Enough is enough!

[Alan de Enfield]

41 minutes ago, Philip said:

Blame the cost of housing for that

 

Maybe you view the cost of housing as being unreasonable - maybe we should all stop buying houses - "that ud show 'em we cannot be duped"

 

When everything that can be produced can be sold, and with waiting lists (both houses and boats), the prices they are selling at are obviously acceptable to the boat / house buying public.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[Big Bob W]

If the license fee was to increase substantially, do you think there would be any improvement to the canal infrastructure? I doubt it. There will be more revenue available for CRT to continue with towpath improvements for cyclists, more hideous blue signage and more overpaid daft management roles created.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

I don't think there's a whole lot of logic in charging according to size of boat for use of the waterways, other than for mooring considerations.

 

Unless you consider the larger the boat the heavier the boat and the theoretical (and possibly tenuous) potential to cause more damage to the infrastructure?

 

 

[Captain Pegg]

16 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

Unless you consider the larger the boat the heavier the boat and the theoretical (and possibly tenuous) potential to cause more damage to the infrastructure?

 

 

 

Damage to infrastructure would be in proportion to momentum - a product of mass and velocity in equal measures - so a carefully handled heavy boat could still be less damaging than a poorly handled lighter boat.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Captain Pegg

[Athy]

1 minute ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

Damage to infrastructure would be in proportion to momentum - a product of mass and velocity in equal measures - so a carefully handled heavy boat could still be less damaging than a poorly handled lighter boat.

Thank goodness CanalTime boats weren't heavier.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

Damage to infrastructure would be in proportion to momentum - a product of mass and velocity in equal measures - so a carefully handled heavy boat could still be less damaging than a poorly handled lighter boat.

 

Totally agree. But the key there is careful handling. On balance I would wager there is minimal correlation between size and steerers ability, possibly in fact the correlation is the bigger the boat the less able the steerer is able to control it properly.

 

Anyway I did say it was possibly tenuous.

[Captain Pegg]

6 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

Totally agree. But the key there is careful handling. On balance I would wager there is minimal correlation between size and steerers ability, possibly in fact the correlation is the bigger the boat the less able the steerer is able to control it properly.

 

Anyway I did say it was possibly tenuous.

 

Yep, on average heavier boats probably do more damage but I still don't think there is any great logic in charging by size (which is only a proxy to mass anyway).

 

 

Edited September 30, 2021 by Captain Pegg

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

I don't think there's a whole lot of logic in charging according to size of boat for use of the waterways, other than for mooring considerations.

 

 

 

But, you do know that bigger heavier boats use less water in the locks, so C&RT should charge less for fat-boats.

 

It's displacement innit, (so C&RT will have to provide less water if they only allowed fatty boats).

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

I don't think there's a whole lot of logic in charging according to size of boat for use of the waterways, other than for mooring considerations.

 

 

 

Well there is in my view, as it would discourage all these monster oversized widebeams being launched and encourage normal sized boats.

 

I get your point that the wear and tear on a lock passage is independent of boat size though, except when boats are small enough to share.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

Well there is in my view, as it would discourage all these monster oversized widebeams being launched and encourage normal sized boats.

 

Seriously - you consider under 7 feet a 'normal' size for a boat.

 

They are an abnormal size, specifically made for a country that is so tight they wouldn't make boats a normal size.

Why has nowhere else taken 7' as a 'normal size' ?

[Captain Pegg]

18 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But, you do know that bigger heavier boats use less water in the locks, so C&RT should charge less for fat-boats.

 

It's displacement innit, (so C&RT will have to provide less water if they only allowed fatty boats).

 

Tongue in cheek I presume but that's not true. The additional water has been displaced over the by-wash weir before the bigger boat gets into the lock.

 

The whole thing is actually quite complex but I suspect the size of the boats concerned doesn't make much difference in relation to the overall effects of just operating a fixed number of locks for a fixed number of boats.

 

 

Edited September 30, 2021 by Captain Pegg

[Captain Pegg]

17 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Well there is in my view, as it would discourage all these monster oversized widebeams being launched and encourage normal sized boats.

 

I get your point that the wear and tear on a lock passage is independent of boat size though, except when boats are small enough to share.

 

 

 

That's really a political driver and politics is rarely logical.

 

The thing is a boat either fits the waterway dimensions or it doesn't. The latter should not be allowed and I think there are craft on the GU that shouldn't be there (including wide beams of more than 12' 6" above Berkhamsted). However a suitably crewed large boat should be no more of an issue on the GU than a 70' x 7' on a narrow canal in the Midlands.

 

Unfortunately we come up with wrong arguments against wide beams. Consider that there at least three Leeds & Liverpool short boats on the southern GU. These are very big boats and fully laden probably a lot deeper than a modern wide beam, yet they were built for a canal with dimensions very similar to those of the GU (although of course slightly shorter). Would anyone who argues against wide beams on the GU argue that Kennett should be removed from the L&L?

 

The problem isn't the boat itself, it's the sheer number and purpose of why they are there that's the issue.

[Captain Pegg]

To bring it back to the original point we should contrast the problems of the northern canals - which I think are largely about CRT having to maintain a lot of assets for which there is arguably insufficient demand - with those of southern canals on which it is argued there are too many boats and possibly also of the 'wrong' sort.

 

I think it shows why arguing against boats on canals is a perilous game.

[peterboat]

57 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Well there is in my view, as it would discourage all these monster oversized widebeams being launched and encourage normal sized boats.

 

I get your point that the wear and tear on a lock passage is independent of boat size though, except when boats are small enough to share.

 

 

Your boat is only fit for narrow waterways the rest were designed for proper boats so as I said you stick to narrow canals and leave the proper waterways for proper boats problem solved 

[Arthur Marshall]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Maybe you view the cost of housing as being unreasonable - maybe we should all stop buying houses - "that ud show 'em we cannot be duped"

 

When everything that can be produced can be sold, and with waiting lists (both houses and boats), the prices they are selling at are obviously acceptable to the boat / house buying public.

House prices aren't really acceptable to the house buying public, they are acceptable to the house exchanging public. If you haven't got one to start with, or have a parent with one, you're renting, not buying.

The other error in the thread above is thinking that reducing the number of boat owners by 50% will lower wear and tear of the system. It won, because you'll lose most of the owners whose boats never leave the marina, and keep all the ones who do. So you halve your income while keeping your costs  which may not be a recipe for success.

Economics is apparently not a strong point of boat owners, which, possibly, is why we all partake in such an eccentric and expensive pastime in the first place.

 

[Midnight]

We seem to have moved a long way off the point of my original post which was about the Pennine crossings. Should CRT consider mothballing the costly Huddersfield and Rochdale canals and put their resources into keeping the costly Leeds and Liverpool open.

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Seriously - you consider under 7 feet a 'normal' size for a boat.

 

They are an abnormal size, specifically made for a country that is so tight they wouldn't make boats a normal size.

Why has nowhere else taken 7' as a 'normal size' ?

Possibly because nowhere else is a small island with limited land.

[MtB]

49 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Your boat is only fit for narrow waterways the rest were designed for proper boats so as I said you stick to narrow canals and leave the proper waterways for proper boats problem solved 

 

I know my arguments have flaws, but I put them forward to provoke debate and encourage people to think properly about the issues. 

[Hudds Lad]

58 minutes ago, Midnight said:

We seem to have moved a long way off the point of my original post which was about the Pennine crossings. Should CRT consider mothballing the costly Huddersfield and Rochdale canals and put their resources into keeping the costly Leeds and Liverpool open.

No

[cuthound]

12 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Won't it get quite full with all those narrow boats that get cleared off the K&A though? 

 

No, many of them would sink on the journey... 😉

[MtB]

Just now, cuthound said:

 

No, many of them would sink on the journey... 😉

 

I don't think you've been down here recently. Most boats are reasonably well maintained and the £1/4m widebeams are proliferating. Have to say there are a lot more 'quirky' boats here than the clonecraft that dominate around your way!

 

[Philip]

I don't think the canals should become unaffordable for all but the rich or very well off, they are a very healthy past time both for mind and body and it would be a shame and the wrong way to go to make it only a rich person's game. The cost of upkeep is important but if more funds need to be raised then it should be balanced across many areas, without great hikes in license or mooring fees. It won't just be non-enthusiast liveaboards you'd be pushing away, but also a lot of people who go canal boating for their own enjoyment. 

 

Rather than mothballing restored canals of which hard work has been put in to restore them, would a better idea be to charge a toll to use the ones which are currently costly to maintain (maybe only for visiting boats), like the trans-Pennine canals?

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Philip said:

I don't think the canals should become unaffordable for all but the rich or very well off, they are a very healthy past time both for mind and body and it would be a shame and the wrong way to go to make it only a rich person's game. The cost of upkeep is important but if more funds need to be raised then it should be balanced across many areas, without great hikes in license or mooring fees. It won't just be non-enthusiast liveaboards you'd be pushing away, but also a lot of people who go canal boating for their own enjoyment. 

 

 

So once again I ask, who should pay for these people's enjoyment if it isn't the people do the enjoying? 

 

 

[Philip]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

So once again I ask, who should pay for these people's enjoyment if it isn't the people do the enjoying? 

 

 

 

We are paying for it; the total sum of the mooring, license and insurance costs (as well as everything else) isn't trivial. I said that an increase in funds for maintenance should be balanced; maybe a small increase in license fee, but not so that it becomes unaffordable for the less well off. I mentioned specific canal tolls for visiting boats, also lock gates lasting for 40-50 years rather than 20. The blue signage is a waste of money but I know this wouldn't hugely reduce the costs by not doing it. 

[Alan de Enfield]

29 minutes ago, Philip said:

Rather than mothballing restored canals of which hard work has been put in to restore them, would a better idea be to charge a toll to use the ones which are currently costly to maintain (maybe only for visiting boats), like the trans-Pennine canals?

 

C&RT can only do what the law allows them to do (unlike a 'person' who is allowed to do anything that is not unlawful).

C&RTs powers are described in various Waterways Acts and the only way anything can be added or removed is for a new Act of Parliament. I very much doubt that considering the backlog of Acts needed due to Brexit etc that any MP is going to be concerned about C&RT going 'bust' or a few 100 leisure boaters being forced of the canals as they cannot afford it.

 

C&RTs powers do not (currently) extend to be able to make individual charges (Tolls) for individual canals.

 

C&RT ARE legally allowed to charge for services provided (Waste bins, toilets, water points, mooring rings etc) so there is a potential income stream.

Maybe they could put a barrier across certain canals and charge a fee (toll) for lifting the barrier ?