George Ward evicted.

[Victor Vectis]

24 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Paper stops alpha emitters

 

Yeahbut.....

 

What about stone and scissors?

Edited June 10, 2023 by Victor Vectis

[Heartland]

There is an argument for breaking up the CRT network into local areas 

 

How about

 

Ashby Canal

Basingstoke Canal

Birmingham Canal Navigations

Chesterfield Canal

Fossdyke

Grand Union Canal

Huddersfield Canal

Kennet & Avon Canal

Lancaster Canal

Leeds & Liverpool Canal

Macclesfield Canal

Peak Forest Canal

Rochdale Canal

Severn Navigation

Shropshire Union Canal

Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal

Trent Navigation

Trent & Mersey Canal

Weaver Navigation

etc etc

 

 

[Ray T]

Just now, Heartland said:

There is an argument for breaking up the CRT network into local areas 

 

How about

 

Ashby Canal

Basingstoke Canal

Birmingham Canal Navigations

Chesterfield Canal

Fossdyke

Grand Union Canal

Huddersfield Canal

Kennet & Avon Canal

Lancaster Canal

Leeds & Liverpool Canal

Macclesfield Canal

Peak Forest Canal

Rochdale Canal

Severn Navigation

Shropshire Union Canal

Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal

Trent Navigation

Trent & Mersey Canal

Weaver Navigation

etc etc

 

 

 

Now there's a thought.

 

How about installing stop locks, tolls and toll keepers and give them a cottage to live in! 😁

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Ray T said:

 

Now there's a thought.

 

How about installing stop locks, tolls and toll keepers and give them a cottage to live in! 😁

Great idea -- shouldn't cost more than a few tens of millions a year (plus who knows how much to buy all the lock cottages back), and all paid for by boaters -- a win-win for CART... 😉

[magnetman]

I don't think one would need the land property. All you would need to do would allow a boat to be moored at a suitable location and the person on the boat can be keeping an eye on their territory. The actual collection of tolls could easily be automated.

 

It wouldn't cost all that much because there will always be a local boater who would firstly like to have a mooring and secondly like their patch to be free of problems.

 

Giving people with a vested interest in the place being pleasant a significant amount of control over whether it is pleasant is likely to result in it being more pleasant.

 

Just a theory. These days with the number of volunteers placed in jobs of responsibility I doubt it would cost as much as it might seem to implement a regional toll system on canals.

 

The toll would be charged for the amount of time you are present on the length of waterway in question. Nothing to do with whether you are moving just whether you are present in the zone.

 

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

17 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I don't think one would need the land property. All you would need to do would allow a boat to be moored at a suitable location and the person on the boat can be keeping an eye on their territory. The actual collection of tolls could easily be automated.

 

It wouldn't cost all that much because there will always be a local boater who would firstly like to have a mooring and secondly like their patch to be free of problems.

 

Giving people with a vested interest in the place being pleasant a significant amount of control over whether it is pleasant is likely to result in it being more pleasant.

 

Just a theory. These days with the number of volunteers placed in jobs of responsibility I doubt it would cost as much as it might seem to implement a regional toll system on canals.

 

The toll would be charged for the amount of time you are present on the length of waterway in question. Nothing to do with whether you are moving just whether you are present in the zone.

 

 

However giving the job of controlling boaters and collecting tolls to a local boater who *wants* to do it may lead to the proliferation of jobsworths who take delight in exercising nitpicking control over other people -- like some volockies but with far more power... 😉

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Heartland said:

There is an argument for breaking up the CRT network into local areas 

So what is that argument? How would the new scheme work? How much revenue would it bring in compared with the current system, and how much would it cost to administer? How would the scheme be better for CRT or boaters or anybody else?

29 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

The toll would be charged for the amount of time you are present on the length of waterway in question. Nothing to do with whether you are moving just whether you are present in the zone.

So it would still be a time-based licence fee, rather than charging for distance travelled or the number of locks passed through? Except there would be more administration required to check that each boater is making the correct declaration when passing from one area to another. How would this be any better than the current system?

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, David Mack said:

So what is that argument? How would the new scheme work? How much revenue would it bring in compared with the current system, and how much would it cost to administer? How would the scheme be better for CRT or boaters or anybody else?

So it would still be a time-based licence fee, rather than charging for distance travelled or the number of locks passed through? Except there would be more administration required to check that each boater is making the correct declaration when passing from one area to another. How would this be any better than the current system?

It would employ more people and extract more money from boaters... 😉

[BEngo]

14 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

However giving the job of controlling boaters and collecting tolls to a local boater who *wants* to do it may lead to the proliferation of jobsworths who take delight in exercising nitpicking control over other people -- like some volockies but with far more power... 😉

BW tried something similar, with mooring wardens for  towpath and BW offside moorings.  The wardens received a discount on the mooring charges.  Wnlhen it came to their notice.  HMRC promptly identified them all as BW employees and wanted tax and NI paid on the value of the mooring rebate. BW abandoned the idea smartly.

 

N

[Mike Adams]

Perhaps we are reaching a point when all boats should be fitted with a GPS location tag.Whilst I consider it big brother it would bring some benefits such as contacting boats in a locality if there is a stoppage and monitoring craft that abuse the conditions of the licence. You could get rid of all those towpath boat spotters and introduce charges that reflect individual boaters usage. It could also inform is there was a mooring space at a particular location or if a wide boat was heading towards you on a narrow canal. I have found that the AIS system installed on Ships is incredibly useful when crossing the channel in a small boat. 

[ditchcrawler]

Just now, Mike Adams said:

Perhaps we are reaching a point when all boats should be fitted with a GPS location tag.Whilst I consider it big brother it would bring some benefits such as contacting boats in a locality if there is a stoppage and monitoring craft that abuse the conditions of the licence. You could get rid of all those towpath boat spotters and introduce charges that reflect individual boaters usage. It could also inform is there was a mooring space at a particular location or if a wide boat was heading towards you on a narrow canal. I have found that the AIS system installed on Ships is incredibly useful when crossing the channel in a small boat. 

But you need the power on all the time

 

[Arthur Marshall]

5 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

Perhaps we are reaching a point when all boats should be fitted with a GPS location tag.Whilst I consider it big brother it would bring some benefits such as contacting boats in a locality if there is a stoppage and monitoring craft that abuse the conditions of the licence. You could get rid of all those towpath boat spotters and introduce charges that reflect individual boaters usage. It could also inform is there was a mooring space at a particular location or if a wide boat was heading towards you on a narrow canal. I have found that the AIS system installed on Ships is incredibly useful when crossing the channel in a small boat. 

It's almost compulsory in real life already. Without your smartphone, it's hard to park, get a train, buy petrol in some places, access services. And the phone relays your position.

But it wouldn't work, of course. Boats without would be just as invisible and untraceable as they are now, more so in fact.

[ditchcrawler]

15 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

Perhaps we are reaching a point when all boats should be fitted with a GPS location tag.Whilst I consider it big brother it would bring some benefits such as contacting boats in a locality if there is a stoppage and monitoring craft that abuse the conditions of the licence. You could get rid of all those towpath boat spotters and introduce charges that reflect individual boaters usage. It could also inform is there was a mooring space at a particular location or if a wide boat was heading towards you on a narrow canal. I have found that the AIS system installed on Ships is incredibly useful when crossing the channel in a small boat. 

You also have to consider the Data protection act if you give other people access to the tracking information

[magnetman]

I believe there is quite a large cohort who think that canals should be exempt from normal systems imposed on human societies by those that govern. It could be a free for all and everyone would be happy. 

 

It is an interesting argument but as the canals arrr by definition enclosed within land borders it seems sensible to operate and control them in a similar way as one would with a local amenity such as a park or a public swimming bath. 

 

More controls needed to bring 

the non-compliant into line. Hit them hard. 

 

Don't give in to the attitude problem squatters because this will lead to negative outcomes. They don't care about the place at all. If it all goes pear shaped they will be gone like a long dog somewhere else. 

 

There should be zero tolerance policies on items placed on towpath land for a start. Not acceptable. Then we are going to hit the licence evaders with hammers. 

 

If nobody sorts this there is trouble coming.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 12, 2023 by magnetman
Typo

[magpie patrick]

3 hours ago, Heartland said:

There is an argument for breaking up the CRT network into local areas 

 

 

Why bother? I've mentioned in the past that, pro-rata with other navigation authorities CRT are charging for about 40 miles of canal and giving you the rest free - if they were to charge pro-rata the licence fee for a 45 foot narrow boat would be north of £60k per annum - if there's a sure-fire way of finishing off the canals that's it. 

 

If you broke up the canal system into 40 mile chunks, the licence fee for each chunk would be about the same as the current licence fee, and a surcharge for visiting other zones would very quickly make sure no one did so.

[magnetman]

3 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

Why bother? I've mentioned in the past that, pro-rata with other navigation authorities CRT are charging for about 40 miles of canal and giving you the rest free - if they were to charge pro-rata the licence fee for a 45 foot narrow boat would be north of £60k per annum - if there's a sure-fire way of finishing off the canals that's it. 

 

If you broke up the canal system into 40 mile chunks, the licence fee for each chunk would be about the same as the current licence fee, and a surcharge for visiting other zones would very quickly make sure no one did so.

 

I think a lot of people would pay more to use waterways. 

 

Did you know people pay £100 a week to go on the river Wey? 

 

I don't know what the traffic density is like but when I have been there it has seemed quite popular. 

 

Yes some canals would be lost but surely this is inevitable in the current climate anyway isn't it ?

Edited June 12, 2023 by magnetman
Typo

[ditchcrawler]

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Did you know people pay £100 a week to go on the river Wey?  

But not many pay that much 52 weeks of the year, I have been on the Wey 3 times in 30 years, I doubt I will do it again just like the Basingstoke 

I will probably pay and arm and a leg for a week on the Avon this year, but I wouldn't pay that much every week

Edited June 12, 2023 by ditchcrawler

[magpie patrick]

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

I think a lot of people would pay more to use waterways. 

 

 I think they'd pay more, but the way to maximise this is an overall increase not splitting the system up. There are one or two exceptions but generally charges as you describe only work for the really desirable waterways. Plenty of boats based on CRT waterways pay to use the Avon and "do the ring", very few on the Avon pay for a CRT licence to "do the ring"

[magnetman]

If a waterway isn't 'really desirable' is there a particular reason why it should be supported by general funds? 

 

I would have thought that was a good argument for regional tolls. 

 

Is it a good idea for canals in strong demand to support those without demand? 

 

This seems a bit of a drain on resources. 

 

 

I feel that in future there are going to be problems with funding of canals and it may be better to reinforce those which people actually like using and if necessary allow others to close. 

 

 

[David Mack]

31 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

But not many pay that much 52 weeks of the year

A maximum of £361 per year for an annual licence, or around £7 per week.

[ditchcrawler]

22 minutes ago, David Mack said:

A maximum of £361 per year for an annual licence, or around £7 per week.

But you cant just visit for a week and pay £7, it was referring to the £100

[magpie patrick]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

If a waterway isn't 'really desirable' is there a particular reason why it should be supported by general funds? 

 

I would have thought that was a good argument for regional tolls. 

 

Is it a good idea for canals in strong demand to support those without demand? 

 

This seems a bit of a drain on resources. 

 

 

I feel that in future there are going to be problems with funding of canals and it may be better to reinforce those which people actually like using and if necessary allow others to close. 

 

 

 

The honey pot waterways that can get away with "£100 for a week" are short and relatively easy to maintain, they also have a lot of volunteers. This model doesn't scale up.

 

The Llangollen is probably the number one canal - it has two large aqueducts, three tunnels and a cut across a bog (Whixall Moss), it is also dependent on traffic from adjoining waterways. Those adjoining waterways have major embankments and long tunnels. They're expensive to maintain and a regular source of stoppages and maintenance expenditure. The Trent and Mersey is very popular but runs short of water on a regular basis. The Llangollen would doubtless suffer the same fate if it wasn't Chester's water supply. 

 

Meanwhile the really quiet bits are the northern reaches of the BCN which don't have any of these issues, they just need dredging. 

 

For what you're trying to achieve we need to look at revenue and maintenance expenditure, and unfortunately the most popular bits also have the biggest liabilities. 

 

If you want to apply profit and loss be careful, the outcome might not be what you'd expect, especially if someone works out that all those boats won't just magically disappear - the logical conclusion of that is to close the expensive bits to maintain and offer discounted licenses on the cheaper bits. I hope you enjoy the Wyrley and Essington when it gets busy.

[Tonka]

6 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

The honey pot waterways that can get away with "£100 for a week" are short and relatively easy to maintain, they also have a lot of volunteers. This model doesn't scale up.

 

The Llangollen is probably the number one canal - it has two large aqueducts, three tunnels and a cut across a bog (Whixall Moss), it is also dependent on traffic from adjoining waterways. Those adjoining waterways have major embankments and long tunnels. They're expensive to maintain and a regular source of stoppages and maintenance expenditure. The Trent and Mersey is very popular but runs short of water on a regular basis. The Llangollen would doubtless suffer the same fate if it wasn't Chester's water supply. 

 

Meanwhile the really quiet bits are the northern reaches of the BCN which don't have any of these issues, they just need dredging. 

 

For what you're trying to achieve we need to look at revenue and maintenance expenditure, and unfortunately the most popular bits also have the biggest liabilities. 

 

If you want to apply profit and loss be careful, the outcome might not be what you'd expect, especially if someone works out that all those boats won't just magically disappear - the logical conclusion of that is to close the expensive bits to maintain and offer discounted licenses on the cheaper bits. I hope you enjoy the Wyrley and Essington when it gets busy.

When the Lichfield Link opens then the curly wurly will be busy

[IanD]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

If a waterway isn't 'really desirable' is there a particular reason why it should be supported by general funds? 

 

I would have thought that was a good argument for regional tolls. 

 

Is it a good idea for canals in strong demand to support those without demand? 

 

This seems a bit of a drain on resources. 

 

I feel that in future there are going to be problems with funding of canals and it may be better to reinforce those which people actually like using and if necessary allow others to close. 

 

 

The problem is that some of the most popular canals -- like the Llangollen -- are also ones which many experienced boaters steer well clear of due to overcrowding, especially in summer.

 

Equally some of the canals that are enjoyed by intrepid boaters -- like the HNC and Rochdale -- are *far* more lightly used, about a twentieth of the Llangollen traffic IIRC. Even the L&L sees a tiny fraction of the traffic levels of the most popular canals.

 

If the only criteria was running cost vs. number of boats then at least half the canal system would close down, including many of the most spectacular sections which tend to be expensive to maintain because they have lots of locks. All that would be left is the sections most popular with hire boats, which I expect wouldn't please many people who post on CWDF... 😞

Edited June 12, 2023 by IanD

[MrsM]

3 hours ago, Mike Adams said:

You could get rid of all those towpath boat spotters and introduce charges that reflect individual boaters usage. 

Not sure I understand this. Do you mean the more someone travels around the system, the more they should pay? We are leisure boaters and are in a marina for about 7 months of the year - for which we pay a large fee - and are out cruising the system for the remaining 5 months. We do not overstay when moored and like to think we do not cause issues for others. Are you suggesting that our contribution should be higher than continual moorers who potentially squat on visitor moorings, litter the towpath and worse? It's a tricky one. I can see the point that we are using much more of the network, which needs to be maintained, but rewarding people that do not have a home mooring for not moving by charging them less would not make the canals a nicer place to be for anyone. Apologies if I have misunderstood (I'm good at doing that).

Edited June 12, 2023 by MrsM
Clarification