C&RT License Survey

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

35 minutes ago, David Mack said:

A better definition of the water used is the volume of water which it is necessary to add to the upper pound, to restore that pound to its original level. And if the lock is returned to its original state, that will be equal to the volume of water which flows over the overflow weir on the lower pound (if it isn't used for lockage at the next lock down).

Right, I think I understand again,

I’ve visualised coming down the Marsden flight where the pounds are so short and small one has to fill the lock ahead before emptying the lock above, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mike Todd]

56 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

Right, I think I understand again,

I’ve visualised coming down the Marsden flight where the pounds are so short and small one has to fill the lock ahead before emptying the lock above, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, at lst, we are getting a mor sensible perspective. The debate so far is overshadowed by the realities of: meeting locks that ar4e set 'against' the boat, not being able to  catch before throw, pounds that are already full and running weir, in-a-rush merchants who draw just as you are about to leave the previous lock etc etc. All of these can consume a lot of water not to mention the crazy folk who open paddles for a laugh.

[TheBiscuits]

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

not to mention the crazy folk who open paddles for a laugh.

 

Volunteer lock keepers?

 

[ditchcrawler]

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Now, at lst, we are getting a mor sensible perspective. The debate so far is overshadowed by the realities of: meeting locks that ar4e set 'against' the boat, not being able to  catch before throw, pounds that are already full and running weir, in-a-rush merchants who draw just as you are about to leave the previous lock etc etc. All of these can consume a lot of water not to mention the crazy folk who open paddles for a laugh.

How about the one we met today, boat in lock going down and all 4 paddles up.

[MtB]

17 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

How about the one we met today, boat in lock going down and all 4 paddles up.

 

 

Presumably it stopped going down, perhaps about half way....

 

 

DAMHIK.

 

 

[IanD]

11 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Presumably it stopped going down, perhaps about half way....

 

DAMHIK.

 

 

Another way to waste water is to open the top paddles to fill a lock while not noticing that the badly-balanced bottom gate that you just closed has drifted completely open. DAMHIK.

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

The pound above was still draining when Diana pointed out the problem, this was when we left to go to the top lock, slid a bit.

11 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

Presumably it stopped going down, perhaps about half way....

 

 

DAMHIK.

 

 

If we hadn't been there he would have got out just after the pound above emptied 

Edited December 19, 2023 by ditchcrawler
Photo didn't load

[davidg]

On 16/12/2023 at 14:06, peterboat said:

Less water per lock cycle I am afraid, they displace more water so less water must be used, I say this because I cant remember the last time I saw 2 narrowboats sharing a lock! Iproduced the evidence the last time this came up and can again. So in reality maybe they should pay less?

 

As the person who derailed this thread by objecting to this and subsequent similar claims I will attempt to put this to bed so contributors can get back to discussing the Schleswig-Holstein question. Some of this will be repeating what others have said and some of it is down to semantics, I hope that most (all? ...please) will be motherhood & apple pie*:

 

First a definition: water used is the amount of water which must be added to a pound to maintain the water level. This is all the reservoir keepers (when such a thing existed) care about: how hard and for how long do I have to turn the valve on for?

 

Secondly, said reservoir keepers don't care if the pound is full of water or 99% full of boat shaped holes in the water, so long as the remaining 1% of water keeps that gauge out of the red they can stay in bed.

 

Part the third: when a lock is operated the amount of water which flows through the paddle holes is w x l x h and is independent of what is in the lock. Please don't argue with this, it just is. If you do wish to argue I'll leave it to others, I can't be bothered to waste my time drawing pictures etc.

 

Next a digression from locks: imagine a pound with a boat in it. Draw a line across the pound in front of the boat, one side of the line where the boat is side a, other side of the line where the boat isn't is side b. Boat moves from a to b. a now contains more water, b contains less water.

 

Does the lock keeper have to get out of bed to top b up? No, he doesn't because the boat shaped hole in the water occupies the same volume as the water which isn't there.

 

a contains more water but does it run over the weir? No it doesn't, because the extra water fills the boat shaped hole which previously existed.

 

Amazing how that works out isn't it? Does the boat “use” water by moving from a to b? Not by the definition in part 1, the reservoir keeper hasn’t had to do anything to maintain the water levels.

 

Part 4: If a boat is worked through a lock then a boat shaped hole in the water will be transferred from one side of the lock to another. First the boat enters the lock and the gates are closed, the boat shaped hole in the water is now in the lock but the water levels in the lock chamber and the pound are exactly as they were before the boat entered. No reservoir keepers will be troubled by this. After filling (or emptying) the lock, tipping wxlxh litres of water through the lock (which will trouble the reservoir keeper) the gates can be opened and the boat can move out of the chamber. Now the boat shaped hole in the water is in the other pound but again, neither the level of water in the lock chamber nor the level in the pound have been altered by the act of the boat being moved out of the lock and the reservoir keeper can go back to bed.

 

There is now less water in the pound the boat has entered (and more water in the pound it has left) but that water has been replaced by the boat shaped hole in the water (or the boat shaped hole in the water has been filled by water).

 

What all of this means is that everyone is right. Yay!

 

For the crack-the-egg-at-the-blunt-enders there is less water in the pound the boat now occupies and more in the pound the boat formerly occupied (so by this definition of water “used” larger/heavier boats should pay more for a licence when going up, and less when going down).

 

For the crack-the-egg-at-the sharp-enders the reservoir keeper doesn’t care whether there are boats or water in the pound, all they care about is how much extra water is needed to maintain the water level which is wxlxh regardless of the size or number of boats worked through a lock.

 

So, is everyone happy?

 

*Things we can all agree on, Carver Mead 1981

[Mike Todd]

15 minutes ago, davidg said:

 

As the person who derailed this thread by objecting to this and subsequent similar claims I will attempt to put this to bed so contributors can get back to discussing the Schleswig-Holstein question. Some of this will be repeating what others have said and some of it is down to semantics, I hope that most (all? ...please) will be motherhood & apple pie*:

 

 

 

First a definition: water used is the amount of water which must be added to a pound to maintain the water level. This is all the reservoir keepers (when such a thing existed) care about: how hard and for how long do I have to turn the valve on for?

 

 

 

Secondly, said reservoir keepers don't care if the pound is full of water or 99% full of boat shaped holes in the water, so long as the remaining 1% of water keeps that gauge out of the red they can stay in bed.

 

 

 

Part the third: when a lock is operated the amount of water which flows through the paddle holes is w x l x h and is independent of what is in the lock. Please don't argue with this, it just is. If you do wish to argue I'll leave it to others, I can't be bothered to waste my time drawing pictures etc.

 

 

 

Next a digression from locks: imagine a pound with a boat in it. Draw a line across the pound in front of the boat, one side of the line where the boat is side a, other side of the line where the boat isn't is side b. Boat moves from a to b. a now contains more water, b contains less water.

 

 

 

Does the lock keeper have to get out of bed to top b up? No, he doesn't because the boat shaped hole in the water occupies the same volume as the water which isn't there.

 

 

 

a contains more water but does it run over the weir? No it doesn't, because the extra water fills the boat shaped hole which previously existed.

 

 

 

Amazing how that works out isn't it? Does the boat “use” water by moving from a to b? Not by the definition in part 1, the reservoir keeper hasn’t had to do anything to maintain the water levels.

 

 

 

Part 4: If a boat is worked through a lock then a boat shaped hole in the water will be transferred from one side of the lock to another. First the boat enters the lock and the gates are closed, the boat shaped hole in the water is now in the lock but the water levels in the lock chamber and the pound are exactly as they were before the boat entered. No reservoir keepers will be troubled by this. After filling (or emptying) the lock, tipping wxlxh litres of water through the lock (which will trouble the reservoir keeper) the gates can be opened and the boat can move out of the chamber. Now the boat shaped hole in the water is in the other pound but again, neither the level of water in the lock chamber nor the level in the pound have been altered by the act of the boat being moved out of the lock and the reservoir keeper can go back to bed.

 

 

There is now less water in the pound the boat has entered (and more water in the pound it has left) but that water has been replaced by the boat shaped hole in the water (or the boat shaped hole in the water has been filled by water).

 

 

What all of this means is that everyone is right. Yay!

 

 

For the crack-the-egg-at-the-blunt-enders there is less water in the pound the boat now occupies and more in the pound the boat formerly occupied (so by this definition of water “used” larger/heavier boats should pay more for a licence when going up, and less when going down).

 

 

For the crack-the-egg-at-the sharp-enders the reservoir keeper doesn’t care whether there are boats or water in the pound, all they care about is how much extra water is needed to maintain the water level which is wxlxh regardless of the size or number of boats worked through a lock.

 

 

So, is everyone happy?

 

 

*Things we can all agree on, Carver Mead 1981

 

I think I can recall, perhaps five years or mroe ago, seeing a lock that works just as you imagine but not since. Do you know how they actually behave?

[ditchcrawler]

If you lifted all the boat out of the water at once and put them on hard standing how much would the water level fall by.

[magnetman]

The CRT need to be paying people with Boats rather than charging money because of there were no Boats there would be no canal and the only reason the CRT exist is because of the canal.

 

 

 

By getting rid of the Boats they lose all their customers NOT !

[Colin Brendan]

On 17/12/2023 at 13:56, magnetman said:

Its odd that some people seem to think canals should be exempt from market forces. 

 

I don't understand why this is. 

 

The Pasta in Lidl was 29p about 18 months ago now its 41p. 

 

This is how it works. Canal licences have been too cheap for too long. 

 

Nobody wants to pay more but in the end if the CRT want to have more money there is not a lot you can do if you want to stay on their water. You could go unlicensed but then you put yourself in the S8 bracket and they can nab the boat then you really are screwed. 

 

 

 

 

 

As said you cut your coat according to your cloth. If you actually can't afford it there is a welfare state which can assist. 

There are many things that are not subject to market pressures. Many public assets are deliberately exempt or buffered from these pressures because it is generally recognised that an unrestricted market disproportionately favours wealthy people and screws over others people. A lot of common land is exempt from market pressures. I imagine you yourself benefit from public assets that are not subject to market pressure - perhaps the NHS for example! I guess the canal is public/common land even if CRT manage it on behalf of the public - so the idea that common land like public parks and the canal should be subject to unchecked market pressures is a worrying one. The canals are an asset that fell into disrepair, revived largely by voluntary and public effort - I cannot think of a better case for free market pressure exemption.

 

Saying that people can rely on the social state is a fallacy(i wish it wasnt!). You may have found yourself in the fortunate position of state/dwp funded mooring and license, but I think you are the exception, not the rule. I know of many instances where people are being denied financial support by dwp, and many instances where this struggle has become so difficult that people give up. Saying that people can rely on the welfare state is often used as justification for introducing unfair market pressures. It is fine on paper, but often or perhaps rarely translates to the real world. There is a strong possibility that the welfare state will only be reduced in future.

 

Generally when people argue 'life is tough, get used to it', they actually mean 'your life is tough - get used to it (I'm alright jack)'

[Willonaboat]

20 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

There is a strong possibility that the welfare state will only be reduced in future.

 

Au contraire, there is a strong possibility that the welfare state will only be increased in future by way of a Universal Basic Income. This has already been trialled in many countries: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/19/21112570/universal-basic-income-ubi-map

...including the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/04/universal-basic-income-of-1600-pounds-a-month-to-be-trialled-in-england

 

The increased national expenditure (and borrowing) isn't a problem according to supporters of Modern Monetary Theory: https://www.investopedia.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-4588060  I don't agree.

 

As for "Generally when people argue 'life is tough, get used to it', they actually mean 'your life is tough - get used to it (I'm alright jack)' "...

 

Life was very tough for me as a youngster but I got off my a$$ and worked my fingers to the bone to try to get myself into a better position. And I did. So forgive me if I have little sympathy for those who sit on their backsides doing nothing and then moan about how tough their life is. Spare me! I support measures to encourage and ultimately insist that those relying on handouts get off their backsides and work for a living, unless they are clearly disabled in some way that prevents them from doing so.

[magnetman]

Good points. I don't disagree but if you want to treat canals like parks, which I think is a Very Good Idea, you have to sort out what is going on with land use. 

 

Nobody is allowed to live in a park, or on common land. If people turn up to do this and place items on the land they are generally frowned upon and cleared often with force .

 

 

I agree that canals should be protected status but why would this status include the ability for people to live on the land (a canal is land with water on it) at very low cost ? 

 

So are you arguing that the ability to adopt a low cost lifestyle by living on public land should be protected from market forces or that the canals themselves should be protected from market forces. Or both? 

 

What is happening is that people are living in a public park. It makes no difference if there is water or not because the canals no longer have a PRN status and are simply tracts of land. 

 

To put it another way do you think people should be allowed to live a low cost lifestyle (direct personal financial gain) in parks or on common land ? 

 

 

[peterboat]

7 minutes ago, Willonaboat said:

 

Au contraire, there is a strong possibility that the welfare state will only be increased in future by way of a Universal Basic Income. This has already been trialled in many countries: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/19/21112570/universal-basic-income-ubi-map

...including the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/04/universal-basic-income-of-1600-pounds-a-month-to-be-trialled-in-england

 

The increased national expenditure (and borrowing) isn't a problem according to supporters of Modern Monetary Theory: https://www.investopedia.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-4588060  I don't agree.

 

As for "Generally when people argue 'life is tough, get used to it', they actually mean 'your life is tough - get used to it (I'm alright jack)' "...

 

Life was very tough for me as a youngster but I got off my a$$ and worked my fingers to the bone to try to get myself into a better position. And I did. So forgive me if I have little sympathy for those who sit on their backsides doing nothing and then moan about how tough their life is. Spare me! I support measures to encourage and ultimately insist that those relying on handouts get off their backsides and work for a living, unless they are clearly disabled in some way that prevents them from doing so.

Never happen 

[magnetman]

5 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Never happen 

Its inevitable over time it will happen.

[MtB]

13 minutes ago, magnetman said:

To put it another way do you think people should be allowed to live a low cost lifestyle (direct personal financial gain) in parks or on common land ? 

 

 

There seems to be quite a large body of opinion amongst boaters that yes, they should.

 

Mostly amongst the boaters already doing this. 

 

 

[peterboat]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Its inevitable over time it will happen.

No it won't, who does Jayne work for? I asked her about it, she said the costing was horrific so it wont happen 

[magnetman]

It will have to happen due to automation.

 

It won't be an option to not do this.

 

You'd get societal collapse. 

 

Not tomorrow but it is coming.

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder why Housing Benefit is now called Universal Credit. 

 

Don't forget all the tittle tattle in the news about benefits and reduction thereof is just the Tory party looking for swinging voters. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Willonaboat]

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It will have to happen due to automation.

 

It won't be an option to not do this.

 

You'd get societal collapse. 

 

Not tomorrow but it is coming.

 

I wonder why Housing Benefit is now called Universal Credit. 

 

Don't forget all the tittle tattle in the news about benefits and reduction thereof is just the Tory party looking for swinging voters. 

 

 

It's good to know there's someone else on my page.

[Riverdee]

Someone wrote an email to the Waterways Magazine saying if walkers, cyclists and other visitors would pay £1 CRT's funding problem would disappear.

Great point in my opinion.

[MtB]

26 minutes ago, Riverdee said:

Someone wrote an email to the Waterways Magazine saying if walkers, cyclists and other visitors would pay £1 CRT's funding problem would disappear.

Great point in my opinion.

 

Indeed. 380,000,000 visits a year are (or were) claimed by CRT. 

 

£1 each coincidentally nearly matches the £400m shortfall! 

 

 

[magnetman]

Thats a lot of visitors. 

 

More than a million a day. Pretty impressive. 

 

Could the CRT sell ice creams? Good markup on these. 

 

Ice cream guy could also be the canal bank manager for his zone and patrol it with a Purdey. 

 

[Captain Pegg]

Isn’t CRT’s current level of direct grant broadly equivalent to £1 per head of the entire UK population?

[MtB]

Just now, Captain Pegg said:

Isn’t CRT’s current level of direct grant broadly equivalent to £1 per head of the entire UK population?

 

I don't think so, given the official population is 68m.

 

Unofficial opinions are we are well over 70m, and the housing shortage appears to support this view.