Another "consultation"

[Tony1]

1 hour ago, Barneyp said:

Keeping the price "as low as possible" does not mean no increase, and could still mean a massive increase.

CRT are tasked with maintaining the network and are currently not receiving enough money to do so, one of the few income sources they have control over is license fees. What would you prefer, no increase and even lower levels of maintenance and more closures, or a raise in license fees in return for more maintenance.

 

My personal opinion is that the license fee is a good deal for boaters, and although I would not like it to increase for selfish reasons, I would not think it unfair if it went up by 50%. 

My suggestion of resisting it strongly in the survey is an attempt to keep the coming price increase below 50%, as I think an increase higher than that will drive away some boaters, and I think we should not forget the human side of this situation, and the long term boaters who would be driven away by a price increase of say 100%, or 200%. Those people's lives matter in this equation. 

But I feel sure there is no possibility whatever of the license price staying as it is. 

 

I think it is awful that CRT are having to work with a budget that doesnt seem to be sufficient, but I'm not sure the morally correct answer is to squeeze all the extra cash they need out of boaters, who are after all a small minority of the user base. 

It could be argued that a toll of say 50p levied on pedestrians using the towpath would be just as fair as charging a higher price for the boat license, for example.  Or even a toll on kayakers and fishermen.

That said, I bet a lot of the budget does go on things important to boaters, such as facilities, lock maintenance etc, so its fair that boaters pay their fair share, so to speak.  

 

I don't think your final sentence is a reflection of how things will unfold when the license fee goes up. 

I would bet that a license fee increase of 50% will probably only allow CRT to continue at its current activity levels, and maybe finish some already planned projects on schedule.

For them to really step up and improve things, I think a lot more cash is needed from government (and more cash than can ever be squeezed from boaters), but none of us realistically see that happening in the medium term future. 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Tony1

[magnetman]

4 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

 

...but I'm not sure the morally correct answer is to squeeze all the extra cash they need out of boaters, who are after all a small minority of the user base. 

 

People who own canal boats capable of navigating are the only group who need locks to be functional. Kayak users, sup, anglers, walkers will never use a single lock. Locks must be by far the most expensive part of keeping a canal operational so it is incredibly sensible to charge those who use locks more money. 

 

The obvious way to do it is via tolls including a toll to remain on a certain section of water in a boat. Very difficult to get back to this model of charging for use of an asset but perhaps over time it will become more obvious that this is the only way to keep the network open in the long term. 

 

And no, it won't be cheap. 

 

 

 

Another thing is the CRT need to put in more residential moorings. People want to live on boats and some, albeit a tiny proportion, of them will pay good money to do so. 

 

I'd like to see fees for living on boats increased enormously to filter out those who are only on boats because it is so cheap from those who are invested in living on boats. 

 

Time for the parasites to be cleared me thinks. 

 

 

[Tony1]

23 minutes ago, magnetman said:

People who own canal boats capable of navigating are the only group who need locks to be functional. Kayak users, sup, anglers, walkers will never use a single lock. Locks must be by far the most expensive part of keeping a canal operational so it is incredibly sensible to charge those who use locks more money. 

 

 

I'd like to see fees for living on boats increased enormously to filter out those who are only on boats because it is so cheap from those who are invested in living on boats. 

Time for the parasites to be cleared me thinks. 

 

 

On the first issue, I did say that boaters should pay their fair share, I personally would be against tolls for other users, in fact I think it would be a major backward step in terms of health and lifestyle for millions of walkers and cyclists etc. I also doubt that the challenges and the cost of enforcement would be practicable. 

I only mention it as a devil's advocate idea, to illustrate that there are other users who at least need some maintenance, e.g. usable towpaths and banks etc.  But yes, boaters have to be the source of the biggest costs for CRT, so that should be reflected. 

 

On the second point, I think you are a tad harsh on people who are living on limited budgets. But whether we disagree on the human aspect of it, I think there is a difficulty in trying to weed out those people who are not interested in boats, but only want a cheap lifestyle, and it is this: how would you prove that? 

I've met met people who are looking for a cheap lifestyle, but are also interested in living on boats, so they meet both of those criteria.

How would you weed out the ones who just want cheap accommodation? 

 

If you just raise the license price by say threefold or more, there are many boaters on tight budgets and  who do genuinely love their lifestyle who would be forced off the waterways. I know there are a few scallywags within that group, but the majority seem to be very decent folks, from the ones I'm met. It may be things are different in London, I dont know, but it seems very harsh to force poorer folks off the waterways via a big license increase.  

 

And dont forget there are many rich capitalists like Arthur who might pack it in because the amount of pleasure gained from their recreational boating was no longer worth the increasing costs involved. 

It wouldn't just be skint liveaboards who left the waterways because of a big increase. 

But I am convinced the main thing for CRT is their bottom line- what price point (or structure) will get the most revenue? 

And I can understand them wanting to get more cash- up to a point.

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Tony1

[Alan de Enfield]

30 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

It could be argued that a toll of say 50p levied on pedestrians using the towpath would be just as fair as charging a higher price for the boat license,

 

The issue there being that the 'free access and free use of the towpaths' is enshrined in law.

[Tony1]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The issue there being that the 'free access and free use of the towpaths' is enshrined in law.

 

I agree that that law should not be changed, but I do not believe an existing law is any impediment whatsoever.

As long as enough craven MPs will vote in support, almost any law can be changed.

We have a Russian oligarch in the House of Lords as the sitting Lord of Siberia, for Heaven's sake. Most of our conventions, norms and laws are gone, and those left are completely malleable. 

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Tony1

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

On the second point, I think you are a tad harsh on people who are living on limited budgets. But whether we disagree on the human aspect of it, I think there is a difficulty in trying to weed out those people who are not interested in boats, but only want a cheap lifestyle, and it is this: how would you prove that? 

I've met met people who are looking for a cheap lifestyle, but are also interested in living on boats, so they meet both of those criteria.

How would you weed out the ones who just want cheap accommodation? 

 

 

 

It is interesting that the acknowledged forum 'legal expert' (Nigel Moore RIP) determined that actually liveaboards cannot ever legally be a CCer.

 

If a CCer only moves because he is legally required to then he is commiting a criminal act.

 

 

Legally, a liveaboard cannot be a CCer.

 

I actually take issue with the applicability of “intent”; I believe the judge in Davies got bamboozled by Mr Stoner QC's (as he since became) clever rhetoric on the point. As one online commentator noted at the time, if the letter of the law is being followed, it really does not matter why. To say that Mr Davies' movement pattern was unexceptional in itself (the 'continuous journey' argument of BW was rejected - “I think it is right to say however that my decision is not to be taken as fully endorsing the board's guidance. It is possible to envisage use of a vessel which fell short of the Board's concept of continuous cruising but which still qualified the vessel for a licence under section 17(3)( c )(ii).”), but that he was committing a criminal act because he only complied in order to comply – hence was not 'bona fide' in what he was doing - was ludicrous. Mr Davies' downfall, in the eyes of the judge, was that he was “clearly living on the boat”, hence that his purpose with the boat was therefore not for navigating.

 

On that argument, it could never have made any difference no matter what his movement pattern was. Every permanent live-aboard embarked on a progressive journey around the system in their retirement would be unlawful, simply because they had made the boat their sole and permanent home. Not that CaRT would take exception to them of course; but the principle applies.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Orwellian]

8 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

 

I agree that that law should not be changed, but I do not believe an existing law is any impediment whatsoever.

As long as enough craven MPs will vote in support, almost any law can be changed.

We have a Russian oligarch in the House of Lords as the sitting Lord of Siberia, for Heaven's sake. Most of our conventions, norms and laws are gone, and those left are completely malleable. 

 

Any impedent to what?

[Tony1]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

It is interesting that the acknowledged forum 'legal expert' (Nigel Moore RIP) determined that actualy liveaboards cannot ever be a CCer.

 

 

Legally, a liveaboard cannot be a CCer.

 

I actually take issue with the applicability of “intent”; I believe the judge in Davies got bamboozled by Mr Stoner QC's (as he since became) clever rhetoric on the point. As one online commentator noted at the time, if the letter of the law is being followed, it really does not matter why. To say that Mr Davies' movement pattern was unexceptional in itself (the 'continuous journey' argument of BW was rejected - “I think it is right to say however that my decision is not to be taken as fully endorsing the board's guidance. It is possible to envisage use of a vessel which fell short of the Board's concept of continuous cruising but which still qualified the vessel for a licence under section 17(3)( c )(ii).”), but that he was committing a criminal act because he only complied in order to comply – hence was not 'bona fide' in what he was doing - was ludicrous. Mr Davies' downfall, in the eyes of the judge, was that he was “clearly living on the boat”, hence that his purpose with the boat was therefore not for navigating.

 

On that argument, it could never have made any difference no matter what his movement pattern was. Every permanent live-aboard embarked on a progressive journey around the system in their retirement would be unlawful, simply because they had made the boat their sole and permanent home. Not that CaRT would take exception to them of course; but the principle applies.

 

 

I'm sure all of that is absolutely valid legally, but even CRT acknowledge that a number of boaters live aboard, right? 

The problem with the liveaboard thing is that its a 'piece of string' scenario.

Some boaters spend 2 week stints living on the their boats throughout the year; others live aboard for the summer, and some boaters effectively live on their boats between March and October or November, say. So its a whole spectrum, and the full time liveaboard CCers  are just pushing that envelope a bit further than most other boaters, being on board for the full year. 

But I get the argument about the purpose being a key issue, and I'm not arguing with any of that- only pointing out that in reality, liveaboards are accepted by CRT, even if not fully formally acknowledged. 

 

It would be daft if we got to the point where CRT introduced a rule like you have on many static caravan parks, where you have to leave the park for a month each year in order to not be classed as fully residential, or whatever. 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

18 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

 

On the first issue, I did say that boaters should pay their fair share, I personally would be against tolls for other users, in fact I think it would be a major backward step in terms of health and lifestyle for millions of walkers and cyclists etc. I also doubt that the challenges and the cost of enforcement would be practicable. 

I only mention it as a devil's advocate idea, to illustrate that there are other users who at least need some maintenance, e.g. usable towpaths and banks etc.  But yes, boaters have to be the source of the biggest costs for CRT, so that should be reflected. 

 

 

 

Towpaths should be owned and operated by local councils for the benefit of local people as an amenity. Call it a linear park. 

 

Yars ago there were boats which had horses connected to them via long ropes so the towpaths were essential infrastructure. this is no longer the case. The only use for a towing path these days is for mooring and as a public amenity for various users. A boater does not need to access the towing path during boating procedures. They need a little bit around the locks but not the miles and miles of bankside. The only function of this is to provide moorings and if those moorings are free then it is incredibly obvious what happens. 

 

Councils to own the towpaths. CRT to own the water, moveable structures and lock layby areas to 100ft each side as well as things like culverts and bywashes. 

 

Break it up for the benefit of all users. You want to moor on the towpath you pay for it. 

 

Nothing complicated about it. 

[Tony1]

6 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

Any impedent to what?

 

I dont think an existing law granting public access to towpaths would offer an impediment if the current government decided to introduce an annual license fee for towpath users, fishers, or kayakers. 

Most governments would never want to change that law, but there I believe there are some governments who might try, if the need for funds was great enough. 

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Tony1

[magnetman]

Tolls for boats, council tax funded towpaths for local people providing amenity value as a linear park. 

 

Cyclists are an issue but because they are rewarded as being planet saving do gooders it will be impossible to get rid of them. If enough walking people start accessing the towpaths then the cyclists will be slowed down and probably go elsewhere. 

 

Changes needed. 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

Some boaters spend 2 week stints living on the their boats throughout the year; others live aboard for the summer, and some boaters effectively live on their boats between March and October or November, say. So its a whole spectrum, and the full time liveaboard CCers  are just pushing that envelope a bit further than most other boaters, being on board for the full year. 

But I get the argument about the purpose being a key issue, and I'm not arguing with any of that- only pointing out that in reality, liveaboards are accepted by CRT, even if not fully formally acknowledged. 

 

 

The deciding factor is "is the boat your primary residence" (ie do you have a 'house')

You can spend 11 months aboard but if you still have aprimary residence then you are not a liveaboard.

 

If you are a liveaboard then you must use a a registered gas engineer and comply with the GSIUR rules.

If you spend 11 months of the year aboard the boat and 1 month in your primary residence then you don't need to comply with the GSIUR rules.

 

 

[Francis Herne]

51 minutes ago, magnetman said:

People who own canal boats capable of navigating are the only group who need locks to be functional. Kayak users, sup, anglers, walkers will never use a single lock. Locks must be by far the most expensive part of keeping a canal operational so it is incredibly sensible to charge those who use locks more money.

Most of the cost comes from maintaining them as heritage assets. If it was acceptable to treat them as the EA does on most of their waterways, with standardised steel gates etc, they would be improved for navigation at a fraction of the expense.

 

 I've been to Bradley gate workshops recently, both the price of oak beams in the sizes required and the amount of skilled manual labour required are enormous. Add the design and admin overhead of building every gate effectively unique to the right historic design, and the much shorter lifespan.

 

(not that I'd like to see this happen, but that additional cost should be borne by the government or the wider spectrum of people who benefit from preserving history)

 

51 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Time for the parasites to be cleared me thinks.

Disgusting attitude.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Francis Herne

[Orwellian]

It's

3 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

 

I dont think an existing law granting public access to towpaths would offer an impediment if the current government decided to introduce an annual license fee for towpath users. 

Most governments would never want to change that law, but there I believe there are some governments who might try, if the need for funds was great enough. 

 

Of course it's an impedement unless the law itself is changed and why would the Government do that? Do you really think given all the problems facing this country that changing the law to allow charges for towpath use of canals is a priority? You are delusional.

[magnetman]

7 minutes ago, Francis Herne said:

Most of the cost comes from maintaining them as heritage assets. If it was acceptable to treat them as the EA does on most of their waterways, with standardised steel gates etc, they would be improved for navigation at a fraction of the expense.

 

 I've been to Bradley gate workshops recently, both the price of oak beams in the sizes required and the amount of skilled manual labour required are enormous. Add the design and admin overhead of building every gate effectively unique to the right historic design, and the much shorter lifespan.

 

(not that I'd like to see this happen, but that additional cost should be borne by the government or the wider spectrum of people who benefit from preserving history)

 

Disgusting attitude.

Do you know about discussion? 

 

As for installing steel gates do you know much about canal locks work?

One of the clues is going to be they are user operated manually and not subject to the control mechanisms which come with electric / hydraulic operations. 

[Machpoint005]

14 minutes ago, Francis Herne said:

Most of the cost comes from maintaining them as heritage assets. If it was acceptable to treat them as the EA does on most of their waterways, with standardised steel gates etc, they would be improved for navigation at a fraction of the expense.

 

 I've been to Bradley gate workshops recently, both the price of oak beams in the sizes required and the amount of skilled manual labour required are enormous. Add the design and admin overhead of building every gate effectively unique to the right historic design, and the much shorter lifespan.

 

(not that I'd like to see this happen, but that additional cost should be borne by the government or the wider spectrum of people who benefit from preserving history)

 

Disgusting attitude.

 

You can't put standardised gates on one-off structures. Every gate (or every pair) is unique in some respects, such as depth,  taper or width. The lock chambers were not built to standard dimensions, or at least, not to a sufficiently precise standard.

 

 

[Tony1]

19 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

It's

Of course it's an impedement unless the law itself is changed and why would the Government do that? Do you really think given all the problems facing this country that changing the law to allow charges for towpath use of canals is a priority? You are delusional.

 

I never at any point suggested that such a law change was a priority, or was even on the governments radar. My point was a theoretical one.

If there are any delusions, they are entirely yours, in imagining things that you think I said. 

 

I did said that such a law would not act as an impediment to the current government, and that was incorrect.

The law would indeed be an impediment, but what is important is that in my opinion, it would only be a temporary impediment.

 

In my opinion, there are very few laws that this government would not get rid of if there was a sufficient profit motive or gain involved, regardless of public interest, or health and wellbeing issues.  

As I also said above, issuing licenses for use of towpaths is not a practicable or a cost effective idea, so it will not happen.

It was a theoretical point.

As I said above. 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Tony1

[BEngo]

7 minutes ago, Francis Herne said:

Most of the cost comes from maintaining them as heritage assets. If it was acceptable to treat them as the EA does on most of their waterways, with standardised steel gates etc, they would be improved for navigation at a fraction of the expense.

 

 I've been to Bradley gate workshops recently, both the price of oak beams in the sizes required and the amount of skilled manual labour required are enormous. Add the design and admin overhead of building every gate effectively unique to the right historic design, and the much shorter lifespan.

 

(not that I'd like to see this happen, but that additional cost should be borne by the government or the wider spectrum of people who benefit from preserving history)

 

 

The cost of rebuilding all CRT locks to accept "standard" steel gates would be enormous.  Not only would the head and tail need standardizing, so would the fall. Then, as lock structures move, they would potentially need re-standardising every 25 years or so, when the gates are renewed.

 

The design and admin overhead of the current set up is minimal, and reducing as modern  records of gate size are created (BW and CRT had the canal companies records but they were no longer accurate, becaus things move) . Size still matters though, so checks have to be done.

 

As for material, it is less about heritage than durability in unsupervised use.  Steel gates last well, as evidenced by some top gates on the GU which are over 50 years old. but are easily distorted when belted by an inexperienced steerer.  Wooden gates give much more.  Steel gates also need to be extracted periodically and re-painted, particularly where the water is brackish.

 

In manufacture terms, nowt in it.  Fabricating a steel gate will take much the same time as building a wooden gate.  Bradley's problem is that it has had no investment for years, so the gates are made by hand, one piece at a time not just assembled from CNC cut components.

 

N

 

 

[Francis Herne]

17 minutes ago, magnetman said:

As for installing steel gates do you know much about canal locks work?

One of the clues is going to be they are user operated manually and not subject to the control mechanisms which come with electric / hydraulic operations. 

Funnily enough yes, I use them every day...

There are fabricated steel gates, equivalent to ordinary canal wooden ones and installed in original chambers, on the Mon and Brec and a couple of other canals I forget.

EDIT: see https://mbact.org.uk/modular-lock-gates/

 

You can accomodate minor dimensional differences with a standard basic design that allows for adjustment.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Francis Herne

[magnetman]

Interesting you mention profit. 

 

Presumably with the nightmare future we are all facing a lot of people will be looking to make a profit out of fear and greed. 

 

Watch out or someone might latch onto canals as being some sort of heavenly cure-all for something or other. 

 

Or building land. 

 

 

[Orwellian]

5 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

I did said that such a law would not act as an impediment to the current government, and that was incorrect.

Thank you for confirming.

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Francis Herne said:

Funnily enough yes, I use them every day...

There are fabricated steel gates, equivalent to standard canal wooden ones, on the Mon and Brec and a couple of other canals I forget.

 

You can accomodate minor dimensional differences with a standard basic design that allows for adjustment.

 

And of course exactly the same applies to wooden gates, as pointed out above 🙂

 

The real issue is not the material, it's the outdated production methods, which means insufficient investment in the workshops, because CART has no money to invest in them or incentive to do it. The classic UK industry problem in a nutshell... 😞

Edited February 1, 2023 by IanD

[Stroudwater1]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

People who own canal boats capable of navigating are the only group who need locks to be functional. Kayak users, sup, anglers, walkers will never use a single lock. Locks must be by far the most expensive part of keeping a canal operational so it is incredibly sensible to charge those who use locks more money. 

 

 

 

 

Not so, without functional locks the water in most canals disappears leaving nothing for any water user at all. Only need to look at derelect canals to see this. Leave locks to their own devices and they rot and are gone. Blunder lock on the Stroudwater needed new gates with almost no craft ever using it after around 20 years. If left then the pound above would run dry and disappear very fast. Sure they could be dammed but still detritis builds up fast and it all silts up. 

[magnetman]

3 minutes ago, Francis Herne said:

Funnily enough yes, I use them every day...

There are fabricated steel gates, equivalent to ordinary canal wooden ones and installed in original chambers, on the Mon and Brec and a couple of other canals I forget.

EDIT: see https://mbact.org.uk/modular-lock-gates/

 

You can accomodate minor dimensional differences with a standard basic design that allows for adjustment.

Steel gates cause damage to the anchoring points when people slam them by opening the paddles before they are closed. 

 

Wood will absorb some of this. 

 

Canal locks are operated by all sorts of different people so you do need to take into account improper use. Steel is too rigid for something like a lock gate. You want wood for this. 

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

It's a consultation not a poll, you know just like the last one 😂

They put out consultations because they have to consult and they can then show they have done that. They don't have to act on the results of that consultation, as you rightly state its not a poll.