IanD

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? 😉

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.

Which is...? 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... 😉

So you can't use the alternator side for normal entry/exit, so it doesn't need steps... 😉

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.

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... 😉

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. 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.

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)... 😞

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... 😉

But more expensive than it is today -- in other words, less incentive to move out than today. 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.

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... 😞

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. ...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... 😞

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... 😉

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... 😞

Indeed. Don't hold your breath waiting though... 😉

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.

Heat pumps big enough for boats (e.g. Frigomar) only use about 1kW flat out and throttle down to about 200W at lower outputs.

That's the well-hidden problem with external antenna connections on lots of routers...

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?

...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... 😞

I thought it was closer to 150, but then I wasn't the one winding, I was in the brewery buying beer... 😉

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... 😉