Working Boats to pay an extra £50 Licence

[David Schweizer]

From 2009 owners of Working Boats will have to pay an extra £50 annual Licence. Well BW's consultation document doesn't actually say that, but that is the implication of their latest proposal.

 

I am sure that most of us have never considered a big Northwich or a Josher etc at a width of 84" to 84.5" to be a Wide Boat, but the current BW Management obviously think differently, because they are proposing that any boat over 2.1 metres (82.75") wide will have to pay an additional £50 per annum on top of the annual licence fee. That will upset a few people.

 

The proposals, which BW have kept suprisingly quiet about, are open to consultation if you can find the documents, which are available here : http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/do...tember_2008.pdf Comments which have to be submitted by 7th November should be sent by email to this address:- consultation@britishwaterways.co.uk

 

Note:- Edited to correct my lousy conversion from metric

Edited September 15, 2008 by David Schweizer

[casper ghost]

From 2009 owners of Working Boats will have to pay an extra £50 annual Licence. Well BW's consultation document doesn't actually say that, but that is the implication of their latest proposal.

 

I am sure that most of us have never considered a big Northwich or a Josher etc at a width of 72" to 72.5" to be a Wide Boat, but the current BW Management obviously think differently, because they are proposing that any boat over 2.1 metres ( 71.25") wide will have to pay an additional £50 per annum on top of the annual licence fee. That will upset a few people.

 

The proposals, which BW have kept suprisingly quiet about, are open to consultation if you can find the documents, which are available here : http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/do...tember_2008.pdf Comments which have to be submitted by 7th November should be sent by email to this address:- consultation@britishwaterways.co.uk

 

 

71.25 inches, that's not even 6 foot, must be a calculation error, else BW are really screwing us all, again....

[denboy]

2.1 mtr = 6 ft 10 1/2 in

[alan_fincher]

71.25 inches, that's not even 6 foot, must be a calculation error, else BW are really screwing us all, again....

All David's imperial dimensions seem to be short by 12 inches, I think.

 

2.1 metres is actually about 82.7 inches.

 

I make that 6 ft 10.7 inches.

 

A lot of private boats, not built as working boats, would exceed that, if measured accurately.

 

The Grand Union working boats build dimension is a tad over 2.17 metres, I think.

 

I can't find a calculator, so now expect to be told I've got some wrong too!

Edited September 15, 2008 by alan_fincher

[Tim Lewis]

From 2009 owners of Working Boats will have to pay an extra £50 annual Licence. Well BW's consultation document doesn't actually say that, but that is the implication of their latest proposal.

 

I am sure that most of us have never considered a big Northwich or a Josher etc at a width of 72" to 72.5" to be a Wide Boat, but the current BW Management obviously think differently, because they are proposing that any boat over 2.1 metres ( 71.25") wide will have to pay an additional £50 per annum on top of the annual licence fee. That will upset a few people.

 

The proposals, which BW have kept suprisingly quiet about, are open to consultation if you can find the documents, which are available here : http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/do...tember_2008.pdf Comments which have to be submitted by 7th November should be sent by email to this address:- consultation@britishwaterways.co.uk

 

 

I think you need to look at your metric to imperial conversion

 

Tim

[AMModels]

82.677" so the canals were built to a 6' 10" gauge were they??? What utter spherical underdanglies, they should set it at boats above 7' 4" as this would keep narrow boats in one group and wide boats in another and would not penalise any particular narrow boat owners.

Right arm Left arm not knowing springs to mind, either that or someone with no canal boating experience setting the dimensions, but that would never happen with an organisation set up specifically to look after and care for our natins waterways would it?

 

[casper ghost]

2.1 metres is actually about 82.7 inches.

If you include the D section, my boat is probably over that! I built it 6 foot 10 wide and then put D section on top of that... oops, i'm not telling anyone.

[David Schweizer]

71.25 inches, that's not even 6 foot, must be a calculation error, else BW are really screwing us all, again....

 

OOps my error, should be 82.75" I have corrected the figures (I was never any good at metric!)

[fuzzyduck]

Remembering that length includes fenders, would seem to be logical that any measurement of beam will do so too.

[David Schweizer]

I think you need to look at your metric to imperial conversion

 

Tim

 

Yes , The conversions have been corrected now. Thanks

[alan_fincher]

Remembering that length includes fenders, would seem to be logical that any measurement of beam will do so too.

 

Now that idea I do like!

 

Licences would have to be marked up to say an extra fee had been paid because of the width added by fenders.

 

If forced to share a lock with someone with them dangling, and if they can't demonstrate they have paid the extra fee, then you would be allowed to snip them off.....

Edited September 15, 2008 by alan_fincher

[fuzzyduck]

It will be your duty to grass them up to BW. also if you suspect them to be 82.76 inches

Edited September 15, 2008 by fuzzyduck

[AMModels]

 

Now that idea I do like!

 

Licences would have to be marked up to say an extra fee had been paid because of the width added by fenders.

 

If forced to share a lock with someone with them dangling, and tif hey can't demonstrate they have paid the extra fee, then you would be allowed to snip them off.....

 

I think you should be allowed to do that anyway.

 

[David Schweizer]

All David's imperial dimensions seem to be short by 12 inches, I think.

 

2.1 metres is actually about 82.7 inches.

I make that 6 ft 10.7 inches.

I have corrected the conversions in my original post

 

A lot of private boats, not built as working boats, would exceed that, if measured accurately.

Including mine at 7ft

 

The Grand Union working boats build dimension is a tad over 2.17 metres, I think.

Star class were 84.25" according to the original drawindgs but I think the towns were wider.

 

I can't find a calculator, so now expect to be told I've got some wrong too!

Edited September 15, 2008 by David Schweizer

[Tim Lewis]

From 2009 owners of Working Boats will have to pay an extra £50 annual Licence. Well BW's consultation document doesn't actually say that, but that is the implication of their latest proposal.

 

I am sure that most of us have never considered a big Northwich or a Josher etc at a width of 84" to 84.5" to be a Wide Boat, but the current BW Management obviously think differently, because they are proposing that any boat over 2.1 metres (82.75") wide will have to pay an additional £50 per annum on top of the annual licence fee. That will upset a few people.

 

The proposals, which BW have kept suprisingly quiet about, are open to consultation if you can find the documents, which are available here : http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/do...tember_2008.pdf Comments which have to be submitted by 7th November should be sent by email to this address:- consultation@britishwaterways.co.uk

 

Note:- Edited to correct my lousy conversion from metric

 

I replied to this address and got a reply thanking me for replying to the moorings trial consultation!

 

Tim

[casper ghost]

A chap i know who has lost his full set of side fenders, has anyone had their scissors out?

Edited September 15, 2008 by casper ghost

[Chris Pink]

From 2009 owners of Working Boats will have to pay an extra £50 annual Licence. Well BW's consultation document doesn't actually say that, but that is the implication of their latest proposal.

 

So who, on the CWAF, is the one who should have pointed this out?

 

Or are working boat owners another group that will be charged because they are not of the inner party?

 

Fenders counted: yes, wonderful.

[David Schweizer]

So who, on the CWAF, is the one who should have pointed this out?

Or are working boat owners another group that will be charged because they are not of the inner party?

 

Fenders counted: yes, wonderful.

 

No Chris, Im think it is because we have been bamboozelled into thinking that all Narrow Boats are 6ft 10ins wide, and there is no one in the BW Management who has any experience of Boats and Waterways stretching back more than ten years. The problem is that if you don't have the experience/knowledge to ask the question "how wide is a narrowboat?" the question won't be asked.

 

As for fenders being counted, this has been suggested by several people, but as far as I am aware, there is no legal requirement to have fenders. Therefore their inclusion as part of the length of a boat is irrelevant, and anyway it is a variable depending on the configuration used and the age/condition of the fenders.

[Chris-B]

No Chris, Im think it is because we have been bamboozelled into thinking that all Narrow Boats are 6ft 10ins wide, and there is no one in the BW Management who has any experience of Boats and Waterways stretching back more than ten years. The problem is that if you don't have the experience/knowledge to ask the question "how wide is a narrowboat?" the question won't be asked.

 

As for fenders being counted, this has been suggested by several people, but as far as I am aware, there is no legal requirement to have fenders. Therefore their inclusion as part of the length of a boat is irrelevant, and anyway it is a variable depending on the configuration used and the age/condition of the fenders.

 

 

The 6ft 10 in "standard" came about by boat builders having to build boat that would fit through BW's piss poorly maintained locks

7ft has always been the gauging beam ( To my limited knowledge)

 

And if Bw's gestapo think they are going to rip me off for an extra £50.00 when they obviously miss the point of Narrow and Wide boats then maybe it is time for the revolution to kick off

 

Once again a classic case of a bean counter with his head up his arse in an ivory tower.

 

Chris

[alan_fincher]

.............but as far as I am aware, there is no legal requirement to have fenders.

I suggested before that maybe fenders were a legal requirement, but got told I was wrong, (by Chris Pink IIRC?).

 

What I believe the bye-laws to actually say is.....

 

Vessels to have fenders ready for use.

Section 6

Every vessel navigated on any canal shall have ready for immediate use proper fenders of suitable material and in good condition and the master of such vessel shall use any such fenders whenever there is a risk of the vessel striking against any other vessel or against any wall, lockgate, bridge or other thing.

 

I suppose it depends on your definition of "ready for immediate use", and it could be argued that it is if it is lifted up on to the fore deck, for instance. However I'd argue that if you are separated from it by 70 feet of boat, and maybe an open hold with top planks, you are hardly be able to deploy it if you are about to "strike" something.

 

I can't see how it is permitted not to have them deployed, but perhaps someone can argue the case that it is?

[Rick-n-Jo]

The canals were built in feet and inches, as are our boats. There is no justification for BWs continued attempts to metricate them. Please resist this - in communication with them I always use feet and inches.

If we don't, who's to say that the next waste of money exercise won't be ripping out all the mile posts and replacing with kilometer posts?

[alan_fincher]

If we don't, who's to say that the next waste of money exercise won't be ripping out all the mile posts and replacing with kilometer posts?

Have you not viewed many of the towpath signs on much of the BCN then?

 

They are in Kilometers (only), and regularly wrong.

 

However even that's not as "bonkers in the nut" as up the Leicester (or is it the Soar) where there are signs reminding you that the speed limit is 6 kph, (or in at least one case 6.44 kph!).

 

I kid you not, but I don't have a speedometer with that accuracy.........

 

You couldn't make this stuff up, could you?

 

Alan

[Mick_B]

The canals were built in feet and inches, as are our boats. There is no justification for BWs continued attempts to metricate them. Please resist this - in communication with them I always use feet and inches.

If we don't, who's to say that the next waste of money exercise won't be ripping out all the mile posts and replacing with kilometer posts?

If you have a VCR I'm wondering if it is a Betamax. What's the problem. If the rest of the world (or a substantial part of it (as I'm not going to argue percentages)) decides metric is better or more convenient why not go with it. Do you really feel it's taking away from your identity?

[Chris Pink]

However I'd argue that if you are separated from it by 70 feet of boat, and maybe an open hold with top planks, you are hardly be able to deploy it if you are about to "strike" something.

 

Then I would refer you to byelaw 9.

 

If the rest of the world (or a substantial part of it (as I'm not going to argue percentages)) decides metric is better or more convenient why not go with it.

 

I don't have an issue with metric measurements as I am literate in both systems but if an historic structure is built to one system it seems logical to use that system. If only to avoid the kind of stupidity we are discussing here.

[WJM]

If and when I present my boat at the new BW Gauging Stations, it is found to be 6'11" I will invest in a set of chains and pull it in.