TheBiscuits

That's helpful Allan. Not. This however is: http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/consultations/Price_discrimination_in_craft-user_licence_fees-Oxera_report.pdf

Zombie Thread Alert! This is a 2005 thread resurrected because the same subject was being discussed earlier.

Link please.

2.6. Boats without permanent moorings The initial May discussion document suggested that boats that cruised continuously around the network with no long term mooring might pay a premium on their licence. Usage was subsequently ruled out as a cost driver (see para 2.1), but the suggestion prompted by far the largest response to any of the consultation issues. Strong and opposing views came from individuals and groups. This has reaffirmed the imperative for clear guidelines to help customers decide whether or not they qualify for ‘continuous cruising’ status. Separate consultation is now underway on this issue and will be reported as soon as possible. http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/consultations/Reviews_Craft_Licensing_Review_Final_Report_Feb_2003.pdf The initial proposal you keep referring to was scrapped in the first phase of the consultation. It didn't survive the user groups.

Actually the whole archive may be of interest: http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/consultations

It's going to be NB + 20% at 14' and that only from April 2023. Currently +15%, previously +10% and +5% Ta. http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/consultations/Reviews_Craft_Initial_Consultation.pdf You may also want the update to it from August 2002. http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/consultations/Reviews_Craft_Consultation_Update.pdf

What is the document itself though? Where is that table taken from? Link? Full Title?

You keep saying that. Do you have a link or a document to support it,, because that's not something I recall from the last licence consultation. It was at one point a wish from the IWA but got dismissed as a clumsy attempt at social cleansing of their playground.

Nah, fill it with lifting balloons so when it floods it won't sink and use a commercial tug to drag it out to sea. Dunno where you'd want to take it, and you're looking at several hundred thousand quid by this point but it would work - on a calm day!

For ease: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/national-consultations/consultation-on-future-boat-licence-pricing-faqs

We understand that she needs attention and can provide information to help understand this - an extremely in-depth history and survey/dive surveys in 2010/2011 and a full condition survey in September 2022 describe her exactly as she is and what needs to be done. Please email for copies of information. https://www.boatshed.com/humber_barge_98-boat-315157.html

Oh, you're only doing the introduction then not the full presentation?

It's likely to be 2.5 sq mm or smaller though. Conductor cross sectional area, not including insulation.

Not many longboats on the canals since the Vikings left!

Oi! @Jen-in-Wellies is blue, not yellow!

Just wait until the NBTA have "negotiated" with CRT on the topic ... worked well for the fuel payments!

I asked her for you. The gist of her answer was "No". It's probably best if I don't quote her verbatim ...

Older boats I reckon, because like old cars they must be more polluting. x5 for anything in service before 1965 would seem fair. Second boats at x2, third boats at x3 ...

Yeah, we wouldn't want @IanD being able to tell CRT he thinks he should pay more for his licence because he has a new expensive boat. Much better if all the marina-based floating weekend cottages decide the old bloke living on a tarpaulin-covered 20ft GRP should pay five times as much licence as they do ... Or have I misunderstood?

My best boatwash steers through locks, shops, cooks and acts as a bowthruster. She's not for sale though!

Commuter Cyclist Fishist Gongoozler

There's that odd bridge below Hebden as a close approximation ...

Heathen! They're mainly for the Christmas lighting effect in tunnels ...

Give free smokeless fuels out .... Simple, effective and very unlikely!