NilesMI

Over the last few days I have sent three separate messages to CWDF admin. None have been acknowledged, let alone acted upon. I can only conclude that there is no admin present at this site.

Just been down there to take a look and as of an hour ago Blakes Lock is now open.

I presume damage to the bottom gate cill had deteriorated recently. I came through there last week heading downhill. The flow under the bottom gate was pretty bad. I had no hope of opening the top gate until four fairly fit walkers came along and gave me a hand. Actually I found the proximity of the bridge abutment to the bottom gate balance beam gave me something to wedge myself against and push. I got that open on my own.

If you take the press release at face value: "It aims to ask boaters the fairest and simplest way to split the important financial contribution made by the different types of boats and boaters towards the upkeep of the waterways." No mention of increasing revenue, or compliance, just changing the split between different types of boat/boaters.

Aside from the technology that might be used, why would charging for movement be any better/fairer than charging for mooring?

My two most recent boatyard experiences were both positive. First, an exhaust repair, where I was given an estimate and dates. The work was done at the agreed time and I was actually billed less than the estimate as some of the existing parts were good to be reused. Second, some significant steelwork mods - windows plated up, new portholes - modified roof handrails... new solar panels and a complete repaint. All done to time and estimate, even when I threw in a curve ball by choosing to buy new window units rather than reuse the existing ones. I have to say that in the second case, I virtually had to drag the guy out to come and look at the boat to see what I wanted doing because he was originally only willing to give ballpark quotes based on boat length and a general description of the work. Once we were over that hurdle, everything went smoothly.

Very good news. I suppose two barges means just a single vessel making two return trips?

the voice of the waterways... telling it like it is ...

As for railways, they are not operated as public rights of way/navigation, so the question of closure is a different one involving the withdrawal of a weekly, scheduled, passenger service.

I think I know the gates, and they do look nice. There is a view, which seems quite prevalent on this board, that all of CRT's resources should be directed toward maintaining it's waterways for navigation and that spending money on anything else is either wasteful or incompetent or both. My view is that there is benefit in simply preserving and restoring parts of our waterway heritage, even if it's not part of an open navigation and that is in fact a significant part part of CRT's remit. Quite apart from the heritage aspect, the danger of spending money only in the places where boaters go, or go most, is the withered arm effect and a gradually shrinking network. That is probably what the IWA are getting at when they raise their warning about Anglian waterways.

So according to the minutes of that meeting; closure of some navigations is "an option which may need to form part of the discussion with government". The IWA spin that as; "EA stated that some navigations in their Anglian Region (which includes the Great Ouse and River Nene) may have to be closed" NBW pick up the IWA warning and spin it their way, so it becomes; "The Environmental Agency has stated that it is closing parts of its navigable waterways". I say "spin", but of course I mean "misrepresent".

Athy, why do you jump to the conclusion that because the Anglian region includes the Nene and Gt Ouse that the EA have any plans at all to close either of those waterways. Clearly that is the fear that IWA want you to take away from reading their warning, but is there any basis for it?

The claims might be verified if we could see the minutes of the meeting to which the IWA refer, but haven't published, presumably for reasons of copyright. One of the curious things about FoI is that it doesn't actually make information public, it just puts it into the hands of the person making the application for it.

The IWA cites minutes of a meeting between EA and CRT, obtained following an FoI request. https://www.waterways.org.uk/news_campaigns/bulletins/iwa_bulletin_20170124

Map upside down. Doh!

One wet day last summer I met a group of cyclists who were riding along the canal from Leeds to Skipton for charity. They had got as far as Lemonroyd.

I haven't seen anything in writing from CRT saying that boats "shouldn't move" on a frozen canal. The question of whether you "shouldn't have to move" is addressed in the guidelines for boats without a home mooring in the section which interprets "14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances", where "impassable ice" is given as one example of such a "reasonable circumstance".

I don't see the problem which a public domain, on-line licence checker is supposed to solve. I can see why CRT staff on the ground may want to easily check whether a boat has a permanent licence, but what business is it for the general public to be able to look it up?

No. You still have 30 days. Meanwhile, your unlicensed boat will have spent 2 days on CRT water.

I would concur with the Exactly. The concern you have should not be about the on-line licence checker, but with the "gentleman with a clipboard who looked official but stated he was not employed by CRT". He may just be a sad character who likes wandering round with a clipboard annoying people. Alternatively he could be someone who has more malign intent and I certainly wouldn't be sharing emails with him if he knocked on my boat. I'd be considering whether to report his suspicious behaviour to the police, frankly.

I also have no experience of widebeam cruising. What I do have is experience of being a liveaboard, moored for a couple of years at the very same marina as the OP when I worked nearby (In fact I think we have chatted at the bus-stop) and for the last 3 years as a continuous cruiser. So what I would say is that until you've had a good while out CC-ing, you don't know what you are missing. While you can imagine the potential difficulties, you may not altogether appreciate the wonderful sense of freedom it gives you. It may even be that once you have had a good season out here, you decide not to sell up in September. Living aboard in a marina, or even on a permanent mooring is just so very different to a CC lifestyle. As for the north/south divide, I would not find much to choose, really. The north is lovely and quiet, but there will be issues with the length of your boat. The south far busier, but still some great enjoyment to be had. £2k is another year's licence, insurance and fuel for a decent cruise, so I'd think twice about spending it now on moving the boat south. Whatever you decide, enjoy the freedom and have a great trip.

Gabions.

The CRT moorings at Gloucester Docks are free for 48hr, but at CRT's discretion, you can pay (£5/night??) to stay longer than that. I did the same trip in May last year and it was super.

I agree with that, of course. But what would we have CRT do? Singling out lock 40 at Bank Newton is all very well, but how many other locations and conditions are there which pose a risk to boaters? I have no doubt we can all compile lists of potential hazards we've encountered and the actions needed to rectify them and in an ideal world they would all be fixed. But given that the time and money available to CRT is limited, if the argument is that they should be compelled to spend money at Bank Newton, the first question is; how much? Is it 20k or is it 400k and how much would the risk be reduced. The second question is how well that money would be spent, given that there are plenty of other potential risks that could be reduced if it was spent there instead. Legally, CRT have a duty of care and that should mean that where there is a hazard, boaters are made aware of it, not necessarily that they remove the hazard. Therefore, the question I have is whether the signs that have been put up adequately identify the hazzard at lock 40, so that boaters can use the lock, while avoiding, as far as possible, encountering the same horrible and frightening situation that Ken found himself in. The signs that Allan describes don't really mention the hazzard that caused the hang-up to Ken's boat. Actually they just describe best practice in using any lock.

If the question is why do CRT follow the s.8 route, rather than seek a prosecution for not complying with bye-laws, Phil's explanation is the likeliest one. CRT cannot "manage" a criminal case to be determined in their favour, for the reason Phil suggests, but also because if it was a criminal prosecution it would be brought by the Crown Prosecutor. Even if CRT sought to bring a private prosecution, it would almost certainly be taken over by the CPS, which is their right and the CPS would look at all the relevant facts. Finally, a criminal case would be decided to the criminal standard - that the offence(s) be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the CPS would need to assess the totality of the evidence on that basis.