Tony1

I never at any point suggested that such a law change was a priority, or was even on the governments radar. My point was a theoretical one. If there are any delusions, they are entirely yours, in imagining things that you think I said. I did said that such a law would not act as an impediment to the current government, and that was incorrect. The law would indeed be an impediment, but what is important is that in my opinion, it would only be a temporary impediment. In my opinion, there are very few laws that this government would not get rid of if there was a sufficient profit motive or gain involved, regardless of public interest, or health and wellbeing issues. As I also said above, issuing licenses for use of towpaths is not a practicable or a cost effective idea, so it will not happen. It was a theoretical point. As I said above.

I dont think an existing law granting public access to towpaths would offer an impediment if the current government decided to introduce an annual license fee for towpath users, fishers, or kayakers. Most governments would never want to change that law, but there I believe there are some governments who might try, if the need for funds was great enough.

I'm sure all of that is absolutely valid legally, but even CRT acknowledge that a number of boaters live aboard, right? The problem with the liveaboard thing is that its a 'piece of string' scenario. Some boaters spend 2 week stints living on the their boats throughout the year; others live aboard for the summer, and some boaters effectively live on their boats between March and October or November, say. So its a whole spectrum, and the full time liveaboard CCers are just pushing that envelope a bit further than most other boaters, being on board for the full year. But I get the argument about the purpose being a key issue, and I'm not arguing with any of that- only pointing out that in reality, liveaboards are accepted by CRT, even if not fully formally acknowledged. It would be daft if we got to the point where CRT introduced a rule like you have on many static caravan parks, where you have to leave the park for a month each year in order to not be classed as fully residential, or whatever.

I agree that that law should not be changed, but I do not believe an existing law is any impediment whatsoever. As long as enough craven MPs will vote in support, almost any law can be changed. We have a Russian oligarch in the House of Lords as the sitting Lord of Siberia, for Heaven's sake. Most of our conventions, norms and laws are gone, and those left are completely malleable.

On the first issue, I did say that boaters should pay their fair share, I personally would be against tolls for other users, in fact I think it would be a major backward step in terms of health and lifestyle for millions of walkers and cyclists etc. I also doubt that the challenges and the cost of enforcement would be practicable. I only mention it as a devil's advocate idea, to illustrate that there are other users who at least need some maintenance, e.g. usable towpaths and banks etc. But yes, boaters have to be the source of the biggest costs for CRT, so that should be reflected. On the second point, I think you are a tad harsh on people who are living on limited budgets. But whether we disagree on the human aspect of it, I think there is a difficulty in trying to weed out those people who are not interested in boats, but only want a cheap lifestyle, and it is this: how would you prove that? I've met met people who are looking for a cheap lifestyle, but are also interested in living on boats, so they meet both of those criteria. How would you weed out the ones who just want cheap accommodation? If you just raise the license price by say threefold or more, there are many boaters on tight budgets and who do genuinely love their lifestyle who would be forced off the waterways. I know there are a few scallywags within that group, but the majority seem to be very decent folks, from the ones I'm met. It may be things are different in London, I dont know, but it seems very harsh to force poorer folks off the waterways via a big license increase. And dont forget there are many rich capitalists like Arthur who might pack it in because the amount of pleasure gained from their recreational boating was no longer worth the increasing costs involved. It wouldn't just be skint liveaboards who left the waterways because of a big increase. But I am convinced the main thing for CRT is their bottom line- what price point (or structure) will get the most revenue? And I can understand them wanting to get more cash- up to a point.

My personal opinion is that the license fee is a good deal for boaters, and although I would not like it to increase for selfish reasons, I would not think it unfair if it went up by 50%. My suggestion of resisting it strongly in the survey is an attempt to keep the coming price increase below 50%, as I think an increase higher than that will drive away some boaters, and I think we should not forget the human side of this situation, and the long term boaters who would be driven away by a price increase of say 100%, or 200%. Those people's lives matter in this equation. But I feel sure there is no possibility whatever of the license price staying as it is. I think it is awful that CRT are having to work with a budget that doesnt seem to be sufficient, but I'm not sure the morally correct answer is to squeeze all the extra cash they need out of boaters, who are after all a small minority of the user base. It could be argued that a toll of say 50p levied on pedestrians using the towpath would be just as fair as charging a higher price for the boat license, for example. Or even a toll on kayakers and fishermen. That said, I bet a lot of the budget does go on things important to boaters, such as facilities, lock maintenance etc, so its fair that boaters pay their fair share, so to speak. I don't think your final sentence is a reflection of how things will unfold when the license fee goes up. I would bet that a license fee increase of 50% will probably only allow CRT to continue at its current activity levels, and maybe finish some already planned projects on schedule. For them to really step up and improve things, I think a lot more cash is needed from government (and more cash than can ever be squeezed from boaters), but none of us realistically see that happening in the medium term future.

I'm sure you're right in that a big price increase will also see an increase in non-payment, but over a few years CRT will catch up with all of them, and the boats will be removed. Most people who can afford it will cough up an extra thousand rather than risk losing a boat worth maybe £30k. There may be a glut of used boats come onto the market if the license goes up by a ridiculous amount, but if its less than a 50% increase, my guess is that 95% of the licensed boats will stay in use- which is why I think they'll go for that kind of figure, or a bit less. Some people maybe even encouraged onto the waterways by the chance of buying a narrowboat a bit cheaper than previously.

Yes, thanks David, I since realised my mistake about that. I can only hope we get a mostly dry week, really. I did ask about booking two weeks as a contingency to give more waiting/drying time if needed, but he was confident they could do a more than satisfactory job within the week- and they no longer have slots available anyway, so its fingers crossed.

To be honest, they normally do the pressure wash on saturday morning, so I'm going to ask them if its worth me going around the hull just after the wash with a wire brush disc on my grinder, to see if I can scrub off any significant patches of rust. My thinking is I can always wash it down afterwards. But that said, I dont want to interfere with a well-proven process, and my concern might be that the wire brush might smear any existing bitumen around, make a mess, and maybe leave the surface in a worse condition for the epoxy. Worth asking them though.

I'm just keeping fingers crossed they don't jack it up too much. I imagine the worst case scenario would be that it doubles to about 2k per annum for a 50ft boat. I feel like if they put it higher that that, many many boaters will start to rethink. But a big price rise won't force out all the boaters on smaller budgets, because those boaters who use housing benefit to pay the license will be covered by their benefits. One thing is certain- they can't afford to price too many people out, or they will lose revenue overall. If they have 30,000 boats currently paying around £1k (on average), that's £30m in total. If they increase the fee to £2k, and they only lose 10,000 boats, they are still increasing revenue, although not by that much. There is the additional benefit of fewer boats using the locks and facilities, so potentially reduced maintenance costs. But its no good having a license set at £5k per annum if only 5,000 boaters are able/willing to pay it, and they then only get say £25 million in revenue (correction inserted there). I believe the only point in this exercise is to better understand that graph of license price vs the numbers of licenses sold, so they can find the sweet spot to maximise revenue. Obviously this is pure guesswork, but my guess would be that if they put the license up by 50%, they will only lose a couple of thousand boats, but it will be a big increase in overall revenue. So my guess is it will be in that sort of area. I think they want to ask boaters: 'what is the highest price you would pay for a license?', so my suggestion would be that everyone does the survey, and when the issue of license cost comes in, state very clearly that any increase would make you rethink, and more than 50% increase means you might quit the waterways. If they get the message that there is almost zero tolerance for a price increase, they will be inclined to keep the price as low as possible. They could try something left field like charging a separate fee of say £500 for each region of the country, but again that wont yield much extra, because most boaters will just stay within one or two regions in any given year. In fact CRT might end up getting less overall from that.

Just thought I'd update you on my plans- I'm booking into Northwich Dry Dock for July, and I've decided to go for their epoxy paint option. Since I can't guarantee getting some extra help this far ahead of the time, I'll pay for them to do the labour as well. They are covered so rain shouldn't be too much of a problem, and their schedule allows three days for it to dry off before going back in the water. Its not a bad price, at £350 for the dry dock and £1165 for the full treatment including baseplate, so just over £1500 (that's only for a 50ft boat though). They also charge £25 for the electric hookup, which I might not need with all my panels- its a high roof with open sides and there might well be enough sun poking in the sides to charge the batteries. Brian and the Haggises have used them, among others, and it does seem a reasonably long lasting treatment, good for at least 4 years and maybe more. I'm not kidding myself about the longevity, I can't see how it would last 10 years or more like an epoxy over bare metal. But even if if it lasts 4 or 5 years, the pricing still compares well to bitumen, when you factor in haul out costs saved, extra level of protection gained, and that the price includes the baseplate, etc. Their PDF info leaflet mentions the common concerns about epoxy covering existing bitumen, and they say that they have checked with ands gotten approval from the main epoxy suppliers that their very high pressure wash will leave the surface suitably prepped for epoxy to adhere well, even if all the bitumen is not removed. Overall, I would describe it as definitely not being a perfect 10 year solution like bare metal treatment, but nevertheless it does look like an effective and very good value compromise, and they do have a very good reputation. If I could guarantee getting help I would have preferred to haul out for 2 weeks, hire a sandblaster, and get it back to bare metal (I'd love to blast out any rust from the pits etc), but without wheeled transport and extra muscle, I don't really fancy the DIY route. They seem a very professional outfit and there are enough very satisfied customers that I can go into there with a lot of confidence that the job will be done well. ETA- I've just realised the dry dock is not covered, so if we get a few days of rain that will be an issue. But they do say they have always managed to get the boats completed on time, and they work all year round. Fingers crossed its a dry week.

You're joking right? What he has sounds very much like a Liverpool or Birkenhead accent of some sort (and you might consider me to be something of a subject matter expert in this regard). One might question his wisdom- in terms of his safety garments anyway- but it seems rather a stretch to deduce that he sounds like an 'unreliable northerner'. That sounds like a line of dialogue from a Sherlock Holmes story 😂

I haven't yet, but I'll take a look, thanks

Cheers- my long term wish is to divert power directly from the MPPTs into a 12v immersion heater coil thingy, instead of powering the immersion via the batteries and inverter- which I think will lengthen the battery life. But you also need a thermostat and heating coil that will work safely with the highly variable 12v supply that you get from two MPPT units. I haven't yet seen a suitable thermostat, but I think diverting the solar directly to the immersion is a sensible thing to do, as it will help to preserve the life of these expensive batteries. Its on the long term 'nice to have' list.....

My immersion is wired through a mains on/off switch, so there's no plug I can use for a thyristor. I need to use a device that takes in the live mains wire and throttles the current down a bit.

Cheers Rusty- yes in theory, and I've got something I think will do the job. In fact, I even have an idea where to wire it in. But I do have nagging doubts about whether I might balls it up.... Tbh I'll probably just bite the bullet, wire it in and give it a try once we get into Spring and the solar is picking up a bit.. ETA- do you have any links to one of these devices?

I've just decided that when I finally form a rock band and become word famous, we will be called the Little Knives.

Obviously not wanting to be picky or anything, but from what I've seen a small 700 watt (or even 1000 watt) kettle seems to work ok, at least with lithium batteries. In fact, since I stopped using the gas to boil water for hot drinks, I only need a new gas bottle every 6 months, where it used to be 2 or 3 months. I do worry a bit about using my batteries to heat the immersion, as its more than 80 amps draw for about 40 mins, and I do think it will reduce the lifespan of the batteries, but so far they seem roughly the same as they were almost 2 years ago when I got them. But I'll know more about the effects of that in the longer term. Last year I got solar hot water (via the batteries and inverter) for at least half of the year. It seems such a shame not to use all that solar power to heat the water. I've tried to find an electrician to fit a device that will reduce the current draw to the immersion down to 40 amps, as I think that will put less stress on the batteries, but for many of them, its as if I've asked them to install a small nuclear power station on the boat.

Apollo duck here we come, for the second time in a week- even if only for a theoretical 'window shop'. I was tempted years ago by the offshore power boats with two big engines, but if I were to go that way, I would want to do a lot of it with wind power, and I dont know of many craft that sail, but that also have two powerful engines. They sailing and power vessels seem to be two distinct species. But maybe you cant have Spring to Autumn safe offshore capability unless you go the power boat route... Oddly enough I've been watching a youtube channel recently by a chap who sometimes sails around Anglesey. It looks like it can be pretty hair raising stuff at times.

But Mr M, where is your sense of adventure? Where is your inner swashbuckler? Surely the idea of motor-sailing around a wild headland into a lovely bay is a wonderful thing? None of those pesky marina mooring charges, just drop the anchor and break open the beer chest. I understand that the Caribbean is a more suitable cruising ground for those who like 'wild anchoring', so to speak, but if there were enough suitable bays around the UK and Ireland (which I don wonder about) , then why not? You could get ashore in two minutes in a dinghy to mount a pincer movement on the local pub, woo the local wenches, and retire to the vessel full of chicken curry and beer. I'm not seeing the down sides yet. My dear Mr Enfield, you really must desist from this treacherous talk, or I shall find myself aboard a coastal motor sailer before the year is out! (although realistically, the cost of a coastal-capable vessel with a reliable engine (because we dont want to make personal friends of the RNLI crews, after all) might be beyond my budget, unless/until I sell my small house)

What I dont get is- why aren't more people already doing that? Is all of that really possible around the UK coasts? Are there enough anchorages to do that safely, given how the weather can change so quickly? And in winter, I would imagine things are just too wet and wild for small craft to anchor safely in bays etc, surely? Every time I see yachts in winter, they are either in a marina, or heading for one. There has to be a reason for that?

It's an interesting question, and narrowboat liveaboard CCing is a bit of an issue if you love the seaside (although less so if you keep a car). But it does make me wonder about the thought process that is at work, and the relative importance of waterways living vs a love of the seaside. Yes you can have both if you can find a way to moor permanently within cycling distance of a place like Hest Bank, and especially if you have a car. But that means hardly ever moving very far, which feels like it defeats one of the advantages of boat life (for me anyway). It seems from the replies so far that there are a number of seaside locations that, as a CCer, you can get within a few miles of, and maybe stay for a few weeks. But they aren't terribly common, and some are a long way apart from each other, with weeks of boat cruising separating them. Making the trip down to Saul Junction is worth it just for the journey, but I guess you will have the added bonus of your extra love of the seaside location itself. But its a good old trip on a boat for the sake of a two week stay. Also, the idea of rail travel to a seaside location might sometimes mean an overnight stay, so there might be a cost with that. Or it might be limited to a day trip only, whereas I suspect you would want more than just a single day in a nice seaside spot. If the seaside thing is so important that you would stay in one location to enjoy it, you might ask why make all the sacrifices of space, limited water, winter issues, etc, when you could just live in a house near to the sea. I honestly don't want to want to sound like a smart-a**e in saying any of that, because everyone who lives aboard for long periods makes some sort of sort of compromises to do so. In my case the payoff is that my neighbourhood changes every week or two, which adds a feeling of novelty and interest to one's life. For others, the attraction is just to be living on a boat. I think you might have to accept that if you travel a lot of the network as CCers, you wont be seeing an awful lot of the seaside unless you make a significant and regular effort to do so. That said, if you keep a car, that would make the travel easier to make day trips to beaches within 50-100 miles. But will occasional day trips to the coast satisfy your desire to spend time there? If your priority is to spend as long as possible living near to the seaside, then you won't be moving your boat very often, or very far. So with the info the posters here have given, its probably a case of thinking through what kind of lifestyle you want, how important the two competing priorities are, and then making a call. This is a bit off the wall I admit, but there may be an option to have both types of lifestyle you are looking for. You could buy a cheap 30ft GRP cruiser to get afloat and cruise during the summer months, and then also be able to afford a static caravan in a seaside location (or within easy reach with a car), and you can divide your time between the two?

There a 1976 Broom skipper on apollo duck at the moment, for sale in Ireland and under £30k. https://www.apolloduck.com/boat/broom-30-skipper-for-sale/721342 I would want to do the canals into Dublin as well, so the offshore type boats with high flying bridges and deeper drafts might not be suitable. The Broom would do it. In fact it looks like a proper go anywhere craft, given the right weather and engine. If I'm not careful I'll talk myself into doing it this year! That did tickle me, but I'm guessing that was probably a couple of decades ago? I bet the child numbers on tickets have reduced a bit since then,