___
-
Posts
5,064 -
Joined
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by ___
-
-
30 minutes ago, David Mack said:
Some of the period photographs @mark99 has been posting on the forum were taken within the lifetime of some of us here and show towpaths in excellent condition.
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?
-
39 minutes ago, Joe Summers said:
Total tosh, boaters fall in occasionally but rarely. How on earth would I slowly bring my 66' narrowboat alongside, carefully step off holding the centre line and bring my boat to a stop with a barrier along the edge. Better CRT sort out the atrocious condition of most towpaths to make them less hazardous.
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.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, MartynG said:
That's a bit picky but I get your point.
I doubt C&RT care too much really. Looking at it with a dose of common sense the OPs proposed use pattern seems to me a lot closer to a home moorer than it is to a continuous cruiser.
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.
-
1 hour ago, MartynG said:
Seems perfectly honest to me since it sounds like the boat will be in a marina most of the time. Maybe not the same marina all year but what's to stop anyone declaring home mooring and moving the home mooring from time to time?
You can move as many times as you like but to legitimately claim the full lesser licence fee should each contract run absolutely consecutively with no gap?I guess if you cruise directly between each within reason then you could argue it’s legitimate but you open yourself up to question.
Who knows what conversations take place between marinas and CRT regarding short term mooring holders?
I read it that the OP would like to retain a default position of not having a home mooring. Probably thinking about their long term status.
40 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:Precisely. I've moved mooring three times, with a six week cruise in between, and I've never stopped being a home moorer even when I had no idea of the mooring I was going to get when I reached the new area. If your intention is to park the boat for most of the year in various marinas, you can't be a continuous cruiser because you're not, and have no intentions of, being on a continuous cruise for a while. Otherwise , a leisure boat would change its status every time it shoved off, which would be silly.
Clearly if you don’t hold a current mooring agreement and you are floating on CRT waters with a licence then you are a boater without a home mooring.The key point is that up until now it’s been of no consequence as long as you keep moving. Hence there’s not really been any point in changing your declared status if it remains the same at the time of each licence renewal. That’s why I declare I’m a boater without a home mooring when in fact I spend the best part of half the licence period on a home mooring.
In future it will be of consequence so changing your status is arguably going to be necessary and the safe way of staying onside with CRT for transient moorers will be to default to not having a home mooring and work ‘back’ from there. Hopefully gaining credit on your licence account as you do.
The legal distinction as far as a home mooring is concerned isn’t where you are or what you’re doing but that you have a right of use to a mooring.
-
3 hours ago, David Mack said:
Under the 95 Act you are only required to notify CRT of your mooring status when you apply for a licence. You are not required to update them with subsequent changes (although presumably your past behaviour could be a factor in 'satisfying the Board' when you apply to relicence as a CCer).
Boaters who frequently flip between having a home mooring and CCing are going to be an administrative pain in the neck for CRT once the differential licence cost comes in.
Presumably CRT can meet their legal requirements by issuing a licence (any licence) and are not duty bound to issue the lower rate licence for a boat with a home mooring simply because the applicant declares such?Therefore if your past status or movement pattern suggests you do not make use of a permanent mooring then they can ask for evidence prior to issuing the licence.
I agree that us folk with transient mooring status may be a total PITA to CRT. Given I possibly make less use of CRT facilities as a boater without a home mooring than I did when I had a home mooring I shall have no problem with that.
-
17 minutes ago, enigmatic said:
Are you cruising the Thames with a Gold Licence? I'd have thought that'd automatically put you low on the list of people they're likely to see as an enforcement issue
The "20 miles" is a suggestion to discourage people from staying on the towpath in the same town all year, not a minimum CRT waters journey length for someone that also spends a lot of time paying to be in marinas or off EA waters altogether. Ultimately the licence checkers are spotting boats that are in the same five mile zone every month, not trying to measure exactly how far away you've gone when you're not spotted by anyone for a couple of months
It’s the legal requirement to move to a new place every 14 days that does that.Having a home mooring does change things but it is perhaps a grey area as to how it works when the status is transient. We’re about to find out with the impending changes.
i think what might help @cheesegas is to have the next marina mooring agreed before the current one expires.
Then the journey between the two can’t be anything other than ‘bona-fide for navigation’ can it? I think it’s that requirement that the range criterion applies to.
But that move still has to be done in accordance with the 14 days place to place and no shuffling requirements.
-
11 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:
Is that true of marina moorings? I'd have thought they'd have wanted something formal, but as I've never had one I'm guessing. But surely, if the boat is being largely kept on various moorings during a year, he's a home moorer. I don't turn into a continuous cruiser when I leave my mooring for the summer, nor did I in the period when I moved the boat from one mooring to another.
They are all different. Some require evidence of insurance and BSS and some need next to nothing. I’ve never signed an actual contract document as far as I can recall though.
The reason you don’t become a “CCer” is because there is no such thing.
You retain the right of use of your mooring whether your boat is on it or not. The OP has no equivalent when they leave a marina at the end of the agreed stay. Hence the rules are very different and the the intention to take up another paid mooring in future has no bearing.
-
28 minutes ago, LadyG said:
Yes, true, but when I have a problem, I think, if I go to court how will I present my case. The case is that on the day I bought the licence I had a contact with the marina.
Now what happens if I decide to change my status on the website to cc I don't know. So previously I changed my status from home mooring, assuming I had that contract and then changed to cc when I left that marina with no intention to return, ie the contact had lapsed.
Yes, so your earlier statement directed to the OP “I do not think you are CC” is incorrect.If not in possession of a current mooring agreement he would definitely be without a home mooring. You seem to bring occupation of the boat into the equation but is completely irrelevant.
In the end I think you have the solution; update your status as it changes but it’s probably easiest and more defendable to start from a position of having paid for the licence fee for a boat with no home mooring. I think that was the OPs intention. Hence the statement about not wanting to declare a short term marina mooring as a home mooring.
In reality I think it will financially advantageous for them to do so.
-
7 minutes ago, LadyG said:
A contract is any agreement. OP has agreed to pay when in the mooring, I consider this is my home mooring when in a marina, whether it is residential or not is irrelevant to CRT surely.
I have flip flopped my status, that was few years ago, but if you gave a problem the call centre only use the website you have available. Anything complex you need to talk to Licencing Officer. I don't think this is complex .
Being a canal forum as I was writing in language that a broad audience might understand.To some - most? - a contract implies a wordy document with terms and conditions and signatures. Many short term moorings are secured by nothing more than e-mail correspondence or even a phone call, hence my chosen words.
-
8 minutes ago, MartynG said:
I suggest declaring a home mooring at the marina you expect to be in at around the time your license starts.
Then forget about it until the next license renewal.
Or you can change your home mooring on the C&RT online account as you move around if you prefer .
That’s suggesting the OP be less than totally honest about their true status. Why do that if you have a compliant cruising pattern?Edit to add that @cheesegas really shouldn’t do this because under the proposed licensing regime it would constitute licence fee evasion.
-
Note that CRT do check marinas - well certainly those that require licenses if not all - so your sightings record should include your stays on home moorings.
I think it’s wrong to suggest you will have the status of a boat with a home mooring when between paid moorings though. If you haven’t got a current mooring agreement or contract then you can’t satisfy the requirement of having an available home mooring and therefore when out and about on CRT waters as well as the 14 day limit you will need to move to a different place and not shuffle.
If you move progressively in the above manner between declared home moorings and/or non-CRT water then I cannot see how distance can be a factor.
ETA - I’m a little puzzled at the notion of being in a marina but not on a home mooring. Although the system requires the licence holder to declare their status I’d suggest that ultimately their status is a matter of fact rather than being arbitrary i.e. a paid mooring is a home mooring.
-
I've updated the planner and as per suggestions above I've increased the photograph bonus scores for the places that require a specific trip off a main route to reach.
The first one has been sent out so there will be no more changes.
-
18 minutes ago, john6767 said:
When do you think you will be able to send out the planning sheets to those who have entered?
The route planner is usually sent out by return when an application is received.
Which means the first one is due now so I’d better up date it to reflect the finish location this evening.
I’m not planning any significant changes to last year because most of the incentives I put in were scuppered by the Rushall locks issue.
-
I've just sent out the 2024 Information & Rules pack and entry form to past participants and new entrants that have contacted me recently.
Based on the interest so far I'm hopeful that the number of entrants for the last two years will be bettered.
If anybody wants to receive these and isn't yet on my mailing list please PM me or mail on bcnschallenge [at] gmail [dot] com
-
47 minutes ago, magnetman said:
I don't know.
Its an interesting question which is why I made the comment.
The position of the chimneys on the boats is interesting. The one to the left which also has signwriting looks like it is in the right place but the other one seems more central perhaps a mess room layout rather than accomodation.
The cabins on the middle two look like they may have been repaired/knocked up possibly for this use.
The hull shapes look to me like long distance boats. The size of the cabins also suggests this.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, magnetman said:
The variable freeboard of the the boats is useful. I imaging they have rudimentary cabins rather than luxury accomodation. 1886 is a little early for boatmans cabins.
They look like retired long distance horse boats to me. Other than perhaps the one on the left they aren’t equipped for normal use. I don’t see a rudder on all of them and it’s debatable it’s hung properly on the ones that do. -
6 minutes ago, magnetman said:
Yes the stout gentleman standing on the hatches seems very trusting.
One false move and he'll end up in the bilges!
What was the fatality rate like in these sorts of construction jobs?
1 in ten ?
Heavy construction and boating in the 19th century. Off the scale compared to what would be tolerated today. Thankfully.
I think @Jen-in-Wellies suggestion the girder was lifted off wagons on a railway bridge onto boats on moving water is most unlikely. I think @David Mack has a better explanation.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, noddyboater said:
Yes, of course I have things that I have to accommodate in my schedule.
But I, and I'm guessing nor you, would have left it on the lock landing restricting the canal.
You can suggest an array of scenarios but It's just lazy and ignorant.
That's a different issue as to why it was left reasonably close to the final destination, which I think is far more rational than how they have moored it.
Given that it would have been so easy to put it on the piled length I wouldn't be surprised if they had no nappy pins or stakes. It happens sometimes. I picked up a boat this past week that had no pins and my client expressed surprise I didn't carry my own. Well I can't carry a full set of everything I might need and if you've got ropes you'll find a way to moor somehow. Ultimately though the skipper is responsible for the boat and it's equipment and should have just put the rope through the waling on the piling. That would be OK for one night. I had to do that with my own boat last week because of the design of piling and the lack of anywhere else to moor. That was on a length with no mooring signs too. Sometimes circumstance dictates.
1 hour ago, magnetman said:They may have had negative feedback around moving through the ice and didn't fancy the row of boats.
I spent Friday breaking ice. Another thing to add to my list of 'crimes'. I was greeted by three moored boaters. None of them was concerned by the potential damage to their blacking and all seemed interested to observe a boat breaking ice. Thankfully some people get that canals are there for boating.
-
3
-
-
9 minutes ago, noddyboater said:
My point was it was less than an hour to the marina, with no more locks and not difficult in the dark.
As they were marina staff involved in the move there wouldn't have been an issue in where to leave it etc. It's also well lit once inside the marina area.
With freezing conditions forecast I'd have got it there rather than abandoning it so near.
They must have had some reason to want to leave it there. One that you nor I know.Perhaps they lived nearby, or had left a car nearby, or had pre-arranged a lift from someone from that location having not been sure as to whether they would make it in time back to the marina.
Or quite simply they may not have had unlimited time to complete the journey on that day because they had another engagement or a partner had to go to work or one of them had some childcare duties. You know, stuff that normal working folk have to accommodate in their schedule. Or maybe you don’t?
It doesn’t matter and if they’d gone 50m further we’d neither know nor care. Perhaps they had no mooring pins so they chose to leave it on the bollards.
-
15 minutes ago, IanD said:
A narrowboat wouldn't have caused the obstruction so not a problem. Nothing to do with lampooning widebeams, just people in general who moor stupidly.
Which is more likely to mean widebeams, simply because they're more likely to cause an obstruction... 😉
It wasn’t exclusively addressed to you or about this incident.At this time of year there are plenty of places where moored narrowboats restrict passage. Places like Clifton or Tardebigge old wharf. Yes I know that some folk will get excited about that but for the most part folk deal with it rather than putting it online.
Leisure boating in the summer is easy. Things get more complicated when you’re moving a boat that potentially has no equipment on board, in poor light and weather and when all the convenient places to moor have been taken up and you need access to public transport or some specific amenity on the bank.
As it turns out there was a better solution seemingly available here but it’s easy to criticise and it’s almost certain the number of people criticising was infinitely higher than the number of people that were actually inconvenienced.
-
2 minutes ago, PaulJ said:
You wouldnt have done.
You would probably have gone past the two narrowboats and moored closer to the entrance of Stenson Marina than you should have instead. Makes more sense if it HAD to be left.
But then I doubt you would have left it either..
I am guessing the fact that the canal froze up ovenight was the main reason it didnt get moved first thing in the morning. Shiny new boat blacking and all that..
Yeah they should have taken it past that narrowboat. Plenty of piling and not too close to the marina entrance by the look of it.
-
1 hour ago, Stroudwater1 said:
Just checked and three of our spots are incorrect in 2023, two in the Marple/Macc area and one on Stoke Bruerne service moorings.
when we were meant to be at Middlecale farm moorings we were in Newbold tunnel.
Ours is a 5 figure number so maybe we are being checked before the 6th digit is inserted by the checker. Perhaps someone’s cloned our number 😕
Overall I’m pleased to be confirmed at travelling the network so widely tbh
You should query that. You might get the blame for my overstays up north.I wonder if your five digit number is getting a zero added to the end rather than the beginning.
I also have a five digit registration but don’t have problems.
Despite my sightings being a little sporadic I was sighted on or near that day when we met at the centre of the boating universe.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, magnetman said:
No I knew I owned it just had other things to do. At the time I was paying silly money for a CRT owned residential mooring but had a spare boat so kept it nearby. What was funny was the CRT told me I was living on the towpath boat when their address for me was one of their own moorings.
1. Right hand not knowing what left hand is doing.
2. They are spying or making assumptions about what boats are lived on.
I’m always amused at notions CRT are engaged in malevolent practices.They really aren’t resourced or smart enough for that.
Cock-up over conspiracy every time.
Having worked in the same sector I also suspect they have a bit of a victim mentality and are paranoid about folk trying to do one on them.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, IanD said:
But would you have moored *there* ?
I don’t know because I don’t know the full circumstances. Sometimes you have to moor in less than ideal places. In this case it would have been a lot more palatable if the crew had remained on board and moved early the next morning. How you do something can be as important as what you do.I’d also observe that similar things happen with narrowboats but of course they are less likely to get lampooned.
Rubbing posts/strips on the Shroppie Bridges
in General Boating
Posted · Edited by Captain Pegg
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.