IanD

Yes, because the government is not just running a canal network, they are in charge of our entire society and economy, and their policies can have a huge effect on people's lives -- and unlike CART they have their hands on the levers of power and money, they can for example raise large amounts cheaply and easily to invest in infrastructure (or the NHS...) by either issuing long-term bonds/gilts or "quantitative easing" (printing money). Government finances are not like household ones, no matter how much certain politicians try to say that they are when crying crocodile tears abut how they can't afford something they don't want to do. Funnily enough, they seem to be able to afford to spend vast sums of money on the things they do want to do, whether these are of benefit to the public or just them and their mates... 😞

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...

Us taxpayers. Unfortunately we don't get to decide where they spend our taxes... :--(

Did OVO buy it then?

Where did you get the HDPE strip from?

At least next time someone suggests that CART could save loads of money by closing down lots of expensive-to-run canals, we can refer back to this thread to show that this isn't the case... 🙂

Which is of course where many boaty visitors to London would like to moor, for obvious reasons. And they used to be able to without the problems they have trying to do this today since the number of moored boats has gone up so much. I've seen how the numbers have increased over the last 30 years I've lived here near the canal and especially the last ten years and the difference is huge, even in the suburbs where I am. As I said, if you're willing to moor further out (sometimes a *lot* further...) and away from shops/buses/railways there's plenty of space. But understandably many would prefer to moor either near these facilities or further in, and that's where the problem lies. And it didn't use to be like this... 😞

All of which means that if CART closed the Rochdale or HNC they'd have to pay back a sum similar to the original EP/Millennium grants that funded their restoration, or maybe even more allowing for inflation. Either way, the sums involved would be huge, and *far* outweigh any maintenance saving by closing them, even over many years. I wonder if anyone has ever pointed this out? 😉 So yes, in theory they could be closed because they're remainder waterways -- but in practice they can't be, it would be way too expensive to make any financial or business sense. Good news -- we get to keep the HNC and Rochdale, hurrah! 🙂 Bad news -- CART can't save money by closing them, so they're still in a financial hole, boo... 😞

Some of which might also be commercially confidential, otherwise it would presumably be in the public domain. We already know that both the Rochdale and HNC are still classed as "remainder waterways", IIRC you provided the evidence for this last time the subject came up... 😉

I'm seeing information from someone who knows a damn sight more about this than anyone else -- including you or me -- who has been arguing about this... 😉 If you don't want to believe this because it contradicts what you've kept on saying, that's your problem. I'm happy to believe it, for the opposite reason... 🙂

Hurrah, some actual evidence at last from someone who knows the facts, instead of speculation!!! 🙂 So which "remainder waterways" canals does that leave that could be closed to actually save money then?

I don't think the problem with boating in London is seen by those who CC/CM there, as you say there's a friendly community of all kinds of boats ranging from massive shiny widebeams to small scruffy yoghurt pots, some even afloat. The problem seems to be for visitors who can't find anywhere to moor -- especially in more popular areas -- because the towpath moorings are full of end-to-end boats (often doubled up), the free VMs are often occupied by chronic overstayers, and the few paid-for VMs are expensive or already booked (and sometimes already occupied by non-payers). Yes there are plenty of towpath spaces further out from the centre well away from facilities and transport links but that's not where people want to moor (or stop) -- as soon as you get to a spot which is decent to moor and near facilities/shops/transport it's full of boats who rarely move to free up space -- or swap with a buddy elsewhere, either way this gives visitors the cold shoulder. Anywhere near the centre is chock-full, no free spaces even with double-mooring in the most popular areas. It's resident-friendly but in many cases visitor-unfriendly... 😞

That's a good idea, I might do that too 🙂

I've now got fenders like that, and even in a trip of a few days I had to adjust the length -- you can have a high concrete bank almost up to gunwale level, or low armco/piling much closer to water level.

We're agreeing here then 🙂 Remainder waterways are vulnerable, some (e.g. HNC, Rochdale) may or may not be protected by grant repayments being required on closure -- which would have to be paid by CART since they'd be the organisation doing the closing. The K&A was converted to a cruising waterway some time ago. But IIRC the other unprotected remainder waterways form a relatively small part of the system; many of the heavily-locked expensive-to-maintain canals are cruising waterways and very difficult to close even if this would save a lot of money, because the chance of getting government time for an AoP is pretty much zero.

Which is exactly what I said for remainder waterways. Cruising waterways need an AoP to close them, yes?

Are you sure about the first line? It's been said before that to permanently close a cruising waterway (or is this what "restrictions and qualifications" means?) needs an Act of Parliament... The argument about terms of re-opening grants (millenium fund, councils etc.) has been had many times -- and as you say nobody on either side has produced definitive evidence to show whether this is the case or not, unsurprising since contract terms are often not made public. Which is why I carefully said "if this means refunding grants"... 🙂

IIRC closing cruising waterways would need an Act of Parliament, which is unlikely to happen. However many of the more expensive to maintain and little-used remainder waterways like the Rochdale and HNC could be closed more easily -- though if this means refunding grants used to re-open them, this may cost more in the short-term, which is where the big funding problem is. Doesn't stop "business advisers" recommending something that wouldn't work in practice though, it's happened often enough in the past... 😞

Well not to you, it's a waste of effort. Byee...

Pot, kettle... 😉 I'm calling out your BS -- how could CART magically make a fortune out of reservoirs which can barely keep the canals supplied? Go on, prove how brilliant you are -- if CART read this (which they won't, obviously...) you'll have helped save the canals you love so much. Oh yes I forgot, you don't, that's why you left them and keep making anti-CART posts. Silly me... 😞

Yes it's lack of funding, but like the railways and the Tube the canals are unlikely to ever be self-financing, so government money is needed to keep them open. I suspect you're bullsh*tting and don't actually have any realisable ideas about how they could make more money out of their reservoirs in reality -- it's easy to claim you do and them clam up when asked for details, anyone can do that, con-men always rely on convincing the gullible they have some "secret sauce" and can fix your problems if you cross their palms with silver... 😉 If CART took "proper business advice" -- meaning, how to make them commercially viable -- then almost certainly this would mean closing canals (maybe lots of them...) and charging boaters a *lot* more, because this would reduce expenditure and increase income. It's the same business model the railways took, maximise income by cropping the network back to the essentials only and squeezing as much money as possible out of "customers" who have little choice except to pay up. Good for business, but a terrible model for infrastructure -- and it would certainly transform the canals by driving off all those poor scruffy boaters who can't afford to pay up... 😞