Steilsteven
-
Posts
1,423 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Steilsteven
-
-
9 minutes ago, magnetman said:
Filter the water.
Burn solid waste (I do this).
Dispose of recyclables in council facilities.
The plastic from food wrappers is a but nasty to burn but one can easily cut it into pieces and put small bags of it in public bins.
That's partly correct, I have a filter system for most needs except drinking water which I estimate will last at least three months ( new filter system that I installed about a month ago ). We spend half the year on the Thames and half the year on the Kennet.
Burn solid waste but not plastic as I think that is a bad thing to do.
Everything else I take to recycling centres.
Compost toilet waste which is stored for three months on board initially.
Keith
-
1 hour ago, 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If the surcharges are significant then the Gold licence must either go up or be withdrawn.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..
Highly unlikely that it will be cheaper than a standard licence plus surcharges as they would be applied proportionately. Currently my Gold licence costs less than a Thames registration but much more than a standard CRT licence including the wb surcharge.
Keith
-
10 hours ago, nicknorman said:
I think we should remember that currently, most boats with a home mooring pay more to CRT than boats without a home mooring. And as a generalisation boats without a home mooring usually generate more CRT direct costs - more rubbish disposal, more elsan disposal, more tap water, than someone with a home mooring. Well, a home mooring in a marina anyway.
I am thinking of the 10% of mooring fees that most marinas have to pay to CRT. So I pay about 25% more to CRT - directly and indirectly - than someone without a home mooring. This seems an obvious anomaly.
Well I can tell you that this ccer doesn't generate any more of the direct costs you mention than a boater who takes his boat out one week a year.
Keith
-
1 hour ago, Unicorn Stampede said:
CRTs systems simply aren't clever enough to process constantly changing information submitted by users and identify issues with what's been updated.
There's been a continual push towards online servicing, which will eventually bite them in the ass and force them to either update or swap to a more traditional contact centre system.
If someone wanted to dodge around fees currently, without alerting CRT, they could do so without a great amount of effort. Unfortunately as the increases continue to come, there will likely be a point where it's a greater consideration for those who are struggling.
We will wait and see what the increase to our CCing life style is before we decide anything specifically - we chose the life style not because it was 'cheap' housing, but because it's what we wanted to do (as someone who lived 'cheap' for years prior to boating, living on the canal felt expensive personally...)
I'm disappointed, but not surprised by the choice. Me and my partner knew this was coming, especially when the survey first popped up. I do feel sorry for CCing widebeams, as they get double shafted (and I rarely feel sorry for widebeams!)
Seeing the continual cuts applied to the northern canals over the last few years, followed by this, will we see an end to CCers up north. Obviously not a concern right now, but I can see a future where places like the Rochdale become hire boat only territory (well, until Shire Cruisers gives up, then it's probably placing bets on when CRT close the Rochdale...)
At the moment, I guess we just wait and see what kind of insane justification is used for the % increase due.
What makes you think that they will even try to justify it?
Keith
-
20 hours ago, IanD said:
The percentage of CCers and home moorers in the survey is also similar to the number of each type of boater, so reasonably representative.
I don't think there are any surprises in the result, which compares four different license fee structures -- same as today, CC surcharge, area-based pricing, bigger width surcharge. Those who would pay more under each of the three changed schemes are understandably against each of them and favour the status quo. A CC surcharge is the most popular option, since three-quarters of boaters/responses have home moorings. A bigger charge for widebeams (either of the last two schemes) is also strongly favoured, because most of the responses are from narrowboaters.
Which explains the CART decision that fees will go up, there will be a CC surcharge, and widebeams will be charged more -- all as predicted. Now we just have to wait for the actual numbers in November... 😞
Which goes to prove what I always say, these "consultations" are really simple polls with inevitable results.
Keith
-
On 11/09/2023 at 14:21, Tracy D'arth said:
Does he own the truck as well then? Silly.
Why would he need a truck?
-
1
-
-
Yes I expect so but excitement followed by frustration within a few minutes is a scenario that I thought was well in the past for me!😉
-
21 hours ago, HenryFreeman said:
Well, I've just got my voucher. See you at the pub!
(I'm using the pub central heating as an alternative energy source)
Got mine yesterday too. I carefully followed the instructions to pay it into my online bank account and just at the point when the transaction would have completed I got an error message telling me to contact Department of Energy Security and Net Zero. This I duly did and am now waiting for what happens next.
Not impressed.
-
You could sell it back to Calor, I think they pay £7 for them.
Keith
-
On 18/08/2023 at 11:17, Alan de Enfield said:
Looks interesting but appears to be a little large for NBs or even WBs
I cannot find any dimensions for the system - are they as large as they look to be ?
Yes they are quite big and probably too big for anything that uses our canals.
Keith
-
I shall be spending it on my Winter fuel, other bills will have to take their chances.
Keith
-
1
-
-
On 14/08/2023 at 19:03, Tacet said:
At home, not being connected to mains sewerage, there is an aerobic digester. Basically a three chamber tank with bubbles being passed through the middle chamber. The output discharges, lawfully, into a watercourse aka the ditch on the other side of the road. Every once in a while (measured in years) the grit that has settled in the first chamber to be pumped away - but that's about it (don't get me started on ensuring the clean discharge falls away to said ditch.)
Is there a reason why, in principle at least, something similar could not be used on a boat? Practical issues are probably ensuring the tank is sufficiently sized to give the waste long enough to digest. Our tank holds a couple of weeks output; it takes the grey water too which might be essential to dilute the black waste. And the pump or a stirrer needs to be powered somehow.
Are they used on any vessels?
Some Dutch barge owners in Europe have installed one of these but they are eye wateringly expensive.
https://www.nauticexpo.com/prod/scienco-fast/product-33374-208418.html
They can't be used legally in the UK until they are approved by the E A and for that to happen someone needs to install one and then seek approval.
Keith
-
2
-
-
On 15/08/2023 at 11:43, David Mack said:
Something very odd about the Financial Information. How do Directors Remuneration, Legal and Professional Fees and Depreciation turn a net loss into a whopping profit?
And what has happened to cause such large legal and professional fees over the last couple of years?
https://i4ba.com/add-backs-what-they-are-and-how-to-handle-them/
-
On 14/07/2023 at 18:02, IanD said:
One of the CART proposals was to vary the license fee by boat area (width*length), in the same way that many marinas and other boating authorities around the world do. This isn't being "anti-widebeam", its paying by area which is the norm both on land and at sea almost everywhere except on the UK canals... 😉
At the moment a 14' widebeam pays 20% more than a narrowboat of the same length, this would go up to 100% more which is a 67% increase (1.67x what they pay now).
If they also applied a "CC surcharge" (yes it's an HM discount really...) of +100% -- which is less than the +150% proposed many years ago -- then a 14' CC boat would see a +233% increase (x3.33 what they pay now).
Of course a London surcharge can be policed, license checkers currently record which boats are seen where don't they, supposedly every 2 weeks? If your boat is recorded in London 26/26 times per year you'd pay the full surcharge, whatever that is -- lets say +50% for the sake of argument -- but if it was recorded 13/26 times you'd pay half the surcharge -- let's say +25%. That's fair isn't it, the more time you spend in "honeypot" areas the more you pay?
Then a 14' CCer who never moves from London would pay 5x what they pay now. They're not going to be happy, but all these surcharges (or discounts, thank you Alan...) are perfectly justifiable... 😉
France introduced charging by area some years ago but more recently reverted to charging by length and you don't pay if you don't go anywhere!
Keith
-
19 hours ago, MtB said:
Curious you should say that. When I was in the building business I came to prefer Wickes timber above all other suppliers because they store theirs indoors. Yards like Travis Perkins keep it outside in the damp or worse, in the rain.
B&Q timber was not so great, but still better than T&P.
Sawn and treated timber is kept outside but not prepared timber, at the very least it's kept under cover.
Keith
-
On 22/06/2023 at 14:31, booke23 said:
Yes the number of stoppages on the K&A is getting beyond a joke. For those that don't know the summit at Crofton has basically been closed since last autumn, firstly for a planned winter stoppage that then significantly overran, then after briefly opening a series of unfortunate events have kept it closed......pump failures, lock gate failures etc.
Of course the CMers are loving it.....there are few better excuses for not fulfilling the annual cruising requirements than CRT stoppages!
BWHM is the correct term if you don't mind.
Keith
-
Taken from K&ACT website -
Working the Canal – The Boats & Barges
Types of craft
Narrow boats and Kennet barges were the primary craft used on the Kennet and Avon Canal.The canal company specified that these had to be of the following dimensions:
- Approved barge (Class A) – 69 feet (21m) long x 5 feet (1.5m) deep x 12ft 4ins (3.8m) beam, with a capacity of 60 tons.
- Approved boat (Class A) – 69 feet long x 4 feet (1.2m) deep x 6 ft 11ins (2.1m)beam with a capacity of 35 tons.
-
Non-approved vessels (Class
– to the maximum dimensions of 69 feet long x 5 feet deep x 14 feet (4.3m) beam, with a capacity of 70 tons.
The company also approved a boat it called the mule boat (wide boat).This had the same dimensions as the approved barge except that the beam was 10 feet (3m) giving it a capacity of approximately 50 tons. While the cabin of the barge was below the rear deck with access by a companionway, the mule by comparison had the appearance of an over wide narrow boat.
The barges indeed may have had rounded chines but they also drew a great deal more than any modern canal pleasure craft today.
Keith
Some additional history
https://rbt.org.uk/john-rennie/projects/kennet-avon-canal-overview/
-
3
-
On 09/05/2023 at 23:10, peterboat said:
Was the canal made for broad beam boats? Everything I read says it was, so who is the interloper?
The Kennet navigation was originally built for barges 110' x 17' and a few of the locks of this size remain today.
The Kennet and Avon Canal Company's recommended dimensions for barges on their canal was 69' x 12'9'' I seem to remember from the K&ACT website.
A couple of the Kennet Navigation locks were rebuilt to the K&A canal dimensions and during ''restoration'' a number of the locks were resited close to the originals and built from steel pilings and to smaller dimensions, Burghfield lock and Sulhamstead lock were given oversized cills which prevent historic narrow boat pairs from locking down together.
From a personal viewpoint, 'Petra' being 66' x 12' has proven to be an ideal size for this waterway and preferable ( especially on the Kennet ) than any narrow boat.
Keith
On 12/05/2023 at 08:16, magpie patrick said:Yes but...
The boats were round chined not flat bottomed
There weren't many of them (boats, wide beam of not)
They weren't motorised
The canal has deteriorated significantly in 200 years, and whilst it has been restored it is by no means "as new"
Edited to add the wide beams that find it easiest on the K&A are genuine Dutch barges with round chines and good swims
Cries of "what was it built for" can be met with "boats pulled by horses"!
I agree with all of that and would add that the canal wasn't intended for boats to moor wherever they like along the towpath, the were expected to travel from wharf to wharf.
Keith
On 12/05/2023 at 15:44, magpie patrick said:Fine - broad boats pulled by an 'oss. You can't have it both ways.
Likewise narrow canals were built for narrow boats pulled by an 'oss.
-
1
-
-
I find the thought of buying a boat in this country and parting with huge amounts of money to be thoroughly scary since buying Petra in the Netherlands and how secure it was there.
Over there buying a boat is much like buying a house as boats are registered with the land registry, and like buying a house the sale requires both parties to employ a notary. Both parties have to provide proof of identity and, once checks have been carried out, a deed is produced. The deed is forwarded to the Kadaster ( land registry ) who then forwards a registration certificate to the new owner and the previous owner's details are removed from the registry.The notary handles the deposit and final payment.
Keith
-
Having finally caught up with this thread I see that nothing actually changes under the Sun and the same old tired accusations are still being peddled.
At the same time most claim that there is no divisiveness when there clearly is.
The point of the "consultation" is claimed to be a search for ideas on how to raise additional income for CRT due to the ending of government funding but, like the previous "consultation", it is nothing of the sort. It is a poll. The nonsense of it being that if only certain boats have to pay the increase it won't even scratch the surface of the revenue needed.
Keith
-
On 14/03/2023 at 12:36, MtB said:
FTFY.
Thanks Mike.
-
13 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:
All listed in the 1995 Act.
Examples :
Going for a BSSC
Going for repair
Going to be scrapped
etc etc
So maybe he is heading off C&RT waters to get work done ................................
Already answered above.
Already answered above.
I find it always pays to be au-fait with the laws, they work 'both ways'.
Unfortunately I overlooked pedant's corner 🙄
-
18 hours ago, Up-Side-Down said:
You do appreciate that this is a fossil fuel; emissions sit mid way between gas oil and HVO and its Shell's way of pretending to be green whilst still peddling stuff from a bore hole.
Yes I'm fully aware, I very rarely do anything without thoroughly researching it first.
As they give full details of the production process they could hardly be described as pretending anything.
The options were diesel or GTL or nothing.
14 hours ago, dmr said:I had the same experience with New Era. I suspect that because the use of red is so limited that many companies have decided its just not worth stocking it.
Then for boaters there is the issue (I think) that HVO should only be used for propulsion, not heating, whilst red should not be used for propulsion.
What did the FTL cost relative to diesel and HVO?
Yes I only recently discovered the propulsion only bit when in conversation with Jonathan Mosse, even though New Era had been happily supplying me red HVO for two years purely for heating/generating. Below Is Jonathan's email showing what we are up against. GTL is about the same price as HVO btw.
It's all got ridiculously complicated, Keith, as three quite separate things come into play:
1) The RTFO which is administered by DfT and spawns RTFCs in support of eligible biofuels2) Fuel Duty which is administered by HMRC3) VAT dittoAnd this is the order I like to think of them in to avoid further confusion!For propulsion in a commercial inland waterways vessel (see HMRC website for definition of 'inland waterways') HVO attracts i) two RTFCs currently valued at £0.25 each = £0.50/litre. It also attracts ii) duty @ £0.1114/litre and iii) VAT @ 5%. (when I was buying HVO a year ago RTFCs were worth £0.42 each which is another reason, alongside scarcity of feedstock, why the price has shot up).For propulsion in a leisure inland waterways vessel it attracts i) two RTFCs currently valued at £0.25 each = £0.50/litre. It also attracts ii) duty @ approx £0.56/litre and iii) VAT @ 20%.For domestic use (anything other than propulsion) it attracts i) £0.00 in RTFCs whether it be used in commercial or leisure vessels. It also attracts ii) duty @ £0.1114/litre and iii) VAT @ 5%.However, every commercial vessel operating on the Thames is now powered by HVO and to my knowledge they all have some form of heating aboard – be that a diesel-fired central heating boiler (rapidly going out of service as, with HVO effectively burning hotter than MGO, the heat exchangers are burning out) Refleks-type stoves or auxiliary generators powering electric central heating boilers, cooking, lighting, etc. The tugs are crewed 24/7 so the crew are living aboard during the week. No one has yet shouted foul here, even though these vessels are back and forth past Westminster on a rather regular basis! This just serves to emphasise how crazy the situation is in my mind ..........You might be interested to know that I finally persuaded Scottish Canals (SC – the Nav Authority) to stock HVO which they are now running all their road vehicles, plant and machinery on. They will also sell to boaters. If they tried to price the fuel as per my list above it would be a total nightmare so they are buying in DERV (white HVO) which carries the two RTFCs (as it's ostensibly for propulsion) + the full duty + VAT @ 20%.I believe they're paying about £2.02/litre from Johnstone Oils (supplied by Crown) and selling to boaters at £2.16/litre. Simple but pricey!!No doubt as clear as mud!BTW It's probably the first time I've written it all out in one go so I only hope I've got it right! Ironically, the 'body' would have remained buried (in effect what is happening on the Thames) if SC hadn't decided to do due diligence when contemplating stocking HVO and it was at that point that the differential between propulsion and domestic (DfT and DfBEIS!) came to light and, like a pebble thrown into a pond, the ripples have continued to ripple out killing the use of the fuel on the inland waterways stone dead.Kind regards,Jonathan -
They did the same thing on the K&A near Aldermaston and the work never happened!
Licences
in General Boating
Posted
I see this "discussion" has gone round in circles since I last contributed, and, as usual, deteriorated into the usual bickering and holier than thou attitudes from the usual suspects.