Enough is enough!

[Hudds Lad]

There is of course a 3rd option in this hypothetical price hike you're discussing as well as the pay or go away ones.

That is don't pay at all and continue cruising and hope to stay under the radar, or go as long as you can until caught and then flog it on.

Considering that even at roughly a £1000 per licence there are already a good number of evaders, how many do you think would take that option up rather than pay the £5000 suggested? And how much revenue then gets lost employing folk to chase them down and then start lengthy proceedings incurring even more cost whilst they jump through the legal hoops? Simply trying to price your undesired element out is not a solution, they've as much right to own and/or live on a boat as you have.

 

Perhaps maintenance costs are so high because they've flogged off most of the equipment, laid off most of the knowledgeable staff, and now have to lease it all back at a higher cost and with a longer timescale to get anything done? Selling assets to fund operating costs will kill any business in the long term.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

 

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

But who, and how do you collect the pound and enforce the rules -- toll gates to get onto the towpath, cycle licenses?

 

I don't think most people want to hike the fee up to ridiculous levels (£5000?) and force lots of boats off the canals. But if CART want to get more money from boaters to maintain the canals, one way is to put the license fees up to the point where a few people leave and then stop, it's what every company who sells things does to maximise their income -- which is what CART desperately need.

In turn, a company can lower it’s prices and attract more custom and therefore increase profit. 

Edited October 1, 2021 by Goliath

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Goliath said:

In turn, a company can lower it’s prices and attract more custom and therefore increase profit. 

 

Only if they can attract more new customers than the drop in prices, which is certainly not the case for the canals.

 

The current license fee is typically about £20 per week, which gives you the right to travel and moor on the entire UK canal network. Many people would say that this is a bargain compared to anywhere else you can live or travel, and this is borne out by the rapid increase in liveaboard numbers over the last few years which are causing a lot of congestion and problems finding moorings. All this suggests that the license fee should be higher, not lower.

[Alway Swilby]

21 hours 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.

Going back to the original question about mothballing the HNC and the Rochdale. These canals were restored relativley recently and the restorations were funded by many different organisations, the National Lottery and quite a few local councils spring easily to mind. Do these organisations have a say in a decision to close down the asset they funded? Were there clauses in the original funding package that would prevent CRT from closing these canals down?

[TheBiscuits]

Maybe someone should consider doing something to draw attention to these at risk canals ...

 

It's the usual chicken and egg situation - not enough boats use the northern canals, so they become a lower funding priority and deteriorate, so even fewer boats use them.

 

A dedicated, pre-announced campaign to send a few hundred boats round the South Pennine ring might focus attention on the state of them which would seem better than closing them.

 

If only we had a national association who cared enough about the state of the inland waterways to arrange such a rally ... I'm sure there used to be such a group!

[Mad Harold]

7 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Maybe someone should consider doing something to draw attention to these at risk canals ...

 

It's the usual chicken and egg situation - not enough boats use the northern canals, so they become a lower funding priority and deteriorate, so even fewer boats use them.

 

A dedicated, pre-announced campaign to send a few hundred boats round the South Pennine ring might focus attention on the state of them which would seem better than closing them.

 

If only we had a national association who cared enough about the state of the inland waterways to arrange such a rally ... I'm sure there used to be such a group!

The HNC is a risky canal! 

A lady on a Shirecruisers boat slipped at lock 8E this morning and broke her leg.

Their holiday will be memorable for the wrong reasons.

A boaters association has been talked about on here before.

The general opinion was that boaters were too disparate a group to get agreement on anything.

[magpie patrick]

21 minutes ago, Alway Swilby said:

Going back to the original question about mothballing the HNC and the Rochdale. These canals were restored relativley recently and the restorations were funded by many different organisations, the National Lottery and quite a few local councils spring easily to mind. Do these organisations have a say in a decision to close down the asset they funded? Were there clauses in the original funding package that would prevent CRT from closing these canals down?

 In short - yes

 

Probably only until 2031 (thirty years after opening) for lottery funding, although I haven't seen the contract, for other funding it could be indefinite 

[Midnight]

5 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Would you mind mentioning your radical option again please, because I missed it. Thanks.

 

And I have a radical solution too which I will repeat for the benefit of the discussion. Raise license fees to £5k per year, per boat. Or that sort of level as that is what it costs to keep the canals available for cruising on.

 The original post was about the state of the three Pennine Routes my radical option was to start a discussion on the pros and cons of mothballing the Huddersfield & Rochdale and putting the money into attempting to keep the Leeds & Liverpool open. It's gone a bit off track since.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Midnight

[Midnight]

57 minutes ago, Alway Swilby said:

Going back to the original question about mothballing the HNC and the Rochdale. These canals were restored relativley recently and the restorations were funded by many different organisations, the National Lottery and quite a few local councils spring easily to mind. Do these organisations have a say in a decision to close down the asset they funded? Were there clauses in the original funding package that would prevent CRT from closing these canals down?

Good point I agree and it would be a disgrace and a crying shame. However those of us 'oop norf' consider the Pennine routes particularly the Rochdale as about as much use as cardboard wellies. How many times in the past 2 years has it been open to transit between Sowerby Bridge and Manchester? How many times this year have all three been closed somewhere? I'm currently heading home over the Rochdale because the Leeds & Liverpool has another serious failure. It feels like playing Russian Roulette and I'm praying it stays open for a fortnight at least. The Huddersfield is not much better. These canals have a lot of locks and are therefore very expensive to maintain. CRT cannot do that with the way they manage maintenance and with the meagre resources they have. I'm just thinking out loud would it be better to have one crossing that would inspire confidence instead of three where you wonder where you'll get to before you have to turn back.

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Good point I agree and it would be a disgrace and a crying shame. However those of us 'oop norf' consider the Pennine routes particularly the Rochdale as about as much use as cardboard wellies. How many times in the past 2 years has it been open to transit between Sowerby Bridge and Manchester? How many times this year have all three been closed somewhere? I'm currently heading home over the Rochdale because the Leeds & Liverpool has another serious failure. It feels like playing Russian Roulette and I'm praying it stays open for a fortnight at least. The Huddersfield is not much better. These canals have a lot of locks and are therefore very expensive to maintain. CRT cannot do that with the way they manage maintenance and with the meagre resources they have. I'm just thinking out loud would it be better to have one crossing that would inspire confidence instead of three where you wonder where you'll get to before you have to turn back.

 

It might be *if* CART can then invest enough to keep the L&L open much more reliably, which they certainly aren't doing at the moment, and maybe can't do without a truly massive amount of money.

 

Otherwise having at least 2 cross-pennine routes (or even 3...) makes it more likely that at least one of them will be open when you want to cross.

 

It's a standard problem for availability/reliability, it's almost always better to have redundancy (even at the cost of lower reliability of each one) than rely on one working reliably all the time...

[Mad Harold]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

It might be *if* CART can then invest enough to keep the L&L open much more reliably, which they certainly aren't doing at the moment, and maybe can't do without a truly massive amount of money.

 

Otherwise having at least 2 cross-pennine routes (or even 3...) makes it more likely that at least one of them will be open when you want to cross.

 

It's a standard problem for availability/reliability, it's almost always better to have redundancy (even at the cost of lower reliability of each one) than rely on one working reliably all the time...

Also,the HNC and Rochdale transit what must surely be among the most scenic routes anywhere on the system.

[Midnight]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

 

Otherwise having at least 2 cross-pennine routes (or even 3...) makes it more likely that at least one of them will be open when you want to cross.

 

 Yes but which one do you choose it's a long way back when you are halfway across. If you do the numbers on closures over the past 2 years (despite Covid) where would a gambling man place his bet?

 

2 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

Also,the HNC and Rochdale transit what must surely be among the most scenic routes anywhere on the system.

 

Absolutely, but no use if they are closed that often and I doubt things will improve in the next few years.

 

Edited October 1, 2021 by Midnight

[IanD]

Just now, Mad Harold said:

Also,the HNC and Rochdale transit what must surely be among the most scenic routes anywhere on the system.

Agreed 100%, it would be a crying shame to lose them 😞

 

Anyway, as the law stands I don't think CART could legally "mothball" them, since this is effectively closure and they'd need an Act of Parliament to do this...

[Midnight]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

Agreed 100%, it would be a crying shame to lose them 😞

 

Anyway, as the law stands I don't think CART could legally "mothball" them, since this is effectively closure and they'd need an Act of Parliament to do this...

 

You could be correct but some of us up here think they are mothballing them by stealth anyway. 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 Yes but which one do you choose it's a long way back when you are halfway across. If you do the numbers on closures over the past 2 years (despite Covid) where would a gambling man place his bet?

Absolutely, but no use if they are closed so often and I doubt things will improve in the next few years.

 

I agree that the past couple of years have been disastrous for stoppages especially on these 3 canals, but I think mothballing/closing one or two would make the problem worse not better. It might be a long way round if you're halfway across, but still quicker than waiting weeks or months for a major stoppage to be fixed.

 

Having only one solution works if it's ultra-reliable, but redundancy is almost always a better solution if it's not -- which is definitely the case here... 😞

5 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

You could be correct but some of us up here think they are mothballing them by stealth anyway. 

 

I don't think CART are doing it deliberately, they just don't have enough money to properly maintain the system and certainly not enough to cope with the maintenance backlog -- even if they did spend every penny wisely on this instead of blue signs...

 

It also doesn't help that both the Rochdale and HNC have a lot of locks, were restored on the cheap, and are not used by many boats so things like empty pounds/leaky paddles are common and relatively few people (or hire bases) complain about them or get stuck due to stoppages, so they're not high on CARTs priority list 😞

Edited October 1, 2021 by IanD

[TheBiscuits]

30 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

Also,the HNC and Rochdale transit what must surely be among the most scenic routes anywhere on the system.

 

It's all those pretty wolves ...

[Alan de Enfield]

37 minutes ago, IanD said:

Agreed 100%, it would be a crying shame to lose them 😞

 

Anyway, as the law stands I don't think CART could legally "mothball" them, since this is effectively closure and they'd need an Act of Parliament to do this...

 

Neither the HNC or Rochdale are listed in the 1968 Act as either commercial or cruising waterways, they are there for "remainder waterways" and BW / C&RT do not have any legal requirement to maintain them in 'usable' condition.

 

Since restoration they MAY have been added to the list. but they are not in the original list.

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[TheBiscuits]

53 minutes ago, Midnight said:

However those of us 'oop norf' consider the Pennine routes particularly the Rochdale as about as much use as cardboard wellies. How many times in the past 2 years has it been open to transit between Sowerby Bridge and Manchester?

 

I think @dmr counted the total number of days it was open when they were sulking about him overstaying in a small area.  I can't remember the number but it wasn't high!

[Midnight]

12 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

I think @dmr counted the total number of days it was open when they were sulking about him overstaying in a small area.  I can't remember the number but it wasn't high!

All together now "Oh yes it was!"

 

Last August my mate Big Jimmy set off from Battyeford to the Ashby via the Rochdale last May he came with us via the River Trent having been stuck both ends for ages. The Manchester culvert stoppage was followed closely by bridge 43 where a bit of loose rendering closed the canal for months (mothballing by stealth?). Since then we've had Lock 13, and too many other issues to remember.

 

If we get back over I'll buy your beer every time we meet if not you buy them. As Dirty Harry said "Do you feel lucky punk" 🙂

Edited October 1, 2021 by Midnight

[TheBiscuits]

3 minutes ago, Midnight said:

If we get back over I'll buy your beer every time we meet if not you buy them. As Dirty Harry said "Do you feel lucky punk" 🙂

 

I think you may have misread my post ...  I'm suggesting it wasn't open much.

 

On the subject of beer however, I'm currently in Blackburn - which way are you escaping the L&L?

 

@DRP is hoping to get Ribble through Eshton Road to Gargrave tomorrow so it's openish until then AFAIK 

[peterboat]

5 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Yes exactly. 

 

And a by-product would be a regularisation of the boat market. Boat prices have gone sky high to the artificially low cost of ownership. If this is corrected, a sensible boat market will return. 

 

Also, the widebeam problem needs addressing. The dozens of new widebeams being launched every week and filling up our canals is only happening because the cost of ownership is so ridiculously out of kilter with the size of the things. A 50% widebeam surcharge would seem about right, not the current 20%. Or 90% for the 70ft x 13ft behemoths.

Never going to happen Mike as I keep on saying you stick to narrow canals and widebeams can have the proper canals and navigations along with rivers that are locked for proper boats. 

[GUMPY]

EA have been doing a consultation about changing from L to LxB  charging on the Nene, Ouse, Medway.

Every cruiser owner is up in arms about it as it looks like they will pay more😱 However 60ft NB in the Anglian Region will be £100 less 😎

 

[peterboat]

I talked to some friends today about this subject and then Dave the marina owner, they and he thought you barking! The boat owners said they couldn't afford the rises and Dave said most marinas would close so CRT would lose that revenue stream as well! He thought the canals would be closed within a couple of years at the most, given that he has 40 years experience I think he is correct along with the boaters. I in some ways hope your wishes come true as it will be funny to see chickens coming home to roost! Me I would flog my boat instantly or move it to a free river if I thought any of this madness was going to happen, either that or as the Jews say it's time for a good fire.............

[peterboat]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

 

The "it's not fair to ask us to pay more than we have been doing" argument has "we've been getting an unfair bargain for years and don't want this to change" written on the other side of the coin...

 

The reality is that fat boats on the wrong parts of the canal system where there isn't enough space or water -- which is to say, a lot of it -- are becoming an increasing problem as far as obstructing navigation is concerned, either when moored or travelling, their popularity is being driven by the "much more space for the buck" mindset, and numbers are rising rapidly.

 

From the point of view of CART (and many non-wide boaters, who after all are the majority of boaters on the canals) something needs to be done to control the numbers, and short of limiting where they can go or moor or numbers of licenses (which would be very difficult to do and contentious) the obvious way to do this is via the license fee -- and in the same way as buying/renting a property (in most places), charging by area is the cleanest and fairest way to do this. This will also correct the anomaly that marinas *do* effectively charge by area, so today this encourages wideboats to go out onto the canal and moor in unsuitable places to save money.

 

Given the effective space inside a wideboat they'll still be paying less per usable square foot than a narrowboat and it's the area that benefits people, so it's not unreasonable that this is how they should be charged.

 

Of course this will lead to big protests from wideboat owners like Peter because their fees will go up by at least 50% depending on width, but it's difficult to avoid the argument that this is correcting a historical wideboat bargain which disadvantages narrowboats...

On my navigation you are the problem Ian its wasn't designed for sewer tubes its was made for proper boats so who should we have a more expensive licence when its not a problem? Far easier to only allow the right size boats on the right size waterways! No arguments then as our boats will never meet, I realise that all the best waterways won't be available to you but that's ok because they will be available to proper boats. 

[IanD]

1 minute ago, peterboat said:

On my navigation you are the problem Ian its wasn't designed for sewer tubes its was made for proper boats so who should we have a more expensive licence when its not a problem? Far easier to only allow the right size boats on the right size waterways! No arguments then as our boats will never meet, I realise that all the best waterways won't be available to you but that's ok because they will be available to proper boats. 

 

Ooh, boat apartheid -- what can possibly go wrong? 😉