[Avon Ring from Tardebigge - advice]

With a two week trip if you do choose to head for Stratford you should have time to be able to go back to Birmingham (via Knowle if you want a different but much more urban route) and then take stock of how the Severn is behaving. It could be very different in 10 days time and it might enable you to return via Stourbridge and the Staffs & Worcs with a back up of coming back down Tardebigge.

 

As has been said the trip from Stourport to Hawford is easily done in two to three hours.

 

 

[Cavalcade and the NBTA]

2 hours ago, nbfiresprite said:

That depend very much on the local council when it comes to council tax on leisure moorings. As is my own case in my ongoing battle with the privately owned Anglia Revenues Partnership (who run council tax collection for some councils) over my leisure mooring at Foxes. On which council tax has been charged since 2017. I don't liveaboard full time, only three nights a week the other four days at my home in Dorset. You have to prove to Foxes that you have your main home elsewhere to get a mooring.

 

The point being made was the large drain on funding that a large group of liveaboards can be for a councils like Hackney, Town Hamlets and Islington & Camden. With them demanding access to council services which cost these councils a great deal of money to provide after the NBTA took them to court. 

 

 

That does seem strange as presumably the point of the marina wanting to verify the permanent address is because they don't have permission for reidential moorings and therefore those moorings don't (or didn't) attract council tax. Nonetheless I'm confident in saying there are many people holding leisure mooring contracts that are effectively permanently resident on their boat and not subject to council tax. Those doing so in a marina are presumably compliant with the terms of their mooring contract; those on CRT permit moorings possibly not.

 

They are folk trying to make the system work for them in a way that authorities accept or at least tolerate. No different from most boaters living on the towpath. As a couple of posters have touched upon consequence is a large part of the practical application of rules and regulations. It's never as simple as a black and white application of the written word; our legal system recognises no such thing exists. The moral high ground is a precarious place to position oneself in any case; and all too easy if the system has largely worked in your favour as a result of the good fortune of the circumstances around your birth.

 

As for those issues in London I'm not aware of the specific detail - as for the NBTA I regard the term 'bargee' in much the same way as 'CMer' - but I did suggest earlier in the thread that the people who should be most upset about towpath mooring are local residents rather than other boaters. Eradicating London liveaboards would solve some issues; and create another set of issues. I'm also not sure blaming campaigning organisations for legal rulings we don't like is particularly valid in a democratic society, assuming one supports the basis of our society.

 

 

[Cavalcade and the NBTA]

7 hours ago, nbfiresprite said:

While planning my retirement, I was looking through the Waterways Ireland T&C's as one possibility for the future.

 

While looking through the details, it seen that anyone wanting to liveaboard full time on the Irish waterways has to pay for the higher price liveaboard licence. The more you plan to stay aboard, the more you pay. That would not go down well with the NBTA or would adding the tourist tax to payable visiter moorings another thing that some councils are looking at. Afterall these overstaying on the towpath in London are a drain on council resources. Unlike those who are on long term paid moorings who are paying council tax on their moorings. 

 

Waterways Ireland also require a upto day Photo of the boat and that the name and index number is clearly displayed on the boat (Not on a bit of paper stuck in a window). This is enforced on Irish waters, any boat with it's name & index not clearly displayed or has no permit is removed pdq.

 

It does seem that Waterways Ireland has far more powers to remove a boat than CRT does S.I. No. 247/1988 - Canals Act, 1986 (Bye-Laws), 1988.

 

Waterways Ireland permits

   

Combined Mooring and Passage Permit (CMP) permits the holder to pass through locks and to moor at the same Public Mooring for up to five days in any calendar month. 

Non-Residential Extended Mooring Permit (NR-EMP) permits the holder to moor in an allocated location for up to one year.  A NR-EMP is non-residential and therefore cannot be used a primary residence, however the holder is permitted to stay overnight for up to 90 days in any one year. 

Residential Extended Mooring Permit (R-EMP) allows the holder to moor in one location for up to one year.  Holders of a R-EMP have no limitation on the number of nights they may stay on board and are permitted to use their vessel as their primary residence.

Interesting stuff.

 

You touch upon the issue of Council Tax paid by boaters. Is it not the case that there are many boaters who are living aboard boats effectively as a permanent resident on a designated leisure mooring and not paying council tax?
 

Arguably pretty much the same behaviour as those who move just often enough and just far enough to satisfy the requirements of CRT in respect of boaters without home moorings.

 

Yet members of CWDF will mostly advise the former group of how to go about their business but deride the latter group. A key difference being that the latter is more visible and tends to have less aesthetically pleasing boats.

@agg221 cites some examples of real people working probably outside of the requirements, a couple of them with obvious awareness of their impact, at least one of which could be described as being vulnerable.

 

Now while I don’t advocate the canals being used as an official social housing overflow I do wonder if there are Councils who are secretly glad that the canal is housing folk that they would otherwise have more expense in dealing with. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing for CRT politically in the current climate.

 

As far as London goes the demographic of liveaboards is different from other parts of the country. Many London boat dwellers would be able to afford land based accommodation if employed in similar jobs in the Midlands or North. They are also helping to provide services that support the local economy. It’s a very subtle balance, that’s how free markets work, and one that doesn’t have simple engineered solutions.
 

[Cavalcade and the NBTA]

27 minutes ago, dmr said:

Since we have relocated our "winter canal" from the K&A to the Rochdale I have very much changed my thinking about "short distance CC'ing. Canals need boats, amd especially they need good boaters. A good boater is anyone that adds a bit of life to te canals and does not antagonise the locals. The only real issue is massive overcrowding that prevent other boates from visiting the area, and even this is a relative sort of thing. Trying to encourage or even force boats to move a longer distance is not a good way to tackle congestion. CRT are a bit limited by the waterway act but with a bit of thought and luck there are probably better approaches.

Some places are popular and will always be busy even without over stayers. Stone springs to mind. I am with Goliath on this, its ok if its difficult to find a mooring, or a long walk to the pub, its only a real problem if you go somewhere and there is just nowhere to moor. Visiting places that are popular and rammed, and then moving to the lonely widerness, is all part of the fun.

 

Absolutely spot on.
 

My attitude to towpath moored liveaboards has changed over the decade I’ve owned a boat. People are as much a part of canals as the boats and the infrastructure.

 

The one thing I really don’t like though is those that colonise the towpath. You can have your space on the water for 14 days but the towpath isn’t an extension of your home anymore than the street outside my house is mine.

 

On the subject of mooring anyone with a licence is permitted to use a visitor mooring. The status of the boater is irrelevant if they were there first and are not overstaying. If they are routinely full the solution is to extend the VMs. 

 

One thing that is perhaps worthy of change is the default to 14 days for visitor moorings between October and March. You will be familiar with live aboard communities that pitch up in one place for a couple of weeks then move on to the next. In summer VMs are generally not of interest to these folks but I have noticed that once October comes around they may occupy VMs for 14 days. I wonder if perhaps it should be take a winter mooring - which usually are on VMs - or make do with the general towpath all year.

[Cavalcade and the NBTA]

10 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

a deliberately argumentative question : why can’t the 9% NCAA contribution be doubled ? or even tripled?

 

if 4 in 5 boaters have a home mooring then wouldn’t it make sense to increase their contribution  to raise CRT funds?

 

Nothing like 4 out of 5 boaters pay the 9% levy. That’s only those in NCAA marinas.

 

Even if it were contractually possibly I don’t think it would be wise.

[Cavalcade and the NBTA]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

So how do you distinguish (and what do you call) boaters-without-a-home-mooring-who-follow-the-rules-and-keep-moving and boaters-without-a-home-mooring-who-flout-the-rules-and-move-as-little-as-possible?

 

Because the first ones are the boaters for who the no-home-mooring (now often called Continuous Cruising -- don't blame me...) exception was devised in the first place, and the second are clearly not. I agree that many of the second class are not on CWDF, but that rather misses the point -- there certainly seem to be plenty of them on the canals.

 

Whether you find overstayers/CMers/whatever a problem is very dependent on where you want to moor; I haven't had problems in London because my boat isn't here, but I see lots of boats doing this on a daily basis. But I have had difficulties finding visitor moorings in recent years in plenty of "honeypot" places like Braunston, Whaley Bridge, Skipton, Sowerby Bridge, Castlefield, Worcester, Stourport (how long a list would you like?) in a way that I never used to have (say) ten years ago -- and many of the boats on such short-term (e.g. 48h) moorings certainly don't look like short-term visitors, they're often still there if I pass by again a week or so later -- and according to @MtB some are still there months later.

 

Of course there are no problems if you want to moor out in the middle of nowhere where other boats are few and far between, but funnily enough some people -- including me -- want to moor in popular towns and villages because of the facilities.

 

If you can devise less divisive/pejorative (and short!) names than "CCers" and "CMers" and get these widely adopted so everyone knows what is being talked about then please feel free.

 

They are boaters Ian. If you want a short name use that. Then describe the action in question rather than label the person.

 

Why does anyone other than CRT need to distinguish their status? Nobody else has any reliable means to do so anyway. My experience is that trying to do so is fraught with danger because people simply do not fall into neat little categories. That's precisely why I post stuff to illustrate that point with my own movements as a boater without a home mooring.

 

Beyond being simply boaters there are liveboard boaters and non-liveaboard boaters, boaters with a home mooring and boaters without a home mooring. Boaters with home moorings may pay a direct mooring fee to CRT, an indirect levy to CRT, or no contribution from their mooring fee whatsoever. Boaters without a home mooring may pay a direct fee to CRT for winter moorings, no contribution at all or maybe (I'm unsure if it applies) an indirect fee for short term moorings in NCAA marinas.

 

This is where your parity of fee per boater argument falls down a little because to even know the relevant contributions simply between boaters with a home mooring and those without as a whole you'd need to establish the numbers that fall into each category and the fees they pay. For instance I contribute more direct fee to CRT through winter mooring fees than you do from your 9% NCAA contribution in your marina mooring fee. But it's me that pays the licence surcharge not you. There wasn't parity before, there still isn't and there never will be, although it is possibly more equitable now. There's also no absolute reason why there should be, it just seems to appeal to your sense of logic.

 

 

[Cavalcade and the NBTA]

5 hours ago, IanD said:

 

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...

 

The term "CMers" is applied to rather more than the relatively small band of boaters who have no intention of moving in accordance with their licence. I've also never known anybody on CWDF - even in the days when it had a far larger and more diverse representation of boaters than it now does - support blatant overstaying.

 

The vast majority of liveaboard boaters without a home mooring operate in a manner that CRT deem sufficient to fulfil licensing requirements. If you are spotted in the same location on two consecutive occasions more than 14 days apart you will receive a reminder of your obligation to keep moving. The entry level of the enforcement regime does work and it serves to keep boaters moving, because ultimately the majority want to renew their licence.

 

A lot of folk would do well to leave CRT to go about their business and work on the assumption that if boats are on the water they are licensed and compliant. The lack of an up to date licence displayed on a boat is not an indicator that a boat isn't licensed. Nor does a boat that gives the the appearance of looking well settled in, or with a rear deck from which it might look impossible to steer - mean the boat never moves.

 

As someone that cruises long distances on a near weekly basis and uses visitor moorings as my preferred option for mooring I can say I rarely find it difficult to moor and if I do it will be because boats have occupied the site, not any particular sort of boat or boater. In any case how do you know which boats on a visitor mooring have a home mooring and which ones don't? My experience of boating in the Home Counties is that liveaboard boaters tend to avoid visitor moorings. Something I see another boater has also mentioned. 

 

Of course it's perfectly acceptable to argue that the rules - or the enforcement - should require more movement than they do, but that does not make it OK to apply a derogatory term to those who would be impacted by such.

 

It's a complex subject that involves outside influence and agencies and any serious debate should treat the affected persons with respect - a mark of tolerance in itself - and that means using the correct terminology. I don't like the term "CCers", it has no legal basis and misleads folk as to what they think is required of others. Unfortunately CRT use it themsleves. The use of the term "CMer" belies prejudice and undermines the point of view of the person using it.

    

[Cavalcade and the NBTA]

9 hours ago, IanD said:

 

Since that's clearly a dig at the likes of me, I'll rise to the bait... 😉 

 

CART need more money, and some of this has to come from boaters. CCers have for many years been making a smaller contribution to CART funding (which pays for the canals their boat is on) than home moorers -- some of who pay CART directly, some via the 9% levy on other mooring fees -- and this low-cost living aboard is one factor that has lead to the large rise in the number of CMers, many of who (not all) seem to do their best to bend/break the rules which law-abiding boaters follow.

 

The CC surcharge on the license fee goes at least part-way to correcting this anomaly (and increases CART income), and simply means that everyone -- CCer or CMer or HMer or EOGer -- pays a similar amount to CART. Or at least CCers don't continue to pay less -- some HMers who pay CART directly or via EOG obviously pay much more. It's a bit like closing a historical tax loophole that some people have taken advantage of but now protest when this is corrected... 😉 

 

You might also care to note that I've suggested several measures to raise further money for CART (like boat-age-related surcharge/discount) which would result in "wealthy leisure boaters" like me paying more money *and poorer people in old boats paying less* -- which hardly smacks of self-interest or prejudice against poorer boaters, does it?

 

Nothing to do with self-satisfaction, just fairness (those with the broadest shoulders carry the heaviest load), and trying to help close the gap between CART funding and the expenditure needed to maintain the canals.

 

Now expecting accusations of being a "champagne socialist" -- well if that means being well-off and thinking I should pay more and those less well-off should pay less, guilty as charged... 😉 

That’s a bit of a confessional, Ian.

 

I’m not sure why you dedicate three long paragraphs to the surcharge for boaters with no home mooring; other than perhaps to force your own agenda. In principle I have no objection to it.

What I do observe though is that CRT - along with some folk on this forum - fall into a trap of stereotyping those boaters.
 

The point I do have issue with is the conflict between what CRT have previously described as a home mooring in their licensing guidance and what they define as a home mooring for the purposes of the surcharge.

 

Ultimately I’m not sure why people in the fortunate position of being able to go boating in the manner of their own choosing would be so publically antagonistic toward what is largely a less fortunate group and who I observe have very little, if any, direct impact on the chief protagonists on this thread.

 

For sure there are piss-takers on the canals but where in life aren’t there? Mostly though it’s people trying to make the best of their situation within their own broadly reasonable interpretation of the rules. They really don’t deserve the language that is directed at them by some other boaters.

 

NB - I had considered myself to be a wealthy leisure boater but given I own what is possibly the oldest purpose built welded steel leisure boat on CRT waters I may have to rethink that.

 

 

 

 

[Cavalcade and the NBTA]

3 minutes ago, frangar said:

 But the twirlers say it’s all about the “lifestyle” not the freeloading……

The NBTA is the opposite extreme of many here, it’s not the “association of boaters without a home mooring”.

 

15 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Can you give an example of a solution to “the problem “ which is savoury?

It would likely be one that didn’t lead to people seeking to live on boats when they’d really prefer to live on land.
 

Forcing such people to pay more to live on boats is a solution that doesn’t seem to achieve much other than increasing the self satisfaction of wealthy leisure boaters.

 

For sure there would still be some hardcore that really do subscribe to the off-grid kind of lifestyle but their pioneer is one Mr Rolt.

[Cavalcade and the NBTA]

7 hours ago, MtB said:

 

When you're paying £4k for your CRT home mooring and one boat after another spends months on end moored opposite you paying nothing, one begins to feel a bit of an idiot.

 

Hope that helps explain...

 

 

 

 

Which you do because you want security, don’t wish to move every 14 days and can afford the fee.

 

The kind of boater folks get upset about has little security, has to move (and the majority do), and is probably on a boat because they can’t afford to live on land.

 

And for their trouble they get vilified.

 

There are a whole load of issues here that I think we’d all like to see some better solutions to, but the way in which the chief protagonists here argue it should be done is pretty unsavoury.

[Cavalcade and the NBTA]

1 hour ago, Francis Herne said:

It seems a meaningless question to me (as a continuous cruiser myself).

 

If people consistently move just once every 14 days, to my mind they'd have to move many miles each time to be in the spirit of things.

 

If you're travelling hundreds of miles overall and feel like moving a few yards around the corner one time, who cares?

 

It would matter if CRT tried to rigidly police every movement in isolation, but they don't. Taken over months it's obvious who's really moving and who's shuffling.

But why do some boaters get so worked up about how far and how often other boaters move?

 

A boat can only exist in one place and it makes no fundamental difference as a boater where you encounter it. Hence I’d suggest these arguments are not principally about boating.

 

The 14 day business should perhaps matter more to local residents who potentially have non-contributing members of their community using local amenities.

 

My solution to this is overstay in the same area where I pay Council Tax.

 

 

[Yes its the Daily Mail, but its still news?]

2 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I wonder if there’s a few named that, I passed a  boat named the same the other day,

can’t remember exactly where mind,

 

 

This one was in Alvechurch so I guess not the same one.

[Yes its the Daily Mail, but its still news?]

Another thread where folk talk a lot of Bow Locks. (Today I passed the marvellously named The Dogs, Bow Locks).

 

As I boater without a home mooring I have so far this calendar year spent 60 days on a paid mooring (which is apparently emphatically NOT a home mooring). A further 45 days not moving on the same mooring at no fee and two days moored on the towpath at different locations.
 

I couldn’t give a stuff what the NBTA say. They don’t represent me, but their position is no less appealing than the petty arguments I read here; some which appear to be little more than envy because folk some get cheaper moorings than others.

 

I suspect I pay for moorings for the very same reason that other people pay for permanent moorings; principally security and also because I don’t want to move every 14 days.

[Network Rail completes 9-day upgrade on UK’s only sliding bridge]

2 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

The nearby Keadby bridge over the Trent and on the same line as the Vazon bridge would be another example. A combined rail and road bridge that used to lift to allow tall ships along the Trent, but is now fixed.

Yes, that’s a beast. Similar to, but not as aesthetically pleasing as the ‘White Bridge’ at Carmarthen. That is also fixed. The style is often referred to as a “rolling bridge”.

[Land Slip - Easenhall Cutting, Brinklow, Oxford Canal]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

That's not a hopper. It is designed to carry road-based plant, hence the drop down ramps on the right hand end. Since it also has hydraulic spud legs it looks to have been designed to allow a conventional excavator to be used for dredging.

 

Quite a smart bit of kit. Much more economical to be able to hire a small tracked excavator with full fitter and operator support than have one of your own permanently attached to a boat.

 

As for the tugs and hoppers I saw, they were entering and exiting the closed section transporting vegetation that was being processed at Newbold. It’s possible it wasn’t from Easenhall but I think it’s highly likely it was. I imagine those craft are left at Newbold overnight and at weekends because that’s where the operatives can get easy access to them.

[Network Rail completes 9-day upgrade on UK’s only sliding bridge]

1 hour ago, Cheshire cat said:

I was under the impression that there is a retired sliding bridge on the Ulverston canal.

I think although that bridge still appears to be extant it no longer slides. The mechanism is likely fixed. Hence that statement is probably correct although quite why Network Rail are so confident about the arrangements of the nation’s canal bridges I know not.

 

It’s pretty common for what were once moveable railway bridge spans to now be fixed. The metal spans of the Barmouth Bridge have recently been renewed to the same pattern as the original swing bridge spans albeit without any capacity - latent or actual - to swing. That’s because of its listed status.

[Land Slip - Easenhall Cutting, Brinklow, Oxford Canal]

They seemed to be still actively involved in vegetation removal ten days ago, using hoppers and tugs to transport it away from site to suitable road access points.

 

I suspect as much spoil as possible will be removed from the top using long reach excavators that may also be able to construct suitable ramps down the slope for other plant if necessary.

 

Not surprised they weren’t working on a bank holiday. That’s very costly in terms of plant and labour.

[Tug by Braunston foot bridge]

40 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I was curious about the CRT licence, rather than the mooring permit.

 

A similar question crosses my mind about the sunken hulks on the Coventry and in the disused/private winding 'ole at Cropredy.

 

CRT eventually Section-8 s and removes unlicenced boats usually, but not these. Why not?

So you were. I’ve misread those posts totally. Sorry

[Tug by Braunston foot bridge]

9 hours ago, MtB said:

 

In the meantime someone presumably, is paying to licence it? 

 

If not why do CRT allow it? 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Lady M said:

Licensing of boats on the canals is a relatively recent arrangement.  Olive at The Anchor on the Shropshire Union Canal used to say that her old boat did not need to have a licence or pay for its mooring alongside the towpath.  Perhaps this boat has been there so long that it pre-dates the licence system.

It’s possibly moored on land that is associated with the lease for UCC (assuming the site is on a long term lease to which CRT own the freehold) and therefore the mooring fee is essentially included.

 

The Anchor at High Offley is probably similar.

 

It’s one reason you will observe the same boat moored on the towpath at such sites. 

 

The old Boat Inn near Brinklow always has the same boat moored outside, there are many others.

 

I dare say many local marina dwellers curse the ‘overstayers’ every time they pass.

[Quick Leeds & Liverpool question]

I’d have thought the obvious canal destination in that sort of timescale would be Worsley, and perhaps a trip across and back over the Barton swing aqueduct. Or is that too far?

 

Obviously it would also need the Bridgewater licence sorting.

 

Plank Lane swing bridge is ‘fun’. Otherwise the canal is interesting, a bit odd rather than scenic though, until you get to Worsley.

[Solo Boat in a Double Lock]

12 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

while the pound above empties ?

 

Yep. Despite all the rain I’ve encountered low pounds at Buckby this year.

[Solo Boat in a Double Lock]

19 hours ago, blackrose said:

 

It depends on the lock. If it's leaking significantly some locks can be impossible to fill with only one paddle and you'll never be able to open the gates.

Absolutely, although as others have said this not generally a problem on the GU Birmingham line because it has big paddles. I do though recall that a month or so ago I had to open the offside paddle of Shop Lock to fill the lock.

 

Elsewhere on the GU I reckon I’ve lost a day of my life waiting for folk struggling to open a gate on the Braunston and Buckby flights thinking it will make a level on a single ground paddle.

[Solo Boat in a Double Lock]

11 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

Yes short boats like mine like to do their own thing sometimes,

 

I don’t think anyone’s dare say it have they?

use one gate?

 

I found by chance today that if you leave a top paddle open on the Hatton flight the boat will also lower and stay on that side when you open a bottom paddle on opposite side, 

Not suggesting this is good practise but just an observation.

 

 

I think the main thing with descending those locks is that they empty quickly on one paddle so it’s generally not worth opening the opposite paddle if you’re on your own.

[Solo Boat in a Double Lock]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

The paddles at Knowle are bigger than on the other 1930s widening locks - labelled as 3ft square I recall whereas the other flights have 2ft 6in square paddles. Presumably because the locks are deeper, 5 wide locks having replaced 6 narrow locks.

They are indeed and I think they are 3’ 3” square. Knowle is difficult to single hand. Not least because the locks are each stuck out on their own little isthmus. I descended the flight a month ago and had a good look at the remains of the narrow locks. I concluded they probably had side ponds judging by the remnants of brickwork that abut the newer work for the widening.

 

The paddles on Bascote staircase are also different to the standard arrangement. They are larger and lower geared. 

[Kings Head Atherstone]

It’s been closed for quite a while in between tenants. Didn’t actually know it had reopened. 
 

Called in there for lunch with my son over five years back and it’s since turned out that the lad who served us is now my son’s flat mate at Uni in Cardiff.

 

Small world.