Jump to content

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


Featured Posts

7 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

I think charging on value, no matter how it was established would prove to be another salt tax for C&RT.

Why? Please give actual reasons it won't work, not just because you don't seem to like the idea... 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, IanD said:

Why? Please give actual reasons it won't work, not just because you don't seem to like the idea... 😉

It will cost more to police and control than the possible gain.   In my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

You may be in  for a nasty shock if you ever make a large claim, like a sinking or fire.

 

You can increase your insurance cover over the purchase price too. I do, to take account of what it would actually cost me to replace my boats in todays inflating market, the insurers Craft Insure accept this and charge a premium to suit.

When the value of second hand boats started to rise I contacted our  insurance company about increasing the insured value and their response was that they would only do it  if we could provide a valuation provided by a suitably qualified person. They would not accept a valuation proved by ourselves

 From posts on here I gathered that some insurance companies would and some wouldn't 

Not particularly wishing to change insurance company, we paid to have the boat valued. 

Being aware that under or over insuring could affect any claim which we might  make we reckoned for peace of mind it was worth basing the insurance on the true value.

Don't want to tempt Providence but we have never made a claim 🙂

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

It will cost more to police and control than the possible gain.   In my opinion.

Why? All the information (insurance valuation) is already there, and CART already ask for proof of insurance. The whole thing can be automated as part of the license application process -- cost, close to zero. Policing is then exactly the same as today, checking whether boats have a valid license or not. No extra cost here either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Why? All the information (insurance valuation) is already there, and CART already ask for proof of insurance. The whole thing can be automated as part of the license application process -- cost, close to zero. Policing is then exactly the same as today, checking whether boats have a valid license or not. No extra cost here either...

So having never made a claim and not being 100% honest, like everybody else I know, I insure my boat 3rd party to get the salvage cover and 3rd party claims approved but at a declared value of £100. I don't want any insurance for the paint, the woodwork, the gas or electric, never use my engine because I moor permanently in a marina. 

Do you think C&RT will give me a licence?

I have complied with all the requirements you list.

 

I have better things to do than discuss what will never happen  now. My sock drawer needs tidying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

So having never made a claim and not being 100% honest, like everybody else I know, I insure my boat 3rd party to get the salvage cover and 3rd party claims approved but at a declared value of £100. I don't want any insurance for the paint, the woodwork, the gas or electric, never use my engine because I moor permanently in a marina. 

Do you think C&RT will give me a licence?

I have complied with all the requirements you list.

 

I have better things to do than discuss what will never happen  now. My sock drawer needs tidying.

Ooh, warning, extreme whataboutery in action...

 

Why not come up with some real arguments instead of spurious ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

 

I suggest that the value game is wrong as my experience of several  boaters with expensive boats is that take their boats so gently through locks that not an atom of algae is tickled let alone any possible wall rubbing or damage nor any infrastructure is harmed. 15 fenders on any mooring place are produced too. They surely should pay much less as their overall infrastructure footprint is less 😉 

 

 

 As Ian and MTB profess to be willing to pay more why don't CRT rephrase the licence fee request annually with box 1 the annual fee, box 2 what you would like to pay over this -say  1,000 2,000 or 5,000 extra. I dont think it could be gift aided, but perhaps that might be a goer if at all possible too to drum up additional resource. Even better CRT could produce a  plaque for boaters advising that this boater voluntarily pays more licence fee than asked for, blue no doubt with bronze silver or gold highlights. Surely that may help to give considerable funds on a voluntary basis.

 

 

 

 

 

I’m sure I suggested something like that before.

The license fee works for all but a few who want to pay more.

So those who want to pay more can make a donation through the friends programme.

Simple.

In return they could be awarded shoulder pips, Mtb and Ian could have aiguillettes.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

I’m sure I suggested something like that before.

The license fee works for all but a few who want to pay more.

So those who want to pay more can make a donation through the friends programme.

Simple.

In return they could be awarded shoulder pips, Mtb and Ian could have aiguillettes.

 

 

It "works" because it doesn't raise enough money for CART and for people with little money it makes living on a boat cheaper than living on land.

 

It doesn't work in the sense that the canals are falling to bits because CART haven't got enough money -- and please don't bring up the blue signs again or we'll go back down that rabbit-hole.

 

If the license fee needs to go up -- say for example to double what it is now, on average -- then it won't "work" any more for the poorer boaters, so much more graduation is the only solution so they pay the same but richer boaters pay more.

 

Do you really not understand about how the costs of something should be shared out more fairly, like progressive taxation? I don't want any kudos or recognition for paying more, I think that the costs should be more fairly shared out across boaters, and that means people with big new expensive shiny boats will pay more -- *all* of them, me included. No need for badges or recognition, any more than there is by getting a peaked hat with "I pay 45% income tax" on the front... 😉

 

The problem with making any extra payment voluntary is simple; the well-off altruistic boaters -- lets call them, ooh, I dunno, "Socialists" -- will pay more, and the well-off selfish boaters -- lets call them, ooh, I dunno, "Tories" -- won't. Anyone who thinks this is fair probably voted for the current government, because "I'm all right Jack" seems to be one of their founding principles... 😞

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone like myself who only insures 3rd party, how does that work if it's assessed on insured value? No value assigned to the boat. Some people may have older NBs worth £20k or like me a little GRP worth 5% of that. Neither owner wants to pay for a valuation survey and willing to take the risk but they are still hugely different boats. I can accept paying by length for a licence and what's available for a mooring where I want to be (long CaRT mooring, small boat) but making the charging basis so much more complicated just seems to be an expensive can of worms for boaters and the overall admin costs.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BilgePump said:

Anyone like myself who only insures 3rd party, how does that work if it's assessed on insured value? No value assigned to the boat. Some people may have older NBs worth £20k or like me a little GRP worth 5% of that. Neither owner wants to pay for a valuation survey and willing to take the risk but they are still hugely different boats. I can accept paying by length for a licence and what's available for a mooring where I want to be (long CaRT mooring, small boat) but making the charging basis so much more complicated just seems to be an expensive can of worms for boaters and the overall admin costs.

 

Dead simple solution then -- keep the current almost-flat fee structure 🙂

 

Don't complain if your fee doubles and you can no longer afford it though, at least you can rest secure in the knowledge that it's simply doubled for everybody, so that's fair then... 😉

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

It "works" because it doesn't raise enough money for CART and for people with little money it makes living on a boat cheaper than living on land.

 

It doesn't work in the sense that the canals are falling to bits because CART haven't got enough money -- and please don't bring up the blue signs again or we'll go back down that rabbit-hole.

 

If the license fee needs to go up -- say for example to double what it is now, on average -- then it won't "work" any more for the poorer boaters, so much more graduation is the only solution so they pay the same but richer boaters pay more.

 

Do you really not understand about how the costs of something should be shared out more fairly, like progressive taxation? I don't want any kudos or recognition for paying more, I think that the costs should be more fairly shared out across boaters, and that means people with big new expensive shiny boats will pay more -- *all* of them, me included. No need for badges or recognition, any more than there is by getting a peaked hat with "I pay 45% income tax" on the front... 😉

 

The problem with making any extra payment voluntary is simple; the well-off altruistic boaters -- lets call them, ooh, I dunno, "Socialists" -- will pay more, and the well-off selfish boaters -- lets call them, ooh, I dunno, "Tories" -- won't. Anyone who thinks this is fair probably voted for the current government, because "I'm all right Jack" seems to be one of their founding principles... 😞


Some of the poshest most expensive boats I’ve seen have never moved from their moorings and I have never seen the owners either. How is it fair to charge them extra when they never use the system?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IanD said:

so much more graduation is the only solution so they pay the same but richer boaters pay more.

But why does the licence fee have to be graduated by boat value (however that is determined)? Fair enough for government to set taxes in a redistributive way, but why should the same apply to boat licences? Do Tesco charge wealthy customers more for a can of baked beans than a poor customer? 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

I will gladly let Ian pay as much as he wants.  He can pay mine as well if he wants.

 

So do you subscribe to the Tory "I'm all right Jack" principle that somebody else should pay, not you? Certainly seems that way...

 

Funding of any service used by many people should not rely on altruistic people paying and selfish ones not paying. Or do you think otherwise?

5 minutes ago, David Mack said:

But why does the licence fee have to be graduated by boat value (however that is determined)? Fair enough for government to set taxes in a redistributive way, but why should the same apply to boat licences? Do Tesco charge wealthy customers more for a can of baked beans than a poor customer? 

<sigh> I never said *only* by boat value, also size, usage and other things.

 

I happen to think that -- like with progressive taxation -- people who can afford to pay more (especially if the license fee goes up significantly) should do so (all of them!), and people who can't should pay less -- do you agree?

 

With boats the only available proxy for this is boat value, unless we want to get into disposable income disclosure. And the only simple and cheap estimate for boat value is insurance valuation.

 

Do you have a better idea?

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is daft, I might have quite a nice boat but frankly it's all I have, I'm poor, have no income and live on meagre savings. Another person with the same boat might have a million pound house and 6 figure income. There is nothing morally fair about your ideas Ian other than in your fantasy world view.

 

I'm happy already paying more than most due to 60ft length which seems fair to me but hit me for more due to some random judgement of wealth/boat value is nonsense.

Edited by Slow and Steady
  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

So do you subscribe to the Tory "I'm all right Jack" principle that somebody else should pay, not you? Certainly seems that way...

 

Funding of any service used by many people should not rely on altruistic people paying and selfish ones not paying. Or do you think otherwise?

<sigh> I never said *only* by boat value, also size, usage and other things.

 

I happen to think that -- like with progressive taxation -- people who can afford to pay more (especially if the license fee goes up significantly) should do so (all of them!), and people who can't should pay less -- do you agree?

 

With boats the only available proxy for this is boat value, unless we want to get into disposable income disclosure. And the only simple and cheap estimate for boat value is insurance valuation.

 

Do you have a better idea?


Yes

Charge by boat length. 
 

How about CRT looking into other area of their income?

It would be easier to collect a pound of a cyclist each time they use the towpath rather than adopt your complex approach. 
 

Commuting Cyclists could have helmets with radar (or whatever) that register at certain points and a pound is automatically paid from their account. 
Each cyclist leaving Leeds for instance by towpath could be charged a £1. 
 

And dog walkers £1 per dog. £1.50 for a very big dog. 50p for half a dog like a Jack Russell 


The Company would make a fortune over night. 
 

How about their rented property? Increase rents by 10%. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Goliath said:


Yes

Charge by boat length. 
 

How about CRT looking into other area of their income?

It would be easier to collect a pound of a cyclist each time they use the towpath rather than adopt your complex approach. 
 

Commuting Cyclists could have helmets with radar (or whatever) that register at certain points and a pound is automatically paid from their account. 
Each cyclist leaving Leeds for instance by towpath could be charged a £1. 
 

And dog walkers £1 per dog. £1.50 for a very big dog. 50p for half a dog like a Jack Russell 


The Company would make a fortune over night. 
 

How about their rented property? Increase rents by 10%. 
 

 

They could use some creative accountancy and charge for the lost water due to leaks. If they transferred the actual water to another company like the water companies, they could charge for every lock full and every litre lost due to leaks as a disposal charge.  Dye the water red so that they know where it has come from, rain, land run off, sewage works, animal urine etc. That would bring in millions every day.

 

Its no dafter than charging depending on the owners boat value.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/04/2022 at 11:58, Rambling Boater said:

I first started boating in the early 80s.  To those who still remember boating in the 70s and 80s and have current experience has the infrastructure really got worse overall? I'm not so sure.

An interesting question.

 

In my view for the most part the canal system as a whole is much better these days than  in the 1970s, some weren't even open then that we enjoy today.

 

We went round the Cheshire ring when it was first possible in the mid 1970s for instance.  The Macclesfield was OK but shallow and still rural of course. The Ashton much worse than now.   The only part of the Rochdale open then was the Rochdale 9 section and you had to pay a toll as it was still in private ownership. The condition of the 9 was horrendous, no over flowing locks but little water with whole cars in the cut ( I kid you not) and traversing the 9 took a long day.  The 9 today is much better and the facilities at Castlefield very good.  

 

However, Having just recently traversed The whole of the Rochdale I was very much reminded of the 1970s style of canal passage with large amounts of rubbish poorly maintained locks and very low water in many places.  It was a bad journey and unlike the 1970s when I had youthful enthusiasm and energy on my side it was all very wearing on physical and mental health. Still, We have been enjoying the C&H and A&C canals and will be in Leeds Tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, churchward said:

An interesting question.

 

In my view for the most part the canal system as a whole is much better these days than  in the 1970s, some weren't even open then that we enjoy today.

 

We went round the Cheshire ring when it was first possible in the mid 1970s for instance.  The Macclesfield was OK but shallow and still rural of course. The Ashton much worse than now.   The only part of the Rochdale open then was the Rochdale 9 section and you had to pay a toll as it was still in private ownership. The condition of the 9 was horrendous, no over flowing locks but little water with whole cars in the cut ( I kid you not) and traversing the 9 took a long day.  The 9 today is much better and the facilities at Castlefield very good.  

 

However, Having just recently traversed The whole of the Rochdale I was very much reminded of the 1970s style of canal passage with large amounts of rubbish poorly maintained locks and very low water in many places.  It was a bad journey and unlike the 1970s when I had youthful enthusiasm and energy on my side it was all very wearing on physical and mental health. Still, We have been enjoying the C&H and A&C canals and will be in Leeds Tomorrow.

You say it's better now but you also say you managed the Cheshire Ring. It may be better now in some aspects, but the constant stream of stoppages seem to take longer to fix and make planning a huge gamble.  I  hope you manage to escape from Yorkshire it's not that easy at the moment and no doubt you will encounter further problems as you try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Midnight said:

You say it's better now but you also say you managed the Cheshire Ring. It may be better now in some aspects, but the constant stream of stoppages seem to take longer to fix and make planning a huge gamble.  I  hope you manage to escape from Yorkshire it's not that easy at the moment and no doubt you will encounter further problems as you try.

As well as the 1970s trip round the Cheshire ring we did so again last year and although we did hit a stoppage at Marple for 3 days the journey around the ring was much easier than in 1975 no question. 

 

The system as a whole (and a much larger one than in the 1970s) is much better now than it was in my view for sure.  However,  as a whole that is true in parts it is a different story.  The Manchester side of the Rochdale to the summit is terrible we had to call CRT twice for assistance with two separate issues, previously we have never called CRT or BW for any help in all our years boating.  

 

As you say escaping Yorkshire is challenging presently with a hugely restricted Huddersfield (one boat per direction per day) all booked up until June. L&L closed at Lock 31 until 17th May earliest and the Rochdale flight closed between lock 65 and 81 due to lock 72 having a blown cill I can't even turn round and go back.  Not that I am going to I'd rather wait until the L&L is open.

 

Still, we have been enjoying the easy travel that push button lock operation can do for you on the A&C just now. C&H was nice too but heavy going at some locks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, churchward said:

As well as the 1970s trip round the Cheshire ring we did so again last year and although we did hit a stoppage at Marple for 3 days the journey around the ring was much easier than in 1975 no question. 

 

The system as a whole (and a much larger one than in the 1970s) is much better now than it was in my view for sure.  However,  as a whole that is true in parts it is a different story.  The Manchester side of the Rochdale to the summit is terrible we had to call CRT twice for assistance with two separate issues, previously we have never called CRT or BW for any help in all our years boating.  

 

As you say escaping Yorkshire is challenging presently with a hugely restricted Huddersfield (one boat per direction per day) all booked up until June. L&L closed at Lock 31 until 17th May earliest and the Rochdale flight closed between lock 65 and 81 due to lock 72 having a blown cill I can't even turn round and go back.  Not that I am going to I'd rather wait until the L&L is open.

 

Still, we have been enjoying the easy travel that push button lock operation can do for you on the A&C just now. C&H was nice too but heavy going at some locks.

At least you are in God's own country I'm sure you will enjoy the L&L plenty of nice places to moor up. Hopefully we will be travelling that way in June. Fingers crossed, rain dance done, prayers said. 🙏 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Midnight said:

At least you are in God's own country I'm sure you will enjoy the L&L plenty of nice places to moor up. Hopefully we will be travelling that way in June. Fingers crossed, rain dance done, prayers said. 🙏 

Yes indeed I am looking forward to the L&L over the Pennines.  We have been on the L&L before but only the Wigan to Liverpool end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IanD said:

Do you really not understand about how the costs of something should be shared out more fairly, like progressive taxation?

 

 

Teachers never do....

 

 

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.