that speaks for the "silent majority".
And the NBTA claiming to represent boaters in general is being "economical with the truth" to say the least. OK, it's a lie, plain and simple... 😞
-
56 minutes ago, Midnight said:
...but wouldn't many marina dwellers just leave and moor on the towpath where it's cheaper? Might make it difficult to find a mooring in popular places.
But marinas would cost the same and towpath moorings cost more than now, so why should anyone move *out* of a marina?
The whole point is to try and level out the massive cost difference, which is what is encouraging CMers.
44 minutes ago, Paul C said:It already is......
...because in these places the short-term visitor moorings (2-day, 7-day, 14-day) are perpetually bunged up with CM overstayers -- sometimes for weeks, or months, or even years... 😞
-
42 minutes ago, cuthound said:
Only by using technology such as GPS. However this would be difficult for CRT to implement unless having an onboard device was made mandatory with a penalty of having your licence revoked if the device was interfered with or removed.
So the solution is to make the charge (e.g. £3/night) for every night including the first one. Then a boat without a home mooring would pay £3*365=£1100 per year, at the same time they pay their (similar) CART license fee. Still *much* cheaper than a typical home mooring...
But then that's a flat fee which is regressive, so it would be fairer to have a percentage surcharge on the license fee. Which is where we came in... 😉
-
37 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
Having seen what I’ve seen crossing London over the weekend, I’d say boaters’ communities do exist.
Whether good or bad, positive or negative, like it or not, whatever.
In fact there’s probably quite a number of communities mingling together.
It’s a proper eye opener down there. In many ways I like it. In other ways I don’t.
Trouble with me and you Arthur we like our own space and wouldn’t dream of being in ‘the thick of it’ (for want of a better description) and neither would we (I think) want to be part of a community.
Hackney Wick looks interesting enough to stop over for a week or so on my return journey.
I think it was St Pancreas that looked interesting too.However the boater communities you're talking about are usually made up of a small subsection of the 35000 boaters on CRT waterways, with some interest in common (e.g. location, CMing...) which is not shared with most others or is even opposite to the majority view -- the NBTA being a perfect example.
And as usual, the noisy minorities like the NBTA get more attention than the quiet majority... 😞
-
3 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:
I don't expect that will become common until all boats are electrically powered and charging points are widely available
Indeed. Don't hold your breath waiting though... 😉
-
1 minute ago, GUMPY said:
I guess it's due to the fact that B42/48 and N78 are all in the same frequency band.
My Huawei says 5g only on the external ports but looks like in reality it means 3.5ghz band. Never seen it expressed as channels before.
Question is do the lower frequency 4g channels use the internal antennas when external antennas are connected?
Usually the answer is yes. However if you're inside a boat with no reception using the internal antennas and these are used for setting up the link (which is what happens with 5G) then you're scuppered... 😞
They make the routers this way because it's cheaper, on the assumption that external antennas will improve reception on the 3.5G bands which don't penetrate walls as well as the lower frequency bands.
-
1 hour ago, GUMPY said:
You generally only need 5kW to run a heat pump and heat a house so 3kW would be enough to run a heat pump to keep a boat warm.🤔
Heat pumps big enough for boats (e.g. Frigomar) only use about 1kW flat out and throttle down to about 200W at lower outputs.
-
1
-
-
On 13/04/2024 at 10:38, GUMPY said:
I found a fault!
Whilst is supports most bands on its internal antennas on external antennas only B42 and B48 on 4G and N78 on 5G are supported. So not much use on 4G if you need external antennas.
That's the well-hidden problem with external antenna connections on lots of routers...
-
7 hours ago, Midnight said:
I never claimed it would save £millions but it would prevent a few stoppages. Why would the government remove £10m from the grant? Therese Coffey said CRT's role is to maintain the waterways - never mentioned non essentials.
Because as has been said many times, the government sees the canals as a linear park for millions of people to use for outdoor activities, and to keep the government happy CART have to do all those things to make the canals more appealing to non-boaters -- it's all in the KPIs imposed on CART, and if CART don't meet them by prioritising 35000 boaters instead the likely result would be a cut in the grant. Why do you think none of the KPIs are related to navigation?
-
6 minutes ago, Midnight said:
Junior fishing courses on EA waters, two tone van livery, lock poetry, sponsored Facebook adverts ........(add your own here) and I promised not to mention blue signs again so I won't.
.... all would fix a paddle or two and prevent a stoppage.
...and would in reality make negligible difference -- unless the government decided to remove (for example) £10M from the grant because CART were no longer appealing to millions of non-boaters, in which case removing them would have a huge negative effect on the canals... 😞
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:
And you need to rest up a bit before or after doing that manual guillotine gate!
99 turns, and it's not that light ...
I thought it was closer to 150, but then I wasn't the one winding, I was in the brewery buying beer... 😉
-
52 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
But when C&RT (at the highest level) denied twice that they had been issued with a previous version, and, not only was it proven that they had been, but when they still denied it, a copy was shown.
(C&RT has had a whistleblower for some years).
That is (at the very least) telling lies, and supressing the truth.
All documents have "previous versions" including drafts; most people would say that if they're not officially released that's all they are, preliminary unreleased versions. Lots of documents I do go through many versions before the final one, modifications are made, things are added or removed, corrections are made -- it's how these things work, no conspiracy theories are needed...
If there was an official "V1" and this was superseded by an official "V2" and then they denied that "V1" ever existed then that would be lying, but I haven't seen any evidence that this is what actually happened here -- have you?
If not, I suggest you get down off your CRT-bashing high horse... 😉
-
1
-
More C&RT Dishonesty?
in General Boating
Posted · Edited by IanD
But according to a certain poster you and I (and others) can't possibly be right about this, it's only a problem in that there Lunnon... 😉
(and anyway CMers and the NBTA are not to blame for any of this...)