When Did CRT Online Moorings Become So Expensive?

[doratheexplorer]

 

Lots of talk about the auction system.  Fewer and fewer moorings are listed as auction now.  Buy it now becoming more common.  I'm not surprised since CRT can just leave the listing up indefinitely.  On the old auction website (pre-waterside moorings) you could see past auctions and the majority came and went without a single bid.  The mooring would stay empty, and then a few months later the mooring would be re-listed.

 

CRT moorings have been way overpriced for quite some time now.  As have their winter moorings.

 

You can dream up all sorts of machiavellian reasons, but I suspect it's simple incompetence.  At least thats my experience of dealing with them.

[magnetman]

It could be all part of the strategy to wreck CRT and move further into the private operator domain. 

 

 

 

[Captain Pegg]

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

There was some talk of a 9:1 ratio of closures. Not sure if this is the right figure or if it applied everywhere but I seem to remember something about 9 marina berths = 1 closed on line mooring locally. This could account for "empty" moorings which are simply ones which the policy dictates do not get re-let. 

 

 

I think that’s correct. The Waterside Mooring website shows 123 vacancies available and 3647 occupied moorings.

 

Not all CRT moorings are comparable to local marinas in price either. I hold a CRT permit for mooring about 1 mile from Droitwich Spa marina. I would have to pay more than double my current fee to move my boat there. Admittedly some of that difference is because I can pay CRT for the actual length of the boat whereas the minimum price band at the marina would require me to pay for 11’ of boat I don’t have.

 

JP

Edited June 17, 2020 by Captain Pegg

[Naughty Cal]

45 minutes ago, magnetman said:

High prices at auction directly benefit local marinas because it means they can also raise prices. 

 

Apparently the prices in Limehouse marina are affected by the auction prices of CRT moorings in the area...  The marina has a "waiting list" and transferable moorings the CRT moorings have neither. 

 

One would not expect marinas to complain if CRT were enabling them to raise prices...

 

It works both ways. CRT set prices according to local rates and so do marinas .

 

Therefore the auction system is mutually beneficial in areas of higher demand. 

I'm not sure that is always the case.

 

As I said earlier our mooring at Burton Waters is only £40 more expensive than a finger berth at Torksey Lock. Burton Waters have had to lower their prices recently and offer existing moorers a 5 year price freeze due to a large amount of boats leaving the marina due to the rising costs of moorings. Our mooring this year is cheaper than the previous three years.

[Ex Brummie]

59 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Obviously because some people consider that such a mooring is more desirable . . . market forces again. (Just ask the question, when is it right to leave matters to 'the market')

I have to ask, when is it wrong to leave matters to the market? This is the basis of trade all over the world and for ever.

Boat moorings are hardly an essential commodity that needs any massaging or social engineering. In fact, social engineering can distort such markets. You only have to look at some examples of housing benefit where paying for people to live in places they could never expect to support has led to private landlords with luxury properties in some London boroughs making a tidy profit from property shunned by those who can afford it.

[magnetman]

6 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

I'm not sure that is always the case.

 

 

Probably not. I only know about Limehouse. I was a bit surprised when a resident there told me that our (3 berth)  CRT residential moorings which are ten minutes away and have had rather high prices achieved at auction had caused an increase in the marina. The marina has dozens of moorings which are transferable and totally dissimilar to where my boat is. 

 

It was a BWML marina now of course "Aquavista". My mooring is CRT "waterside moorings" currently. 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

3 minutes ago, Ex Brummie said:

I have to ask, when is it wrong to leave matters to the market? This is the basis of trade all over the world and for ever.

The trouble with the market is thst its basically inefficient. To make it work properly, there has to be total information freely available, and it never is. You can see this re CRT auctions by the fact that a lot go unbidded, but the reserve doesn't drop, & that it's almost impossible to find where vacant moorings are. If the market worked properly, a vacant mooring would always drop in price until someone bought it. There's always a hidden agenda on both sides - maybe CRT not wanting linear moorings, or boaters rather be fake CC than follow the rules. The economist's market is a convenient myth, as evety economist knows. It's a useful tool, but bears no relation to real life.

[Alan de Enfield]

47 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

That doesn't explain why CRT prices are similarly priced in town/city centre basins which large numbers of boats.  It also doesn't make sense when it's clearly the case that CRT use the money they get from their moorings to pay for maintenance of the wider system.

 

Having said that, my experience of the Waterside Moorings lot is that they're clueless.  There are loads of empty unused moorings which aren't advertised, and in many cases CRT aren't even aware of the situation. 

 

The high prices are probably a symptom of the same incompetance.  I can imagine the national moorings manager looking at why income has dropped and then simply raises prices rather than properly looking at why.

Except people don't pay it, which is why so many CRT moorings stand empty.

 

Don't forget that for every 10 marina berths opened, C&RT reduce their moorings by 1, so whilst they may 'look empty' they could just be un-used moorings.

 

See paras 3 and 4 in the below screen shot.

 

This was widely questioned on the Cranfield cut and it was because marinas had opened.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[doratheexplorer]

16 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Don't forget that for every 10 marina berths opened, C&RT reduce their moorings by 1, so whilst they may 'look empty' they could just be un-used moorings.

 

See paras 3 and 4 in the below screen shot.

 

This was widely questioned on the Cranfield cut and it was because marinas had opened.

 

 

The cases I was thinking of are either moorings which CRT think are taken but actually aren't and haven't been for some time (years in some cases), this can be easily checked on the Waterside Moorings site; or moorings which CRT don't seem to know about at all, yet are sign posted on site as 'Permit Holders Only'

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, doratheexplorer said:

yet are sign posted on site as 'Permit Holders Only'

I do not know the specific ones you are talking about but the ones I do know still had the 'Permit Holders Only' signs on and when a friend asked about them they were told they were part of the 'removed from the available' list. The "Permit" signs were still there many years later. Probably didn't want the Hoi-Polloi just  'parking' for free in amongst the 'paying customers'.

[magnetman]

I'm not a businessman but if I had say 5 moorings I would prefer to take £5k off 4 people than £4k off 5 people. 

 

Leaving an empty mooring means someone who just wants it for the £5k is free to get it. That way you have £25k rather than £20k. 

 

I don't think it makes sense at all to fill all berths. Much better to raise prices until you have availability. Not too much obviously but at least something. 

 

Probably too simplistic. 

 

To me, somewhere which has a waiting list must be underpricing the moorings... I don't get it. 

Edited June 17, 2020 by magnetman

[doratheexplorer]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

I do not know the specific ones you are talking about but the ones I do know still had the 'Permit Holders Only' signs on and when a friend asked about them they were told they were part of the 'removed from the available' list. The "Permit" signs were still there many years later. Probably didn't want the Hoi-Polloi just  'parking' for free in amongst the 'paying customers'.

The one I'm thinking of has no paying customers.  Just south of Brewood if you want to be specific.

 

I don't particularly wish to name the sites where there are moorings which CRT list as occupied but aren't,  because I'm not a moorer at those sites.  But there are plenty of online moorings with little facilities provided, Waterside Moorings list as fully occupied and specify the berths.  But the sites are close to deserted.  This could be due to 'ghost moorings' but I know of one personally which isn't and was purely due to CRT incompetence.  The staff actually had to get out from behind their desks and go to the site before they would accept that there were vacancies at the site.

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I'm not a businessman but if I had say 5 moorings I would prefer to take £5k off 4 people than £4k off 5 people. 

 

Leaving an empty mooring means someone who just wants it for the £5k is free to get it. That way you have £25k rather than £20k. 

 

I don't think it makes sense at all to fill all berths. Much better to raise prices until you have availability. Not too much obviously but at least something. 

 

Probably too simplistic. 

 

To me, somewhere which has a waiting list must be underpricing the moorings... I don't get it. 

Quite right, but if a site has a consistent and substantial number of vacancies, then over-pricing is a likely culprit.

[Arthur Marshall]

20 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

The one I'm thinking of has no paying customers.  Just south of Brewood if you want to be specific.

 

I don't particularly wish to name the sites where there are moorings which CRT list as occupied but aren't,  because I'm not a moorer at those sites.  But there are plenty of online moorings with little facilities provided, Waterside Moorings list as fully occupied and specify the berths.  But the sites are close to deserted.  This could be due to 'ghost moorings' but I know of one personally which isn't and was purely due to CRT incompetence.  The staff actually had to get out from behind their desks and go to the site before they would accept that there were vacancies at the site.

Quite right, but if a site has a consistent and substantial number of vacancies, then over-pricing is a likely culprit.

I broke down a few years ago on a marked but deserted CRT permit holders only site, rang them up to explain why, and they had no idea they even had moorings there. Presumably they'd scrapped them and just not bothered to take the sign away.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2020 by Arthur Marshall

[doratheexplorer]

13 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I broke down a few years ago on a marked but deserted CRT permit holders only site, rang them up to explain why, and they had no idea they even had moorings there. Presumably they'd scrapped them and just not bothered to take the sign away.

 

 

As I said, utterly incompetent.

[Guest]

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned is the purchase costs, development costs running and maintenance costs associated with a marina.

 

One would think that would dictate that the cost of owning and running a few finger pontoons (at a site you already own)  against the cost of developing, opening and running a quality full service marina like Burton Waters is much less.

 

I get the thing about marina's not being for everyone but surely if you are not shelling out a massive investment which a marina will have done and then paying out substantial running costs there should be scope to offer none marina moorings at significantly lower prices, certainly at a bigger differential than 40 quid!. On line moorings should be much cheaper for those that want them IMHO.

 

The profit on CRT moorings must be huge unless there is some serious money mismanagement going on (or I'm missing something).

[BilgePump]

My no-facilities towpath moorings work out about £32/ft and  are only a little bit cheaper than nearby basic marinas but not massively. Had family boats in marinas for years but personally prefer towpath life, hence the choice (although my boat not steel, small and scruffy so probably not too welcome anyway). Have two moorings 40 odd locks apart but only one boat in water at mo. Both locations fully occupied but not necessarily by boats. Just been over to check boat after yesterday's biblical downpour and prob about 1/3 boats off the moorings which is pretty normal.

[magnetman]

36 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned is the purchase costs, development costs running and maintenance costs associated with a marina.

 

 

That's a fair point. In my case our moorings have no staff, occasional servicing of the electric, sewerage and pontoons, no security systems etc. 

 

Whereas the nearby marina has several staff, an office, night Watchman etc. 

 

And the mooring prices are about the same. 

 

However I do personally prefer to be on a canalside mooring not in a marina so from that point of view it suits me. And I prefer for my mooring fee to "in theory" go back into the network rather than someone taking money away from the system. 

 

In an ideal world all moorings would be managed by the navigation authority and all profits directed to network maintenance. 

 

Not that this will happen but it's how I'd like to see it done. Let's face it not many marinas would be able to survive if the locks were all broken and there was no water in the cut. 

Edited June 17, 2020 by magnetman

[doratheexplorer]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

That's a fair point. In my case our moorings have no staff, occasional servicing of the electric, sewerage and pontoons, no security systems etc. 

 

Whereas the nearby marina has several staff, an office, night Watchman etc. 

 

And the mooring prices are about the same. 

 

However I do personally prefer to be on a canalside mooring not in a marina so from that point of view it suits me. And I prefer for my mooring fee to "in theory" go back into the network rather than someone taking money away from the system. 

 

In an ideal world all moorings would be managed by the navigation authority and all profits directed to network maintenance. 

 

Not that this will happen but it's how I'd like to see it done. Let's face it not many marinas would be able to survive if the locks were all broken and there was no water in the cut. 

Marinas do pay towards network maintenance.  Also boaters in them pay a licence (mostly)

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

That's a fair point. In my case our moorings have no staff, occasional servicing of the electric, sewerage and pontoons, no security systems etc. 

 

Whereas the nearby marina has several staff, an office, night Watchman etc. 

 

And the mooring prices are about the same. 

 

The overheads are probably not dissimilar, but spread differently, whilst the Marina has high capital investment and low labour costs, C&RT have low capital costs but extremely high labour costs with about 100 'chiefs' for every 'Indian'.

[BilgePump]

Playing devil's advocate but what would the response be if crt identified say 500,000m of towpath suitable for long term moorings. Every boat on network could moor towpath, say £50+/m/pa (cheaper by far than currently) and chaching quids in for them. Except it would be awful to cruise along, many people would still prefer a marina and some turn away from the canals altogether. I'd rather not pay what am doing but can see some logic in it all.

[David Mack]

27 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

In an ideal world all moorings would be managed by the navigation authority and all profits directed to network maintenance. 

 

Go back a couple of decades and there was a need for more moorings, but nobody wanted more endless lines of online moored boats, BW didn't have the money to build entirely new marinas, and commercial investors couldn't make a business case. So eventually BW issued their Marina Investment Guide, with standardised terms and conditions, and set procedures and charges for approvals. That allowed the private sector to invest, and offline moorings have expanded as a result. BW/CRT get  a percentage of the mooring income as well as the licence income from boats in the marina (even those that never leave). Moorings are available, and there aren't endless lines of moored boats (apart from the CCers in popular areas doing the 14-day shuffle).

[Alan de Enfield]

24 minutes ago, BilgePump said:

Playing devil's advocate but what would the response be if crt identified say 500,000m of towpath suitable for long term moorings.

That is 25% of the total canal network allocated to a linear boat park.

 

I think that the response would be that after the 1st years introduction there wouldn't be any need for any moorings. Who wants to cruse past 500km of moored boats being shouted at.

At 2km / hr that would be almost 2 weeks NON-STOP (night & day) cruising.

Edited June 17, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[Momac]

Torksey would have the advantage to saving the long and boring trip  along the Fossditch to get to the Trent. No lift out.

West stockwith is okay to visit but I agree there is absolutely no security and more restricted by tide than Torksey . Lift out possible ?

 

Farndon is  a bit more money than BW but needs no river  license if you don't want to go out over winter  - min one week license these days. No charge for being ashore for bertholders . You do pay for the crane obviously.   Farndon is the obviously  choice for me as the boat is half a mile from Home.

 

I assume  Colwick is no good for you - it  was cheap at one time but not sure now . Minimal  facilities  but a pleasant spot. No lift out.

 

Have you tried Newark Marina  ? I expect the new marina area may be ready for next year ?

 

On the whole it looks like boats are selling like hot cakes so marinas may soon have fewer berths available as  sales pontoons empty.

As people coming into boating as  a stay at home pastime  realise boating isn't quite as glamorous as they though the present healthy boat sales may reverse .

 

 

[BilgePump]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

That is 25% of the total canal network allocated to a linear boat park.

 

I think that the response would be that after the 1st years introduction there wouldn't be any need for any moorings. Who wants to cruse past 500km of moored boats being shouted at.

At 2km / hr that would be almost 2 weeks NON-STOP (night & day) cruising.

? Obviously not 500km non-stop, 200m or so found from each km. But, like we both say, it would be awful to cruise along and people turn away from boating on the canal. 

[Naughty Cal]

3 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Torksey would have the advantage to saving the long and boring trip  along the Fossditch to get to the Trent. No lift out.

West stockwith is okay to visit but I agree there is absolutely no security and more restricted by tide than Torksey . Lift out possible ?

 

Farndon is  a bit more money than BW but needs no river  license if you don't want to go out over winter  - min one week license these days. No charge for being ashore for bertholders . You do pay for the crane obviously.   Farndon is the obviously  choice for me as the boat is half a mile from Home.

 

I assume  Colwick is no good for you - it  was cheap at one time but not sure now . Minimal  facilities  but a pleasant spot. No lift out.

 

Have you tried Newark Marina  ? I expect the new marina area may be ready for next year ?

 

On the whole it looks like boats are selling like hot cakes so marinas may soon have fewer berths available as  sales pontoons empty.

As people coming into boating as  a stay at home pastime  realise boating isn't quite as glamorous as they though the present healthy boat sales may reverse .

 

 

Not sure if it was due to having a year off boating, the current Covid situation or a combination of the two but all three of us really enjoyed the run along the Fossdyke to Torksey on Saturday!