Roving boaters

[blackrose]

I used to think along the same lines as Naartji who's posted here, that we should all stick together. In an ideal world that's how it would be. However I've realised that isn't the mindset of the majority of inland waterways boaters in this country so now I don't really give a cr@p who's getting clobbered.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

15 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I expect that the number of CCers who do genuinely spend a lot of time cruising the system has not gone up that much in the last 10 years or so. However the number of boats registered as CCers has gone up a lot over this period (CART figures, not guesswork), and it seems likely that many of these are CMers who primarily want to live in or close to one place without paying for a mooring, not cruise round the system.

conjecture again,

based on god knows what,

certainly not experience 

 

in my experience I see there are a lot more people living on boats and moving around plenty enough,

and more are dumping their boats and leaving them unattended 

 

this is over the past two years of basing myself around the BCN, staff and Worcester, Trent and Mersey, and the Shroppie. I’ve travelled it well and repeatedly, I know the area well enough to judge. 
 

In all that area I could count maybe a dozen who appear to always be in the same place

Plus I’ve had a few

holidays down the Ashby and up the Trent, Leicester Arm Grand Union and so on. 
 

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, blackrose said:

I used to think along the same lines as Naartji who's posted here, that we should all stick together. In an ideal world that's how it would be. However I've realised that isn't the mindset of the majority of inland waterways boaters in this country so now I don't really give a cr@p who's getting clobbered.

same here,

not really bothered anymore,

seems like the loonies haven taken over the nut house,

 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by beerbeerbeerbeerbeer

[magnetman]

4 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

conjecture again,

based on god knows what,

certainly not experience 

 

 

 

To be fair @IanD does spend time cycling along very busy parts of towpaths which are rammed full of boats 'without moorings' so he probably does have a grasp of the situation at least in London and the suburbs. 

 

It is ridiculous to say that the aim of most people with 'cc licence' is to travel around the country. This just isn't the case. It is a cheap no rent lifestyle and most people (not all) want or need to be in a defined geographical area. 

 

To suggest this isn't the case is silly. 

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, blackrose said:

I used to think along the same lines as Naartji who's posted here, that we should all stick together. In an ideal world that's how it would be. However I've realised that isn't the mindset of the majority of inland waterways boaters in this country so now I don't really give a cr@p who's getting clobbered.

 

So now *you're* dividing boaters into two categories; those like you who think we should all stick together (and pay the same), and those like me who think different boaters should pay different amounts -- and demonising the second group.

 

But division like this is what you're supposedly against, isn't it? 😉

Edited November 25, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

All that is happening is more and more people living on boats on canals without having fixed moorings. 

 

If one could do this with buses and coaches they would be in buses and coaches. Its just a loophole. Loopholes get closed .

 

 

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, magnetman said:

To be fair @IanD does spend time cycling along very busy parts of towpaths which are rammed full of boats 'without moorings' so he probably does have a grasp of the situation at least in London and the suburbs. 

 

It is ridiculous to say that the aim of most people with 'cc licence' is to travel around the country. This just isn't the case. It is a cheap no rent lifestyle and most people (not all) want or need to be in a defined geographical area. 

 

To suggest this isn't the case is silly. 

 

 

I've also seen every time I've been out boating -- which is never around here! -- that many short-term and VMs are filled with boats which are obviously overstaying or hardly moving, especially in popular areas -- and many other boaters have noticed this too (including locals who do follow the rules), it's not just my imagination. I also don't think that many members/supporters of the NBTA travel round the country, certainly going by every single bit of press coverage they get when the newspapers bring up this issue.

 

Claiming that many/most CCers nowadays behave like the CCers of old and spend a lot or most of their time cruising around the canal system -- which was why the original exemption from needing a home mooring was brought in -- is simply ignoring reality.

 

Yes there are still some -- including many on this forum -- who are "real CCers", but the statistics suggest they're now outnumbered by CMers... 😞

Edited November 25, 2023 by IanD

[cuthound]

16 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The error in the first para is in assuming we all moor in marinas. Many don't. We moor against the edge of the cut, just like continuous cruisers, the only difference being we stay in the same place (rather like a lot of continuous cruisers). Like a marina moorer, we pay a wodge to our landlord. Unlike the marina moorer, who pays to CRT an amount included in his rent, we pay direct to CRT. This IS an additional contribution to CRT. I really can't believe that some still don't accept this. But both types of moorers pay more than what their landlord would charge because CRT want a slice.

But the effect on the canal of an online moorer, whichever side they glue themselves to, is exactly the same (except that only the offside lot pays to CRT). And, judging by the number of CCers who rabbit on about moving as much as ten miles a fortnight (except in winter) , there really isn't much difference between them. I probably do more than that.

However, you are quite right that the licence fee is too low. It should be doubled and the EOG and charge to marinas scrapped. That would be fair on everyone, and we'd all pay the same to CRT, just like we did when I started this lark. If we wanted a mooring, we'd pay the landlord, same as now.

 

Indeed, I have an EoG mooring which costs about 70% of my licence fee. Other than being on the offside of the canal it offers nothing over mooring on the towpath side.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 hours ago, magnetman said:

To be fair @IanD does spend time cycling along very busy parts of towpaths which are rammed full of boats 'without moorings' so he probably does have a grasp of the situation at least in London and the suburbs. 

 

It is ridiculous to say that the aim of most people with 'cc licence' is to travel around the country. This just isn't the case. It is a cheap no rent lifestyle and most people (not all) want or need to be in a defined geographical area. 

 

To suggest this isn't the case is silly. 

 

 

 

 

yes, but it’s a very London centric view, and not necessarily what’s happening around the country,

 

and I’m not sure he stays anywhere long enough when boating to get a fair view on things,

 

anyway hoped my London trip is back on the cards for the spring, 

I shall find out for myself how bad it is down there 👇🏿

it’s been 10 yrs since I was last there

 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by 1st ade
Removal of swear word

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Indeed, I have an EoG mooring which costs about 70% of my licence fee. Other than being on the offside of the canal it offers nothing over mooring on the towpath side.

Surely it does, in that you can stay there as long as you want? Or are you comparing it to online moorers on the towpath side who also pay a fee to CART?

 

I do agree with Arthur though -- ignoring the "CCers use the system more so should pay more" argument that CART have put forward, for starters it would be fairer if everyone (with the same size boat!) paid the same total amount to CART, and that "landlord rent" was on top of this. To keep CART income unchanged the license fee would go up as a result because of the loss of EOG and marina fees to CART, but everyone would then pay the same for the opportunity to use the canals -- which is fairer, isn't it?

 

Logical though this is, my suspicion is that if CART did this marina fees wouldn't suddenly drop by 9% because the marinas would pocket some (or all) of the money that currently goes to CART... 😞

 

Whether CCers should also pay more because they use the system more and cost more in checking/enforcement and how much boats of different widths/lengths should pay are separate arguments to be had... 😉

Edited November 25, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

None of this matters anyway because 

 

 

Dr Sunak with his extra quality stethoscope is going to put an end to it anyway. 

 

 

We're on borrowed time..

 

Anyone want to set up a canalside scrap yard? We'll be rich beyond the dreams of Everest. 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

think I’ve addressed the repeated question here in my earlier response.

 

I agree, we are going around in circles with totally opposite views of what C&RT can do with licence fees.

 

You think that there is some external, independent, overarching authority that has to approve / reject C&RTs proposals on licence fees.

I think that the control of licence fees is totally 'in house' (if you consider the Council to be part of the CART organisation)

 

We will never agree so lets agree to disagree.

[cuthound]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Surely it does, in that you can stay there as long as you want? Or are you comparing it to online moorers on the towpath side who also pay a fee to CART?

 

I do agree with Arthur though -- ignoring the "CCers use the system more so should pay more" argument that CART have put forward, for starters it would be fairer if everyone (with the same size boat!) paid the same total amount to CART, and that "landlord rent" was on top of this. To keep CART income unchanged the license fee would go up as a result because of the loss of EOG and marina fees to CART, but everyone would then pay the same for the opportunity to use the canals -- which is fairer, isn't it?

 

Logical though this is, my suspicion is that if CART did this marina fees wouldn't suddenly drop by 9% because the marinas would pocket some (or all) of the money that currently goes to CART... 😞

 

Whether CCers should also pay more because they use the system more and cost more in checking/enforcement and how much boats of different widths/lengths should pay are separate arguments to be had... 😉

 

Yes it does allow me to stay there indefinitely, should I choose to, and I don't begrudge paying the fee because it is still cheaper than mooring in a marina. I do wonder what rights I have to evict someone should I return home from a cruise to find someone on my mooring...

 

In an ideal world I would genuinely CC like @beerbeerbeerbeerbeer but it isn't worth getting divorced for

 

Perhaps the answer to the "CCers use the facilities more" is to charge everyone the same licence, charge those who want a mooring and charge for water, elsan disposal etc? The premium for widebeams seems fair to me, after all I pay to take up space on the water so if they have a bigger (area wise) boat, why shouldn't they?

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, magnetman said:

None of this matters anyway because 

 

 

Dr Sunak with his extra quality stethoscope is going to put an end to it anyway. 

 

 

We're on borrowed time..

 

Anyone want to set up a canalside scrap yard? We'll be rich beyond the dreams of Everest. 

 

Place your bets on how many of those five priorities Sunak will actually be able to deliver. My money's on none, but let's see... 😉

 

13 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Yes it does allow me to stay there indefinitely, should I choose to, and I don't begrudge paying the fee because it is still cheaper than mooring in a marina. I do wonder what rights I have to evict someone should I return home from a cruise to find someone on my mooring...

 

In an ideal world I would genuinely CC like @beerbeerbeerbeerbeer but it isn't worth getting divorced for

 

Perhaps the answer to the "CCers use the facilities more" is to charge everyone the same licence, charge those who want a mooring and charge for water, elsan disposal etc? The premium for widebeams seems fair to me, after all I pay to take up space on the water so if they have a bigger (area wise) boat, why shouldn't they?

 

 

I think CART's argument is not just that genuine CCers "use the facilities (water, elsan...) more" (because they probably don't...), but that they use all the expensive-to-maintain-for-navigation-which-wear-out bits like locks and paddles more by travelling a lot further. And they also argue that checking and enforcing that CCers follow the movement rules costs CART a lot more than for home moorers.

 

Both of these could easily be used as justification for an even bigger "CC surcharge" than currently proposed... 😞

 

As with widebeams, the problem for many boaters is that these changes will end up with *their* license fee going up by more than some other boaters, which they object to -- regardless of whether the changes make the system "fairer" or not...

Edited November 25, 2023 by IanD

[Captain Pegg]

15 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Yes it does allow me to stay there indefinitely, should I choose to, and I don't begrudge paying the fee because it is still cheaper than mooring in a marina. I do wonder what rights I have to evict someone should I return home from a cruise to find someone on my mooring...

 

In an ideal world I would genuinely CC like @beerbeerbeerbeerbeer but it isn't worth getting divorced for

 

Perhaps the answer to the "CCers use the facilities more" is to charge everyone the same licence, charge those who want a mooring and charge for water, elsan disposal etc? The premium for widebeams seems fair to me, after all I pay to take up space on the water so if they have a bigger (area wise) boat, why shouldn't they?

 

 

 

 

You can untie them because they cannot moor to your property without your permission. 

The wind might do the rest but if not a rapid pass down the canal with your own boat should do the trick.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

15 minutes ago, cuthound said:

In an ideal world I would genuinely CC like @beerbeerbeerbeerbeer but it isn't worth getting divorced for

😃 but I’m envious of your garden mooring, ideal location to head out anywhere. 
 

 an added irony: I have today got myself a home mooring, and it’s very possible there might not be any decent boating for me until the Spring, maybe an odd week out here and there if I’m lucky. 

family stuff has called,

so who knows,

 

 

 

🤔, I guess it’s wise tell CRT I’ve a home mooring,

they’re as equally picky about not seeing you about. 

30 minutes ago, cuthound said:

charge those who want a mooring and charge for water, elsan disposal etc

that’s only a matter of time,

I think as CRT close services such as showers and access to washing machines they’ll close elsans,

we’ll be paying our pound to the marinas/yards/wharf or whatever. 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

36 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

 

As with widebeams, the problem for many boaters is that these changes will end up with *their* license fee going up by more than some other boaters, which they object to -- regardless of whether the changes make the system "fairer" or not...

My licence for a boat which is 10ft5 wide and has a CRT mooring is going up more than a cc ing narrow boat licence. 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by magnetman
typo

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, magnetman said:

My licence for a boat which is 10ft5 wide and has a CRT mooring is going up more than a cc ing narrow boat licence. 

 

 

 

Spare a thought for us 'real' fatties (my boat is 14 feet beam).

If I was still on C&RT waters I'd be paying 20% more than a NB

[Arthur Marshall]

The "who uses it more" argument is a bit daft. The winners would be hire companies and share boats. Then probably a mix of the few genuine CCers and a small proportion of moorers who use their boats a lot . The sad truth is that most private boat owners don't travel much for one reason or another. Which is probably lucky, as you'd never get anywhere if they all ventured out.

A lot of the residentials CCers spends their time shuttling along the non-locked areas. I met one two years back who had lived on the upper Macc for twenty years and had never done a, lock and was now too nervous to try one. Several on the lower travel between Congleton and Stoke (no locks apart from the stop) and have never been seen anywhere else. It's quite legal and causes no problems. Usage isn't the point.

[Alan de Enfield]

24 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The "who uses it more" argument is a bit daft. The winners would be hire companies

 

Which is probably why a commercial hire boat licence is much higher than a pleasure boat licence.

 

A hire boat 57-60 feet in length licence fee is ~£2400 A private 'leisure' boat the same length is ~£1250

[MtB]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

I've also seen every time I've been out boating -- which is never around here! -- that many short-term and VMs are filled with boats which are obviously overstaying or hardly moving, especially in popular areas -- and many other boaters have noticed this too (including locals who do follow the rules), it's not just my imagination.

 

I'll confirm this. Around here, there is a handful of CC boats here I see regularly and repeatedly. Yes they move every 14 days but they also hang around here constantly and I see them in different places repeatedly over a range of about ten miles. 

 

And its the same on the southern Oxford. Different set of boats notionally CCing, but actually shuffling around all the time on the same 10 or 15 mile stretch of canal. 

[Mike Todd]

We are currently debating whether or not a surcharge on mooring type and on width is or is not 'fair', or a least discriminatory. But we already have variations in licence fee that are only loosely connected to impact on system: take length. The difference in water consumption going through locks is only marginal and also I suspect impact damage on fixed structures likewise - you generally only hit with a small part of the boat, but perhaps there is a small difference in probability. Likewise with experience - novice hirers do tend to hit things (or so a famous boating couple would have us believe!)

 

The no home mooring surcharge is also complicated by the extent to which the boaters themselves pay the fees or they are paid by the state.

 

In any context setting charges is never easy nor likely to lead to universal agreement. Even a flat rate has its downsides.

[Alan de Enfield]

22 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

We are currently debating whether or not a surcharge on mooring type and on width is or is not 'fair', or a least discriminatory.

 

We have always found that marinas have differing prices for different beam boats.

Even before wide beam licence surcharges were introduced BWML (A division of C&RT) had differing charges based on beam. 

Their reasoning cannot be faulted and despite costing me a great deal more than a NB I saw it as 'fair' as far as the company was concerned 

 

Lest say the pontoon fingers are 18 feet apart (allowing 2 NBs to moor), with 'fender space' between them. Along comes a 10.5 foot wide boat which now restricts the 2-berths a 'wide' berth and POSSIBLY a narrowboat.

The widebeam pays (maybe) a 50% surcharge.

 

Now, we come in with a 14 foot beam and totally take up 2 moorings, the company loses the income of one mooring, so we have to pay a 100% surcharge.

 

I don't see any discrimination and totally understand the logic behind the charges.

 

Even 'lumpy water marinas' follow the same rules but generally with wider spacing on the pontoon fingers - typically 30 feet allowing for 2x 12ft + boats . With the Catamaran, we are 23 foot beam so are charged for 2 berths unless they have space on the hammerheads.

Edited November 25, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Arthur Marshall]

4 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

We are currently debating whether or not a surcharge on mooring type and on width is or is not 'fair', or a least discriminatory. But we already have variations in licence fee that are only loosely connected to impact on system: take length. The difference in water consumption going through locks is only marginal and also I suspect impact damage on fixed structures likewise - you generally only hit with a small part of the boat, but perhaps there is a small difference in probability. Likewise with experience - novice hirers do tend to hit things (or so a famous boating couple would have us believe!)

 

The no home mooring surcharge is also complicated by the extent to which the boaters themselves pay the fees or they are paid by the state.

 

In any context setting charges is never easy nor likely to lead to universal agreement. Even a flat rate has its downsides.

I don't see why it makes any difference if licences or mooring fees are paid as part of benefits or out of earnings, or a mix of both. That's no different to renting on land.

The simple fact is that CRT need more money from boaters and their accountants reckon they'll get more from surcharges than any other way. It has nothing to do with fairness, or how boaters responded to a survey, or discrimination against any boating style. Accountants don't care about any of that. Just money.

[Drayke]

Just out of curiosity and as I don't know and I'm not sure if it has been asked before but, what surcharges will someone with a wide beam that is a continues cruiser have to pay?

I think C&RT should base the standard licence fee on the length X width of a boat, The same as the EA do, that would seem much more sensible.

 

[MtB]

5 hours ago, Drayke said:

Just out of curiosity and as I don't know and I'm not sure if it has been asked before but, what surcharges will someone with a wide beam that is a continues cruiser have to pay?

I think C&RT should base the standard licence fee on the length X width of a boat, The same as the EA do, that would seem much more sensible.

 

 

Surprisingly, none.

 

Using the CRT licence price calculator here, an 11ft 6in x 50ft fattie renewing on 1/1/24 pays £1,458 as a Home Moorer, and the same as CCer. 

 

https://licensing.canalrivertrust.org.uk/licenceprices

 

 

Or did you mean what surcharges as a fattie? 

 

For comparison, the same length narrowboat pays £1184 so the fattie pays £274 extra for being almost double the size. 

 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by MtB