Dave123
-
Posts
999 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Dave123
-
-
It's fine, plenty of room despite the private mooring in the winding hole. Best to wait for the water point to be empty and watch out for boats whizzing under the bridge and T boning you😅. It's the only one on the summit so not much choice really. Going down the locks either end to turn is a waste of water
-
The Kennet is tricky, it is complicated as some stretches do not really change in height (eg Newbury) with extra rain, as they have sufficient weir capacity to simply allow the flow to get faster and faster. I think CRTs automatic system for specific reaches relies on a flow gauge (which are scarce) or a height board (which is sometimes uninformative on the K&A, as I said above). CRT have a few locations on the K&A on their new strong stream website (click on the canal to see the sub sections, Newbury, Woolhampton and County lock if I recall) but other sections are not covered, eg Widmead lock to Bulls, Ham lock to Greenham, these sections can have a very strong flow even when Newbury or Woolhampton are only yellow. CRT email updates if you subscribe to their system but again only for those three locations or the whole Kennet navigation from Kintbury (actually from above Newbury lock the river gets much more manageable). Using various maps to work out which bits are river will help!
-
If they don't reopen it, it makes a mockery of all the millions being spent restoring currently derelict canals around the country!? How can a major route/navigable canal be allowed to shut whilst money is spent trying to open routes that may never even open?
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Gybe Ho said:
There is so little common ground in the various interest groups. I watched a NABO documentary on YouTube, one NABO spokesman seemed to find 100m of unoccupied towpath visually and morally offensive. He was pointing at a section of towpath reserved by the CRT for bookable moorings.
I will spend more time reading the K&A community web site because I am beginning to understand that the K&A has its own distinct narrowboating culture.
It is a constant source of frustration to me that all the different types of users of canals (both the various boating subcategories and users like anglers) can't realise they all need each other's money to help contribute, and keep canals viable!
Instead of clamouring to essentially be the only type of user allowed
-
3
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
2 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:But as CRT often point out, they can not normally refuse to accept a tenant and thus are unable to control numbers.
I suspect one of the things that has been considered (and probably rejected) by CRT is removal of statutory obligations regarding licencing and navigation so they can control licence numbers and conditions.
And a very good thing too, this only ends up with some sort of regional licensing. Cost based on supposed popularity...
The simpler and cheaper the solution CRT find the better.
To my mind this is all a bit of a distraction from what they should focus on; just getting enough money to keep the canals navigable as a connected network, nevermind how long you can moor for etc.
-
5
-
On 26/12/2024 at 08:54, Paul C said:
All the reasons you've given why it can't happen, aren't reasons it can't happen.
However I do agree in the short term (say, 5 years), it will be "optional" to leave and they'll ramp up the costs of staying.
That's basically what I was saying, they can't introduce a sudden change. And prices increases plus proper enforcement of the existing rules should make the situation sustainable.
-
16 hours ago, magnetman said:
You are missing the point here.
The funding for the canals does not all come the people on the Boats. Al lot of it (most? would need checking) comes from tax payers. Government funds. Or potentially private equity god forbid.
The story isn't specifically how one person chooses to use their Boat it is about how to get the money in.
Obviously 5000 people living on the towpaths can never fund the thing but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that they may be an impediment to acquiring the funds from elsewhere.
The story might not be about making it more expensive to live ln the towpaths. Over time it might be about making it non viable.
A lot of the general public and tourists, from my observations, actually enjoy looking at moored boats, and enjoy the vibrancy and uniqueness of canal boats. I've frequently seen them stop their stroll along the towpath and turn back when they reached the end of a line of moored boats because it was just boring water and concrete after that!
Not excusing the minority of antisocial mess, created by some, which will hopefully be better dealt with by any new powers CRT get, and hopefully this will quieten the minority of vocal locals that don't like boats.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, magnetman said:
Is it possible that the outcome will be every licence holder must have a home mooring?
I'm not sure if this is possible to mandate or physically possible to achieve in the first place.
Allen (nb Albert) says "CRT's board decided in principal last May to apply for a Transport and Works Order. This allows a minister to change the law without full parliamentary process. "
If that is the case then presumably there could potentially be something really serious in the pipeline. Not just tinkering with licensing costs. It is about licensing but there are licensing -costs- as well as licensing -requirements-
I did post this earlier but is it in fact a clue (screenshot of CRT licensing page 24DEC24).
IF the CRT are in a position to actually get the law changed would it be possible for them to require everyone to have a mooring in order to get a licence? I realise it might not have the effect of increasing revenue but a problem may have been identified regarding the canal system rapidly turning into a housing estate based on a footpath and this may not be an outcome desired by those who are running the place.
Interesting to read what is written.
From the torygraph article
Mr Parry said:
"“Britain’s ageing canals are a national treasure. They have been re-purposed for modern society for leisure, recreation and for their wildlife, supporting thousands of jobs and the economy and saving the NHS more than £1 billion annually because of the health and wellbeing benefits they bring to millions of people.”
Conveniently ignores the housing situation. Like they don't exist. Could that be the aim?
It would be enormously difficult to achieve and costly so wildly unlikely but an interesting project..
Lets say we were attempting to attract external funding for an at-risk heritage asset of great value and importance.
Is the investor likely to view the existence of subsidised low cost unsatisfactory housing units dotted around on the property a positive driver for their decision making?
Think of it like trying to get funding to keep an old castle from falling down. You want to open it to the public and get as many visitors as possible.
Will those approached for the funding want to see a load of squatters on the estate or would it be better if they were cleared in advance?
Realistically..
People living on towpaths without moorings are effectively legal squatters. Laws have been known to change when it comes to this kind of thing. It would not be the first time.
A 'modern society' is an interesting theme.
Any organisation, be it government or private, will be directly subsidising low cost unsatisfactory housing if they make available any money to the CRT. That is the outcome of the 1995 BW Act.
Not going to happen. There aren't enough home moorings available for that to work. I know it's what many on here wish for but I think that is without thinking the logistics through.
This all boils down to the K&A and London, so home moorings up north aren't an option (i.e. telling someone in London they have to moor their boat in Staffordshire is the same as telling them to sell up, lovely as Staffordshire is😅) .
CRT can't create marinas, and if private companies could in these areas, they would have, as they would fill up immediately, forced home moorings or not.
Creating miles of towpath moorings in these two areas would 1) remove moorings for visiting boats and 2) simply legitimise what's already the case and what is seen as the "problem" with miles of towpath permanently occupied by boats that never move! And this annoys the sort of boaters that can't stand to be in tickover for any length of time😅
So that would leave selling up as the only option if home moorings were forcedon everyone? which would not be pretty....
A mass eviction of hundreds of people and scrapping of hundreds of old boats, and hundreds of decent boats suddenly on the market can't be an outcome anyone really thinks is a good one? As much as they might not like "alternative lifestyles". It would get national media attention, the amount of ill feeling on the cut (and likely actual boater vandalism) would be unpleasant, the effect on the boat market would impact all boat owners...
If CRT do actually want to get rid of continuous cruising (I don't think they do) they'll do it slowly, by gradual increasing the cost of it, which won't cause any sudden shock and gets far less sympathy from the general public.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:
It rather depends what you're trying to solve. The simple fact is that over most of the system, and certainly over the congested bits, continuous cruisers rarely do anything that resembles continuous cruising. The majority either use the towpath for a series of short term moorings with movement calculated purely to avoid enforcement or with no movement at all.
There is no argument that some genuinely travel round the system, and I suspect CRT are trying to find a way to treat those fairly while significantly increasing the income from the rest. The blanket CC licence increase of course penalises everyone.
A residential licence, specifically allowing someone to live on their boat would be another blunt instrument, but at least would let CRT get rid of the mostly abandoned dumpers or force them into moorings. And, if those living on choose to do so on the leisure licence, CRT could remove their boats without bothering with the court order (that they don't really need) as the owner had de facto stated they weren't resident. Much cheaper.
Strict enforcement could then be targetted at the residential licence holders, with CRT making towpath mooring available for reasonable rent to those who wanted to stay in a restricted area.
Yes, "solving" this fact that the term "continously cruising " irks so many boaters from all walks, because to them it means 200+ miles a year, would be a start. Calling it a liveaboard licence maybe? Then people can get over the terminology. The reality is these boats exist and forcing them to all sell (which would happen if massive changes were introduced) isn't a win in my opinion.
The day places like Bradford on Avon or King's Cross are empty of boats outside the summer holiday seasons is a sad day for the canals. Better to just get enough more money off them that they can (mostly) afford it and get better powers to deal with those that are completely breaking the rules or being a nuisance with rubbish/anti social behaviour etc. Then there will be visitor moorings free for holiday boats and maybe even extra money for maintenance and services.
Clarity of cruising requirements for those with no home mooring would be a good thing of course.
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, David Mack said:
Ah thanks, I had missed the link to that. So it does seems to be mostly about enforcement. If it is enforcement of the current rules (with presumably a specific minimum cruising range defined) then I would hope everyone is in agreement.
If they seek to significantly increase the expected cruising range I can see a lot of objections, mostly on the Western K&A, as opposed to London. In London it's easy to go significantly further than the current ~20 miles that is bandied about as what CRT expect, and still be within the city or suburbs. On the K&A, a significant increase will mean many more boats going up Caen hill, as currently I believeit is just about possible to satisfy CRTs requirements by moving between Bristol and the bottom of Caen hill (Foxhangers). I'm not actually sure this is in anyone's interest. As an occasional summer visitor every 2 or 3 years, my observations of the Western K&A are: 1) this extra movement would be mostly in the summer, as the flight shuts most winters, and most summer there is barely enough water in the summit and long pound with the few boats that do use the flight.
2) the "long pound" also has limited moorings so can't really take a big influx of extra boats, it can already be pretty hard to get mooring here (the banks are generally too shallow for easy 'wild mooring').
Enforcement of 14 days or the shorter time limits achieves the same effect of making boats circulate and giving visiting boats a fair chance at prime moorings. Hopefully something they consider, (ie I hope CRT are thinking about the specifics of any changes they bring in...doubling or tripling the range in the midlands doesn't particularly change anything for anyone, or present any challenges, to be honest Birmingham needs a liveaboard community like London, to make the canals outside Gas street feel safe and look interesting 🤣)
But I believe it is partly due to the specific geography and infrastructure of the Western K&A, ie the popularity of Bath/Bristol combined with the "natural barrier" of Caen hill, that has caused the density of boats there. It's still easy enough getting moorings there provided you aren't expecting to arrive at 8pm outside the pub. More money for facilities is the main thing required, making all those boats go further along the K&A doesn't particularly solve anything (in my opinion as an unbiased outsider/visitor🤣)
-
1
-
-
An interesting thread, and it will be very interesting to see what CRT want out of this commission. I was surprised to hear of it, I thought CRTs main (only?) problem was lack of money...but presumably it is not as simple as more money, as they can and have put up licence fees already (unless they are currently limited in how much they can do this? Or need boat usage better defined by law for the purpose of increasing licence fees?). Do they want better enforcement powers, eg being able to issue actual fines (not overstay "charges" of £25)? Someone mentioned technology to monitor boats (I actually think the spotting process is pretty good)
I doubt they want to get rid of continuous cruising either, I can't see what benefit that brings if it was even feasible, which I think it is not. Creating more marinas obviously is out of their power and resource and couldn't be done in the parts of the country that need it anyway (there are enough partially empty marinas in Staffordshire already🤣).
Creating more towpath permanent moorings would mean the loss of visitor moorings, and likely at popular spots in towns, and so would be at the detriment of cruising boats, (unless they actually improve bank currently too shallow for mooring), which will affect holiday boats as much as liveaboards.
Its fairly clear Ccing will be a focus of the commision though? Something growing in popularity, like Ccing, does need managing properly, i.e. charging enough and making rules that work and are enforced. But the waterways are changing, how they are used and who uses them is changing and CRT can't try to fight that but need to work with it.
I doubt they will try to increase how far boats have to travel, as again that brings no benefit and just increases wear and tear on the system.
A big challenge will be what to do with increasing numbers of elderly boaters who want to stay put or not really cruise far for health reasons (and so have CRT permission to do this). Enforcement or fines isn't a solution here and, my observations at least, is that a fair few boats hogging prime visitor spots and annoying holiday boats fall into this category.....
At least there is a boating rep on the commission! Fingers crossed it works.
-
8 hours ago, magnetman said:
The Boat is on the bank and draws at least two feet.
Groove irons don't go that high up above the towpath.
The curve of the bridge would not allow it even if the towpath side was extended.
It might be best to just wait for the next flood event.
Last winter was the second wettest in the Thames catchment since 1871 so if we get a wet winter this type of thing is going to happen again.
Charwell is a Thames tributary in fact one of the largest.
Check the water situation reports.
It is pretty rare for the canal to flood this badly, could be years, and even if it did its too dangerous to be walking around the boat trying to move it in fast flowing water? Hopefully someone like RCR can attach big floats to the side and just pull it off, in the hope the floats stop it capsizing? They should be able to get 4x4s on the opposite bank where the golf course is, there is a track there.
-
1
-
-
Saw this on Facebook, below pigeons lock on the South Oxford. Water must have been crazy high! CRT have a stoppage out for it, difficult location to get the boat floating again.
-
1
-
-
The food waste in particular is going to be an absolute mess. I think it is good they are forced to provide recycling however. Generally, where I have found CRT recycling, it is fairly well adhered to...
-
The Wigan flight is one of those places where many boats do need volockies, and the Facebook group they had was very useful for coordination of boats so that people could buddy up and share locks. Agree the volockies elsewhere can be useless, Napton comes to mind - as they don't leave the bottom lock!
The WFC had an enormous amount of interesting and useful information about the quirks and character of each lock on the flight in a file on the fb group.
But as has been asked already, if they weren't official anyway, what's to stop them continuing and helping those boats that want help?
-
Resurrecting this old topic
On 13/06/2016 at 14:05, BD3Bill said:If you have a really good look under that feeder bridge you will see it has a 'bar' across the stream.
It strikes me this is there to actually prevent the cut leaking away up the long feeder. IMHO.
I'm pretty certain that Boddington only discharges into the cut when it's getting overfull, but I bow to those with better knowledge.
Clattercote doesn't feed either anymore, it's over spill goes south and under the cut between Claydon bottom and Elkingtons as far as I can see ( having explored on foot) It's old feeder entered just north of the Hay bridge moorings on the sharp bend south of the lift bridge.
However I would say that in real terms the only spare supply for the Summit is Wormleighton and they did virtually drain it the summer before last,
all be it after lots of moaning calls & emails.
If you feel the level is too low PLEASE pester CaRT !
Tasty thread !
Also been doing some walking in the area and puzzling over Clattercote reservoir. Cropredy marina told me that the feeder from it runs through the marina and enters the canal there. But that seemed odd to me as why build a reservoir that doesn't supply the summit when it's close enough and high enough to do so. Also saw on the OS map the channel marked canal feeder that appears to enter by the Warks/Oxo county boundary lift bridge. Does anyone know why or when it went derelict, if that was where Clattercote fed the summit? Seems odd to have allowed an intact and functional reservoir to no longer supply the summit of a canal, bearing in mind the Oxford never shut and always had issues with water supply, even since the back pumps at Napton....
-
1
-
-
On 24/04/2024 at 13:20, MtB said:
"Where are all the boaters?"
I'd say they are all moored up for free on the public towpath.
Given that CRT appears to have ceased all enforcement activity.
I don't think so, Cropredy was empty the other week, hardly any moored boats or moving ones!
-
It's very quiet on the South Oxford too, I read somewhere that the UK holiday market is expected to be very quiet this year because of cost of living and the bad weather last summer. But you'd think all the 1000s of new liveaboards one also reads about would be somewhere?🤔😅
-
On 02/03/2024 at 07:37, john.k said:
removing fallen vegetation.............why dont they burn it on site ?
Probably too wet?
-
On 08/10/2023 at 08:24, magnetman said:
A bit awkward to do that as it would need some sort of inverted goalpost thing buried in the canal. May not be allowed if they are listed structures.
I reckon all the control parts will be on the same side as the rams.
Does this mean the end of the Banbury stick?
This is exactly what they have been doing, and why it costs so much. They have to put a dam in either side of the bridge, dig out a tough for a tube for the hydraulics to run under the canal, then the bridge can be opened from the towpath side by hydraulics.
I think someone at CRT H&S realised a bridge could fall onto a boat/boaters head and CRT might be liable?
On 12/10/2023 at 13:05, magnetman said:Definitely agro there.
I don't understand why they need to be made hydraulic. Surely if you are using a canal boat doing locks someone on the boat is fit enough to operate a manual bridge.
Is this a ramblers thing or perhaps farmers asserting themselves with their rights of way?
Elfin Safety?
It seems crazy and pointless.
Single handed boats (and any crewed boat encountering an already open bridge) go through without the bridge necessarily being secured in the open position (whether by a lock, pole or a crew member). Several bridges, Chisnell in particular, can blow shut in the wrong conditions, possibly helped by being heavy from recent rain?
As far as I know they are hydraulic windlass operated. From the scale of operation at Wolvercote 2 years ago I wouldn't be surprised if it was £150k per bridge😔🤦. They needed permanently running diesel generators powering pumps to shift the water around the two dams, which kept getting over topped by high water levels from rain etc
-
1
-
-
Does anyone known how the levels at which red boards are displayed were originally calculated? I know for the Thames it is to do with the % of weir gates that are open, but on CRT navigations with fixed weirs, like the Cherwell stretch, or the trent at Alrewas, or the Kennet or Soar, it's just based on the river height? Did someone actually try and work out what flow of water was too much for an average narrowboat to push against? I imagine the concept of red boards was brought in during the early days of the leisure industry, or was it in place during the working years of canals? Wondering as it seems to vary a lot from river to river...eg the Kennet can be trickier in "green" than other rivers are in yellow or even red...
-
On 25/10/2023 at 10:13, Scholar Gypsy said:
I was going to quote my Craftinsure policy but @nicknorman beat me to it. I guess the problem the insurers have is that they have literally no idea how competent a particular skipper is - as we don't need any licence etc. The craftinsure underwriters were sensible when I did a Wash crossing a few years ago, ie a list of extra conditions which suggested to me someone who understood what the risks were on this trip, and what mitigations were sensible and possible.
It's worth noting that on some rivers - the Nene is a good example - the whole river goes on red even when the problem is fairly localised (or as with the recent storms, as a precautionary measure before the significant rainfall has actually happened). If you know the river then moving in those conditions is not reckless (I would argue). The EA are working on this, but it's not a straightforward issue.The Kennet river sections are another example of a navigation that has very unspecific information about the location of red boards. The CRT strong stream website usually gives information just for county lock, Woolhampton swing bridge and occasionally Newbury town bridge/lock. The CRT email/stoppage notices however, are given as blanket red board notices for entire stretches, eg from Guyers lock to County lock and sometimes even as far as Kintbury, even though there are many entirely canal sections within this stretch.
-
1
-
-
On 10/10/2023 at 19:09, Porcupine said:
Yes, it’s an official winter mooring. Blimey, you’ve got me worried now.
You'll be fine there provided you are set up for possibly not moving until the spring. It's secure and a popular spot as far as town centres go
-
On 20/09/2023 at 08:40, magnetman said:
Of course the Gold Licence, which gives you Thames and CRT 24/7/365 is an elephant in this room as it may well end up being less costly than the upcoming cc er widebeam licence.
Some work needed here to avoid evasive strategies.
If the surcharges are significant then the Gold licence must either go up or be withdrawn. I would not be that surprised if the EA and the CRT got their heads together and decided to withdraw the Gold Licence quite soon..
I am sure they will just increase it, it is priced like an extra to whatever the equivalent CRT only licence would be anyway, so it wouldn't make sense to be cheaper than a CRT only licence
Should C&RT relax the 14 day requirement until water levels recover?
in General Boating
Posted
This would make sense but one problem I can forsee is that boats would hog prime visitor moorings and make things harder for those boats that are still moving. This happened to some extent during lock down except that less boats were out and about. CRT might have to say that this doesn't apply to short stay moorings perhaps?