Captain Pegg

A couple of possibilities. Shroppie bridge holes are very narrow. Surprisingly so for an otherwise heavily engineered canal. That possibly means the tow rope was pulled round them at a tighter angle and therefore a larger component of perpendicular force. I noted some guards on GU today that were much less worn. They were in much more generous bridge holes. Another possibility is the metal they were cast with. If enough heat is generated through friction in one event then the crystalline structure can change and become susceptible to wear in way that is wasn’t previously. While I’m not sure how this might happen on a canal it’s how excessive wheel slip affects railway rails.

It’s all very well and rather simplistic to slag off someone else’s job or profession. However it seems the chap with the paint problem went to court without legal representation. Had he have sought legal advice I dare say he’d have saved himself some money because he’d never have got there in the first place. (I can well imagine judges despair of folk who do this). He seems to misunderstand that the burden falls on him to prove that the fault was caused by the builder. The judge doesn’t have to decide how it was done, not even the most likely cause. They have to know it was the fault of the builder to find against them. That’s a very high level bar to prove. And the chaps ignorance is reinforced by the comments. Such is the way of blogs.

In a case where a licence holder paying the surcharge wishes to change status and transfer to the standard rate the above is clearly not the case. In order to make that transfer the mooring agreement must be of at least six months duration and run to the end of the licence period as a minimum. Obviously if you’re a long term mooring holder the mooring agreement and licence period don’t have to be co-terminus. Surely nobody needs that explaining to them.

There’s a further piece that deals with the circumstances under which you can change status from not having a home mooring to having a home mooring. It’s not just the six month rule but also that the mooring agreement must run until the end of the licence period. So they really are only allowing for a one time long term change of status. So you can see this is the kind of area CRT will likely be checking. And does it not follow that at least part of the information CRT is currently publishing will become part of the Terms & Conditions? I think the thread took this turn because it was reported there would be refunds for taking a home mooring having initially declared as not having one. I for one figured that would at least cover things like winter moorings but it appears not. At least directly. The safe assumption is that the changes will make no difference to cruising requirements irrespective of how much time you spend in marinas. In any case I doubt CRT would give you a direct answer to your question even if you could get through to talk to them. The range requirement is arbitrary and cruising pattern requirements are not the same for every boater.

There’s plenty of different charging regimes. I’ve yet to find anywhere that won’t price by the night and some do weekly and monthly short term rates. Prices start from £8.00 per night at selected canal society moorings. £25 is the most I’ve been quoted and I think £18 is the most I’ve paid. That’s for a short boat.

I think so too. They’ve tried to rule out changes of status during the licence period as much as they can. Albeit seemingly creating a different definition of “home mooring” for the purpose of licensing than for movement.

Mostly it’s a just a number of posters that are completely unaffected by it overly concerning themselves with how it might be abused by the small number who are affected by it and are trying to find out how it will work.

That is essentially what they have done. And it’s not actually any different to what happens now. The requirement to prove mooring status is a fall back for cases where CRT have reason to doubt the declaration. The correct terms are enshrined in law. Have you fallen in to the trap of associating residential status and mooring status? That’s a big gripe of many folk affected by this change. And also why what you suggest won’t happen.

I hadn’t read it like that for the simple reason there is no change for anyone with a home mooring. Perhaps there is a little confusion.

Yes. The context of the discussion is about the implications of a boat with no home mooring taking a short term paid mooring.

If you buy a mooring then you don’t have to move for the duration, irrespective of how long you are on the mooring. What you must do is move “bona fide for navigation” at all other times when you are a not on a paid mooring. Hence CRT’s expectation of a sufficient range comes into play. As I said earlier in the thread if you were to move progressively and directly between paid moorings and never stay in the same place for more than 14 days I don’t think there is any argument that you aren’t moving in accordance with the law irrespective of range. But that’s not to say you won’t first attract CRT’s attention and then have to argue your case.

That table isn’t the variance to specified thickness. It’s the variance of the thickness within the plate. Because steel plates don’t have uniform thickness. Tolerances are typically lower values and come in four classifications. The most stringent of which ensures the specified plate will not be thinner than the specified value.

Neither is necessarily accurate given plate thickness are nominal. So converting them isn’t such a big deal providing the calculation is correct.

Based on what the OP says it seems that some marinas do think it has an impact. Perhaps if we were in their shoes we'd understand why. Getting drawn into disagreements between CRT and boaters under enforcement action or conflict with the conditions of the marina planning permissions are two possible areas.

The sightings are coded to distinguish the type of mooring the boat is on (if moored when spotted). I was spotted twice 20 days apart on the same towpath mooring site last year and received an automatic letter reminding me of the requirement to move. My next two sightings were in the same marina and more than 20 days apart. That did not generate the same letter. It wasn't a CRT marina but is there such a thing anymore? I don't see that it matters. The system appears to know if you're in a place from which you are not required to move every 14 days.

I’d always thought that replacement mileposts were provided by canal societies.

The answer is actually in the licence fee consultation FAQs on the CRT website https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/national-consultations/licence-fee-review-changes-faqs-2023 It says refunds will only be given for moorings taken for a period of at least six months and running to the end date of the licence. That’s at odds with their own literature on what constitutes a home mooring. I think to not give discounts for winter moorings is perhaps a mistake. The costs for those will generally be greater than the licence fee surcharge. I predict next years uptake of winter moorings will be lower.

CRT's online information suggests that the descriptions "long-term mooring", "permanent mooring" and "home mooring" are interchangeable and that contract lengths vary from three months to three years. This latter information is perhaps based on their own Waterside Moorings contracts. They use the term "short-term mooring" and "visitor mooring" interchangeably and with the key distinction that they are free (interesting in itself). That's certainly different from how I have used the phrase "short-term mooring" above. I would certainly contend that my three month winter mooring constitutes a home mooring. How can it not if I don't have to move in that time? Pragmatically it may seem sensible to have a minimum time for which a home mooring arrangement must apply but the law makes some distinct provisions that may tie CRT's hands. I think it may be hard to argue against the notion that if you have paid for the exclusive use of a berth then you have a home mooring, irrespective of duration. They will have to make some rules around that which I guess will stand until they are challenged in court and ruled to be unlawful (or CRT head that off by changing them). That may never happen, particularly if they come up with something sensible (like perhaps more than 14 days).

I thought exactly the same in respect of declaration of home mooring. I’ve never been asked whether I’m declaring a short term mooring as a home mooring. The marina doesn’t generally know my mooring status. It did make me wonder if under the new rules marinas will become more bothered by it though. As you pointed out the only time you are required to declare your mooring status is when applying for a licence. Hence the possible temptation for folk to buy a short term mooring and declare it as a home mooring for licence renewal purposes. That potentially drags the marina into licence enforcement matters. Perhaps that’s already why some in the South East don’t wish to have short term moorers declare a change of status. They always have the option of refusing you a berth. Otherwise it strikes me the OP is likely to be fine. I’d still keep good records though should the question get asked.

What I meant was the operational impact on CRT. For instance do they anticipate a higher proportion of boaters will declare a home mooring under the new system and if so what will their response be? They must surely know how the scheme will work in respect of winter mooring permits and by extension other short term moorings?

I remember that you had to wear wellies to walk the towpath in rural areas the 70s and 80s otherwise you got wet feet. Some places weren’t sensibly passable.

There is a school of thought that some are replacements that were cast with the wear pattern in them. I’ve studied them in passing a number of times and I don’t see it. But there’s nothing here trying to make us believe anything even if it is true. The damage caused by ropes containing grit is evident on metal and stone all over the canal system.

Taken in places were there was still a decent amount of trade, albeit not horse drawn in general. Accounts of the Oxford aren’t too great at that time. Mind you some of it isn’t great today. It’s just about the only place I’ve seen recently that doesn’t seem to have had improvements. Realistically in the time that anyone on this forum has been boating have they ever been better overall?

Keep reading, you’ll see it was tongue in cheek. Not that you’re the only person to bite. As for towpaths I’d be amazed if they aren’t in the best overall condition they’ve been in since long before the demise of horse drawn boats. That would be in the living memory of everyone on this forum or thereabouts.

I’m wary of folk giving advice to the OP that although well intended and arguably pragmatic could lead the OP into conflict with CRT in the context of the proposed licence fee arrangements. It really depends on the relative lengths of home mooring stints and the gaps between them and we don’t know that; and nor may the OP until the time comes. I’m sure CRT care it’s just low on their radar today. That may change but you hope CRT have done adequate impact assessments on their new rules.