Jump to content

Is the current infrastructure really any worse than the 70s 80s?


Featured Posts

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

Which is still a lot lower than charging based proportional to width for boats wider than 8.4 feet.

 

True but once the principle of differential pricing is fully established next year they can increase the percentage a wide beam pays on a further incremental basis year on year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Whether you consider use of water in locks or mooring space (length and width) longer boats "cost" more to the canal system.

A  bigger  boat uses less water in a lock compared to a smaller boat as the bigger  boat  displaces more water.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by MartynG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MartynG said:

A  bigger  boat uses less water in a lock compared to a smaller boat as the bigger  boat  displaces more water.  

 

 

Now you're just trailing a bait!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MartynG said:

A  bigger  boat uses less water in a lock compared to a smaller boat as the bigger  boat  displaces more water. 

 

 

Dear Mr. Archimedes... 😉

 

(yes I know, but we've had this debate before -- and one wideboat certainly uses a lot more water per boat than two narrowboats sharing...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Dear Mr. Archimedes... 😉

 

(yes I know, but we've had this debate before -- and one wideboat certainly uses a lot more water per boat than two narrowboats sharing...)

Yes the greater the combined  weight of boats in a lock the less water is used .

Do narrowboats always , or more often than not, share a lock with another narrowboat? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MartynG said:

Yes the greater the combined  weight of boats in a lock the less water is used .

 

 

Are you being serious???!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Yes the greater the combined  weight of boats in a lock the less water is used .

Do narrowboats always , or more often than not, share a lock with another narrowboat? 

 

 

 

Sometimes -- definitely between 0% and 100% of the time... 😉

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, MtB said:

My own point of view is changing. I think narrowboats are being unfairly discriminated against by the licensing system.

 

I pay almost as much license fee for my narrow boat as a widebeam pays.

 

I pay 83% of what a 13ft 8in wide boat pays, yet my boat is only half the size. Blatantly unfair and discriminatory.

The EA inherited a system of charging by length x width from the Thames Conservancy  But in TC days there would have been a wide variety of boat lengths and widths in use on the river, almost all of them much less than the lock dimensions, so considerations of how many boats fit a lock weren't valid, and charging on the basis of l x w made sense as being fair and equitable. But on most of the canal system the vast majority of pleasure boats were between 6'6 and 7' wide, so charging on the basis of length alone made more sense. And we are stuck with the legacy of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MtB said:

 

This has been working perfectly well for the EA on the Thames for at least 40 years and it would work perfectly well on the cut, if they had the balls to actually implement it.

 

 

Have a look on any EA facebook/forum site just before Xmas when they tried to implement this on the Great Ouse and Nene. There was an uproar and eventually the EA backed down and didnt enforce it.

Shame as I would have been better off too..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MtB said:

 

 

Then you need to think about it some more.

Or read some of the old threads on the subject!

 

 

 

A boat displaces water equivalent to the total  weight of the boat including its contents.

Put a brick in a toilet cistern and the cistern holds less water 

Share a bath with another person and it saves water if the bath is filled to the same depth of water as one person would use.

Do you agree?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

 

A boat displaces water equivalent to the total  weight of the boat including its contents.

Put a brick in a toilet cistern and the cistern holds less water 

Share a bath with another person and it saves water if the bath is filled to the same depth of water as one person would use.

Do you agree?

 

 

 

 

Nope.

 

 

Your analogies are not analogues for a boat floating in a lock. This is was IanD was getting at with his Archimedes reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, David Mack said:

The EA inherited a system of charging by length x width from the Thames Conservancy  But in TC days there would have been a wide variety of boat lengths and widths in use on the river, almost all of them much less than the lock dimensions, so considerations of how many boats fit a lock weren't valid, and charging on the basis of l x w made sense as being fair and equitable. But on most of the canal system the vast majority of pleasure boats were between 6'6 and 7' wide, so charging on the basis of length alone made more sense. And we are stuck with the legacy of that.

 

But circumstances have changed with the proliferation of big new widebeams purchased primarily for living on which rarely cruise, are sometimes (often?) moored in unsuitable places causing obstructions, and take the mooring space of 2 breasted-up narrowboats in "honeypot" areas.

 

Why are we stuck with the legacy -- what prevents CART from changing the rules in response to changing circumstances?

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

Why are we stuck with the legacy -- what prevents CART from changing the rules in response to changing circumstances?

I think you've already answered that - howls of protest from those who would lose out, and satisfied silence from those who would benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

Why are we stuck with the legacy -- what prevents CART from changing the rules in response to changing circumstances?

 

I suspect it's purely because the implementation timetable for the previous licence changes is still running.

 

Once we cross April 2023 expect another consultation ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I think you've already answered that - howls of protest from those who would lose out, and satisfied silence from those who would benefit.

 

That didn't stop CART changing the rules on composting toilets in response to rapidly increasing use, which seems a very similar case to "unsuitable widebeam" proliferation to me... 😉

 

I suspect that CART *know* that they should be charging more for widebeam licenses (e.g. proportional to width*length) but haven't got the stomach for the ensuing battle -- and every year they do nothing (e.g. not even consulting for another year) there will be more of them, which will make the resistance to any change even stronger... 😞

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Nope.

 

 

Your analogies are not analogues for a boat floating in a lock. This is was IanD was getting at with his Archimedes reference.

Yes they are good analogies.

 

Lets try again.

A boat displaces water equivalent to the weight of the boat. This is why the weight of a boat is often referred to as its displacement.

 

Lets say you are upstream from a lock that is empty .

You move your boat into the lock but the water level in the lock does not rise . When you enter the lock  water equivalent to the weight of your boat  is displaced  out of the lock and into the canal upstream from the lock.

So when you close the gates and open the suices the lock drains down. With your boat in the lock the amount of water drained down is less than it would be if you had drained the lock with no boat in the lock.

Do you agree ?

 

 

 

Do you agree?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MartynG said:

With your boat in the lock the amount of water drained down is less than it would be if you had drained the lock with no boat in the lock.

Do you agree ?

 

Nope, this is codswallop.

 

 

Edit to add:

Maybe we are at cross purposes. Yes you are right if you really do mean drain the lock, totally of all water.

 

I'm talking about cycling a lock. To change the water level in a lock from full to notionally empty so you can open the bottom gates requires the same volume of water to be removed from the lock, whether or not there is a boat floating in there. 

 

 

Edited by MtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

Nope, this is codswallop.

 

 

It's not codswallop.

If you don't understand that a boat displaces water equivalent to the weight of the boat then I give up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

To change the water level in a lock from full to notionally empty so you can open the bottom gates requires the same volume of water to be removed from the lock, whether or not there is a boat floating in there. 

 

 

No.

The weight of water drained out is reduced by an amount the same as the weight of the boat

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Flawed thinking.

 

Widebeams can only use half the system, but it balances out as they use their half twice as much!

 

 

That would probably bring the end of the Chester Canal as only residential wide beams would bother to get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MartynG said:

No.

The weight of water drained out is reduced by an amount the same as the weight of the boat

 

OK, let's compare two cases -- a wideboat and no boat going down a lock...

 

The top gates are open, water is level with upper pound. If there's a boat (wide or not) it floats into the lock and the gates close, if not the gates close anyway.

 

Lock is emptied, water level drops by the fall of the lock, volume is the same (area*fall) whether there's a boat in there or not.

 

Bottom gates open when water is level with lower pound, boat (if there is one) floats out.

 

The same volume of water has been transferred from upper pound to lower pound (area of lock * fall) whether there was a wideboat, a narrowboat or no boat in it.

 

Exactly the same happens in reverse for a boat (or none) going up the lock -- same water transfer between pounds regardless of size of boat (or none).

 

Agreed?

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.