Not looking good for us

[tree monkey]

6 hours ago, magnetman said:

When did this survey start?

 

I got an email about it today.

It's not really a survey It's just a choice of who will suffer more under the cost increases that are coming...

 

"Would you be happy for everyone to be slapped in the face?"

 

"Or would you rather that person over there be punched in the face, whilst you receive a slightly less hard slap in the face"

 

"Or we could give a real kicking to that other person whilst you and that peep over there gets a slight slap to the face"

 

Edited February 23, 2023 by tree monkey

[MtB]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

Where does it say that? What stops them just unilaterally announcing changes to the license fees, like in the past? (and collecting shedloads of flak for doing it)

 

What I never understand is why getting shedloads of flack should bother them one jot or why they feel the need to consult. They are not managing the canal system so they can be liked, they are managing it to make decisions that are in the best interests of preserving and maintaining the canals. If boaters don't like their decisions they should tell them its hard cheese, suck it up or sell up, nobody NEEDS to own a boat. 

 

After all, for the cost of this consultation they could probably have repaired 100 broken paddles, or erected 1,000 more blue signs. 

[IanD]

26 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

What I never understand is why getting shedloads of flack should bother them one jot or why they feel the need to consult. They are not managing the canal system so they can be liked, they are managing it to make decisions that are in the best interests of preserving and maintaining the canals. If boaters don't like their decisions they should tell them its hard cheese, suck it up or sell up, nobody NEEDS to own a boat. 

 

After all, for the cost of this consultation they could probably have repaired 100 broken paddles, or erected 1,000 more blue signs. 

 

Because first the NBTA get involved, then the press, then the internet ("think of the children, families torn from their homes..."), then this all comes to the attention of DEFRA who think "CART aren't doing a very good job of managing their canals, why should we increase the grant like they ask for?" (or even keep it the same in real terms).

 

You might not realise it but bad PR travels quickly and spreads a long way nowadays and can have real negative effects, which groups like the NBTA (and CART) are very well aware of... 😞

 

If the consultation avoids some of this by letting CART play the "boaters voted for it" trump card, fend off the NBTA and friends, and get more money from license fees more quickly as a result, it'll probably be good value for money... 🙂

Edited February 23, 2023 by IanD

[TheBiscuits]

My concern about theoretical area - length maximum x beam maximum, as a rectangle - is for those small GRP cruisers that are eg 27' x 9'6".

 

The 9'6" bit is only around a foot long, most of the rest of the boat is under 7' beam.  Actual area would be better, but harder to calculate.  

 

Perhaps allowing boat shaped boats to have an area discount (subject to evidence - diagram, photos, measurements?) would work.  Fiddly to do, but only needs doing once per boat which qualifies.

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

My concern about theoretical area - length maximum x beam maximum, as a rectangle - is for those small GRP cruisers that are eg 27' x 9'6".

 

The 9'6" bit is only around a foot long, most of the rest of the boat is under 7' beam.  Actual area would be better, but harder to calculate.  

 

Perhaps allowing boat shaped boats to have an area discount (subject to evidence - diagram, photos, measurements?) would work.  Fiddly to do, but only needs doing once per boat which qualifies.

 

A lot of effort (who would collect and verify the data?) for boats which would be right at the bottom end of the price scale anyway, being so short -- and if we're talking about usable space/living area, they tend to have more relative to their length than a narrowboat, much less wasted at the bow and stern... 😉

Edited February 23, 2023 by IanD

[Paul C]

3 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

My concern about theoretical area - length maximum x beam maximum, as a rectangle - is for those small GRP cruisers that are eg 27' x 9'6".

 

The 9'6" bit is only around a foot long, most of the rest of the boat is under 7' beam.  Actual area would be better, but harder to calculate.  

 

Perhaps allowing boat shaped boats to have an area discount (subject to evidence - diagram, photos, measurements?) would work.  Fiddly to do, but only needs doing once per boat which qualifies.

 

They are free to sell their boat shaped boat and buy a box-shaped boat with a vaguely pointy front end, if they want to go on canals and optimise their internal space vs exterior dimensions.

[magnetman]

Displacement in other words mass of the object could be used but would need measuring stations which are more awkward for boat shaped boats than for normal narrow boats. 

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

 

They are free to sell their boat shaped boat and buy a box-shaped boat with a vaguely pointy front end, if they want to go on canals and optimise their internal space vs exterior dimensions.

 

Just like people who don't move at all can buy hideous rectangular boxes, maybe even without a pointy front end *or* an engine. Oh, hang on a minute...

[magnetman]

Hideosity is in the eye of the beholder. 

 

Personally I like boat shaped boats but some people want to pretend a boat is a house which I suppose is their prerogative. 

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Just like people who don't move at all can buy hideous rectangular boxes, maybe even without a pointy front end *or* an engine. Oh, hang on a minute...

 

I am not sure if you're describing houses or (static) caravans there.

[TheBiscuits]

8 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

They are free to sell their boat shaped boat and buy a box-shaped boat with a vaguely pointy front end, if they want to go on canals and optimise their internal space vs exterior dimensions.

 

Yeah, but some of them can barely afford the existing licence, so buying another boat would seem unlikely.  

[Paul C]

5 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Yeah, but some of them can barely afford the existing licence, so buying another boat would seem unlikely.  

 

If the licence fee is increased then this will render it unaffordable for some. That's inevitable. Its down to the previous strand, of "do we base licence cost on ability to pay?".

 

What is interesting, is that if the licence fee rises too much, it could force a disproportionate number of boaters off the canals, thus net income lowers rather than goes up. There is definitely a tipping point somewhere. However, a boat is a high-price investment, there is an inelasticity of demand.

[peterboat]

19 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

If the licence fee is increased then this will render it unaffordable for some. That's inevitable. Its down to the previous strand, of "do we base licence cost on ability to pay?".

 

What is interesting, is that if the licence fee rises too much, it could force a disproportionate number of boaters off the canals, thus net income lowers rather than goes up. There is definitely a tipping point somewhere. However, a boat is a high-price investment, there is an inelasticity of demand.

Exactly this^^^^^ I think CRT are going to get a nasty surprise about three quarters of the boats on our moorings arnt worth much, so scrapping them would be a profit for them and a loss for moorings and CRT

[LadyG]

3 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Exactly this^^^^^ I think CRT are going to get a nasty surprise about three quarters of the boats on our moorings arnt worth much, so scrapping them would be a profit for them and a loss for moorings and CRT

And some will be abandoned, even narrowboats are seen in a terrible state, plenty of ancient plastics must be worth a only few hundreds, and the outboards can be sold separately.

[Jon57]

16 minutes ago, LadyG said:

And some will be abandoned, even narrowboats are seen in a terrible state, plenty of ancient plastics must be worth a only few hundreds, and the outboards can be sold separately.

Plus the extra cost forCRT to remove them.  Trying to chase the owner for money, good luck with that.Can’t get blood out of a stone.

[PD1964]

23 minutes ago, LadyG said:

And some will be abandoned, even narrowboats are seen in a terrible state, plenty of ancient plastics must be worth a only few hundreds, and the outboards can be sold separately.

Or will they just find a large area they can evade CaRT enforcement officers, moor on riverbanks, travel by night and play cat’n’mouse for a few years?

[Jon57]

1 minute ago, PD1964 said:

Or will they just find a large area they can evade CaRT enforcement officers, moor on riverbanks, travel by night and play cat’n’mouse for a few years?

Like they do now you mean.

[Mad Harold]

28 minutes ago, LadyG said:

And some will be abandoned, even narrowboats are seen in a terrible state, plenty of ancient plastics must be worth a only few hundreds, and the outboards can be sold separately.

An abandoned yoghurt pot will not have an outboard for long!

It will be nicked PDQ.

[PD1964]

1 minute ago, Jon57 said:

Like they do now you mean.

Yes, but there will just be more of them keeping you awake at night on your quiet in the middle of nowhere mooring.

[Jon57]

Just now, PD1964 said:

Yes, but there will just be more of them keeping you awake at night on your quiet in the middle of nowhere mooring.

Deaf as post. Has it’s advantages. I can have a boat with a old thumper. That sounds to me to be electric at lot less than £200000 😜😜😜😜😜

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

Displacement in other words mass of the object could be used but would need measuring stations which are more awkward for boat shaped boats than for normal narrow boats. 

Quite how would you measure displacement - at least cost effectively?

[magnetman]

There must be a way of doing it in a lock but the boat would need to be dropped onto some sort of solid mounts before water was added in known amounts .

 

Maybe too complicated. 

 

 

Or straps attached to load cells and just let the water out until it is below the level of the boat then take a reading. a "non travel hoist". 

[peterboat]

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

There must be a way of doing it in a lock but the boat would need to be dropped onto some sort of solid mounts before water was added in known amounts .

 

Maybe too complicated. 

 

 

Or straps attached to load cells and just let the water out until it is below the level of the boat then take a reading. a "non travel hoist". 

You do know that locks leak like seives under CRT management?

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

14 minutes ago, magnetman said:

There must be a way of doing it in a lock but the boat would need to be dropped onto some sort of solid mounts before water was added in known amounts .

 

Maybe too complicated. 

 

 

Or straps attached to load cells and just let the water out until it is below the level of the boat then take a reading. a "non travel hoist". 

The Caissons at the Anderson Lift would suffice. 
 

 

If only they were working ☹️

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

 

If the licence fee is increased then this will render it unaffordable for some. That's inevitable. Its down to the previous strand, of "do we base licence cost on ability to pay?".

 

What is interesting, is that if the licence fee rises too much, it could force a disproportionate number of boaters off the canals, thus net income lowers rather than goes up. There is definitely a tipping point somewhere. However, a boat is a high-price investment, there is an inelasticity of demand.

CRT claims that this is already happening in a small way. A while ago they reported that the number of licenced boats had reduced by 300 and this could not be explained by a rise in inflation.

 

They also reported an increasing number of boaters taking out 3 and 6 month licences rather than 12.