CRT Commission

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, IanD said:

Well you're perfectly aware of the equations

 

Yes I am, but I wonder how many potential new boaters are ?

 

It is always useful to 'show/explain your workings'.

[IanD]

21 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Yes I am, but I wonder how many potential new boaters are ?

 

It is always useful to 'show/explain your workings'.

I did -- but this isn't an exam paper, it's a post on a forum. Please explain the point of confusing newbies with this:

 

"L*W*D multiplied by a k factor must be more than 15 tons burden (k=0.16 for boats less than 24m long, or 0.24 for longer ones)"

 

when "L*W*D(all in m)>93.75" (what I said) is far easier to understand and apply?

 

Do I need to explain how to convert metres to feet as well? 🙂 

 

(clue: you end up with L*W*D(all in feet)>3310)

 

P.S. To convert feet to inches, multiply by 12

P.P.S. To convert feet to feet and inches, take off the integer and multiply the remainder by 12

P.P.P.S. To convert metres to feet and inches, multiply by 3.28, then take off the integer (feet), then multiply the remainder by 12 (inches)

 

Edited December 3, 2025 by IanD

[sigsegv]

Listen, my boat gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that’s the way I like it!

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, sigsegv said:

Listen, my boat gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that’s the way I like it!

 

Don't forget the chain & perch !

[IanD]

17 minutes ago, sigsegv said:

Listen, my boat gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that’s the way I like it!

Cor blimey, that's *terrible* fuel consumption -- 6 firkins per furlong (see what I did there?) is only 5 feet per gallon*** in normal units people can understand... 😉

 

*** or just under 1 femto-light-fortnight per litre, if you're a metric astrophysicist.. 🙂 

Edited December 3, 2025 by IanD

[David Mack]

21 minutes ago, sigsegv said:

Listen, my boat gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that’s the way I like it!

Well you shouldn't - that's about 400 gallons to the mile!

I think even @Alan de Enfield's thirsty twin-engine catamaran does better than that!

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I think even @Alan de Enfield's thirsty twin-engine catamaran does better than that!

 

The Cat only has small Volvo 3 cylinder, 29hp engines - the Cruiser is the thirsty one - two 6-litre, 6 clyinder engines downrated to 110hp each and uses around 10 litres and hour at 8 knots.

The real thirsty one was the Fairline with twin 200hp Volvo 6-cylinder engines - managed to achieve 1.25 miles per gallon at 25 knots.

[Tam & Di]

5 hours ago, magnetman said:

However would it not be misrepresentation by the seller if their advert on the appalling duck site says there is no VAT if used solely for residential porpoises?

 

Size was one factor in Colin Stone's mid 1990s case against HMRC re the rate of VAT on barges, but more significant was the decision that it was the design of the vessel rather than the actual use that determined if it qualified for Zero rate or not. The definition reads: 'A “qualifying ship” is any ship of a gross tonnage of not less than 15 tons (by HMRC definition) which is neither designed nor adapted for use for recreation or pleasure.' Colin's case hinged largely on the fact that his ship was fitted for full time living, but it was irrelevant that he did actually live on it.

Edited December 3, 2025 by Tam & Di

[IanD]

54 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

 

Size was one factor in Colin Stone's mid 1990s case against HMRC re the rate of VAT on barges, but more significant was the decision that it was the design of the vessel rather than the actual use that determined if it qualified for Zero rate or not. The definition reads: 'A “qualifying ship” is any ship of a gross tonnage of not less than 15 tons (by HMRC definition) which is neither designed nor adapted for use for recreation or pleasure.' Colin's case hinged largely on the fact that his ship was fitted for full time living, but it was irrelevant that he did actually live on it.

Well then that's going to cause problems for a typical widebeam with pointy bow and swim, engine, bow thruster and so on, because this obviously *is* designed for cruising on the canals and rivers, which means recreation and/or pleasure... 😉 

[magnetman]

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

Well then that's going to cause problems for a typical widebeam with pointy bow and swim, engine, bow thruster and so on, because this obviously *is* designed for cruising on the canals and rivers, which means recreation and/or pleasure... 😉 

 

The Colin Stone guy had a barge which was ten times better adapted for recreation or pleasure than any generic widebean canalboat will ever be.

 

OK it was for large waterways but it was very definitely for pleasure.

 

 

Ten times is an understatement.

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/vat-transport/vtrans110530

A slightly irritating typo on .gov website. Not ideal. 

 

[tree monkey]

11 hours ago, MtB said:

The position regarding branches and trees overhanging a boundary is clear in law. The overhanging branches belong to the neighbour whose tree it is, but they may not encroach over the airspace above a neighbouring property. If they encroach, the neighbour is entitled to cut them off in line with the boundary but must hand the cuttings back to the neighbour who owns them. 

 

I suspect the position is less clear if a random visitor cuts the branches of and chucks them back over the boundary but I suspect if push came to shove, it would work out to be the same.

 

There's no law stopping encroaching and the brash should be offered to the tree owner, if the owner doesn't want the brash it is your responsibility to dispose of it.

 

If the three is in a conservation area or has a tpo all work needs to be approved by the council.

 

 

[Stroudwater1]

2 hours ago, tree monkey said:

 

There's no law stopping encroaching and the brash should be offered to the tree owner, if the owner doesn't want the brash it is your responsibility to dispose of it.

 

If the three is in a conservation area or has a tpo all work needs to be approved by the council.

 

 

Thanks. It puzzled me recently as a large ash fell over at Dimmingsdale and blocked the canal for just over a week. The tree was on the non towpath side. 
 

One delay was finding the land owner to gain access to sit the stump upright and do some of the cutting. 
 

If it’s the land owners tree then aren’t they responsible for the  removal of their tree? Similarly if their tree causes a leak/ breach then aren’t they responsible for having the breach fixed? 
 

It made a big hole where the roots were! 

 

[tree monkey]

6 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Thanks. It puzzled me recently as a large ash fell over at Dimmingsdale and blocked the canal for just over a week. The tree was on the non towpath side. 
 

One delay was finding the land owner to gain access to sit the stump upright and do some of the cutting. 
 

If it’s the land owners tree then aren’t they responsible for the  removal of their tree? Similarly if their tree causes a leak/ breach then aren’t they responsible for having the breach fixed? 
 

It made a big hole where the roots were! 

 

 

I actually can't give a definitive answer to this, there certainly is liability and there certainly should be some recompense from the landowner, in my opinion, but it gets messy because 'act of god' and all that, my, limited, experience of this is landowners shrug and say speak to the insurance.

 

Additionally there is the issue of tree owners contractors working on 3rd party property and the implication of damage cause by their actions on 3rd party property,  so it's not unusual for 2 different contractors to work on their respective 'bit"

 

I know CRT would rather use their contractors because of the specific issues of working next to the canal,but then they hit the issue of potentially uncooperative landowners who refuse access, so often just the CRT bit will be done to the boundary by CRT contractors leaving the rest to the tree owners

Edited December 4, 2025 by tree monkey

[magnetman]

8 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Thanks. It puzzled me recently as a large ash fell over at Dimmingsdale and blocked the canal for just over a week. The tree was on the non towpath side. 
 

One delay was finding the land owner to gain access to sit the stump upright and do some of the cutting. 
 

If it’s the land owners tree then aren’t they responsible for the  removal of their tree? Similarly if their tree causes a leak/ breach then aren’t they responsible for having the breach fixed? 
 

It made a big hole where the roots were! 

 

I thought that canal companies / CRT usually owned a strip of the offside bank from the enabling Acts CPO.. So the tree and the breach problem would be for the CRT to sort out.

 

Maybe the land owner problem was about access not ownership of the actual tree.

 

Nice firewood. 

 

 

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

I thought that canal companies / CRT usually owned a strip of the offside bank from the enabling Acts CPO

Some canals have a strip of offside land alongside, others don't. And in some cases where there was originally such a strip of land, enough of the bank has washed away that it is no longer dry land.

[magnetman]

If the location is revealed it might be possible to establish with the Inspire Polygons on this map

 

https://www.carbon.place/landownership/#/inspire,landowners,wards,la/

 

 

Off topic but never knew about this but at Ricky. So it appears the land annexed by boosters there was once part of the canal and now belongs to the fishing lakes. 

 

 

 

 

Also explains why there 2 talk of putting a marina there.

 

Edited December 4, 2025 by magnetman

[TheBiscuits]

21 hours ago, IanD said:

or just under 1 femto-light-fortnight per litre, if you're a metric astrophysicist.. 🙂 

 

Can't you just use microfurlongs per fortnight like everyone else does?

 

* Except bridge hoppers obviously, as that's too big a unit for measuring their distance travelled! 😉😁

[IanD]

40 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Can't you just use microfurlongs per fortnight like everyone else does?

 

* Except bridge hoppers obviously, as that's too big a unit for measuring their distance travelled! 😉😁

 

Yes, but then I'm not an astrophysicist... 🙂 

 

(also it's a bit less useful as a unit, 1ufpf=0.008", 1fld=1", 1flf=14" -- so I'm around 5flf tall, a nice round figure...)

[ditchcrawler]

On 03/12/2025 at 14:54, sigsegv said:

Listen, my boat gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that’s the way I like it!

I thought Firkins were agreed to be the correct measurement in another thread 

[IanD]

2 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I thought Firkins were agreed to be the correct measurement in another thread 

6.666666667 (according to my calculator) rods per firkin doesn't come out as nicely though... 😉

[Stroudwater1]

On 04/12/2025 at 10:57, magnetman said:

If the location is revealed it might be possible to establish with the Inspire Polygons on this map

 

https://www.carbon.place/landownership/#/inspire,landowners,wards,la/

 

 

Off topic but never knew about this but at Ricky. So it appears the land annexed by boosters there was once part of the canal and now belongs to the fishing lakes. 

 

 

 

 

Also explains why there 2 talk of putting a marina there.

 

Using what3words the location of the tree was ///still.boot.props 

 

It looks like a cultivated field. CRT in their posting suggested a delay in getting hold of the land agent? 
 

(Incidentally I hope all boaters have what3words loaded up and able to use. There’s a recent case of a boater having a heart attack, and the ambulance or helicopter located them rapidly) 

[Alway Swilby]

On 06/12/2025 at 21:39, Stroudwater1 said:

Using what3words the location of the tree was ///still.boot.props 

 

It looks like a cultivated field. CRT in their posting suggested a delay in getting hold of the land agent? 
 

(Incidentally I hope all boaters have what3words loaded up and able to use. There’s a recent case of a boater having a heart attack, and the ambulance or helicopter located them rapidly) 

Yep. We've noted our location every time we moor for the night for the last 11 years. Used it in anger for the first time last summer at Hazleford Lock on the Trent which is very rural and not near a road. Worked a treat and the ambulance staff had no problem finding us.  We now note the w3w of the nearest access point as well as where the boat actually is. 

[magnetman]

I have used w3w before to get an ambulance to the nearest access point but if it is the individual location I believe the services can and do extract location data from your phone if it is location enabled. So given that most people have smartphones it would make sense to put location on then ring 999 and they can immediately see where you are. 

 

In that scenario the w3w seems to be surplus. 

 

Ah. It is more complicated

 

"

For mobile phone calls, the situation is more complex. While modern smartphones can provide GPS location data to emergency services, this feature is not automatic and depends on the device and operating system. On iPhones running iOS 11 or later, the Emergency SOS feature can send real-time location updates to emergency services when activated. Similarly, Android devices can automatically share GPS location during a 999 call through Google's system. However, if these features are not enabled or if the device does not support them, the location information is less precise.

In most cases, especially with mobile calls, emergency services rely on network triangulation or trilateration to estimate your location, which provides only a general area rather than an exact address. This means you are still expected to provide your location verbally, especially if you are in an unfamiliar or remote area."

 

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2025 by magnetman

[cheesegas]

On 11/12/2025 at 16:31, magnetman said:

I have used w3w before to get an ambulance to the nearest access point

I have never used it before for a 999 call, but from my own experience, don't try and use it with 111. They will absolutely not proceed without a postcode and will tell you w3w isn't 'valid', even after you explain that you're on a boat and the nearest thing with a postcode is a Screwfix over a mile away. First time they hung up on my partner after being unable to provide a postcode, then we called back and gave the Screwfix postcode.

 

They ended up sending an ambulance to Screwfix 4hrs later, anyhow! Useless. I submitted a complaint about it but didn't hear anything back.

[Sailbadthesinner]

Might have been better to call 999 if you needed an ambulance. 111 is for urgent cases that don't require an ambulance.