Working Boats to pay an extra £50 Licence

[Steilsteven]

The majority of 'narrow' boats on the system are built to a 6'10" beam standard - Trap No.1.

.

Ever heard the expression ''tongue in cheek ''Derek?

 

 

Some time ago on Thames, boat licences were issued on length times breadth - the area covered. It might seem a more reasonable system, but most of the river was accessible to most of the boats.

 

A very long time ago, but I've never met anyone who considered this as fair or reasonable. There is no justification for charges based on size, all private users should pay the same regardless. In BW's consultation a single fee system was ruled out on the basis that the 500 smallest boats would see an increase of 58%.At 2008 prices this would mean the lowest priced licence (£373) increasing to £592, an increase of £219, this was considered to be unfair. On the other hand, it was considered to be fair to increase the fee of a 4.5m beam craft by 60% an increase of at least £500! That £50 is only next year, provided they choose that option rather than a percentage for the first year.

 

 

With the canals this is less so. It could be argued that as wide boats cannot access all the system, they should - length for length perhaps - pay less.

 

Yes, that would be a fair system but would be very complicated to administer as you would have to do the same for all differing craft.

 

 

 

But seeing so many places where wide boats cause problems for others when passing (look at our two 14' beam boats breasted up!) - one wonders. Not for no reason did 'Progress' and I assume 'Pioneer' also, get left to carry out maintenance duties only.

 

Who is causing who the problem? If a canal was built to a wide gauge it was built to accomodate wide barges and said barges should be able to pass in the same fashion as narrow boats on a narrow canal. If they can't do that it's because the canal hasn't been maintained properly.

The reason the trials with 'Progress' and 'Pioneer' failed was because contrary to appearences the G.U. is a narrow gauge canal. As you may be aware the northern half was modernised in the thirties with wide locks and bridges which the southern half already had but the Grand Union Canal Co. failed to complete the job, the channel was never widened. If this had been done canal carrying would have survived a lot longer than it did and wide boats wouldn't be causing so many problems for ''others''.

 

I like Dutch barges, our first boat was one. They are characterful and different. Cannot say the same about some modern tin boxes - I'm sure they fulfil a task, but they are uneasy on the eye.

 

Have to concur on this one, some new builds are downright ugly and I object to them being called Dutch. Mine I hasten to add is a beautiful 1923 Luxe Motor.

 

 

.

 

 

The majority of 'narrow' boats on the system are built to a 6'10" beam standard - Trap No.1.

.

Ever heard the expression ''tongue in cheek ''Derek?

 

 

Some time ago on Thames, boat licences were issued on length times breadth - the area covered. It might seem a more reasonable system, but most of the river was accessible to most of the boats.

 

A very long time ago, but I've never met anyone who considered this as fair or reasonable. There is no justification for charges based on size, all private users should pay the same regardless. In BW's consultation a single fee system was ruled out on the basis that the 500 smallest boats would see an increase of 58%.At 2008 prices this would mean the lowest priced licence (£373) increasing to £592, an increase of £219, this was considered to be unfair. On the other hand, it was considered to be fair to increase the fee of a 4.5m beam craft by 60% an increase of at least £500! That £50 is only next year, provided they choose that option rather than a percentage for the first year.

 

 

With the canals this is less so. It could be argued that as wide boats cannot access all the system, they should - length for length perhaps - pay less.

 

Yes, that would be a fair system but would be very complicated to administer as you would have to do the same for all differing craft.

 

 

 

But seeing so many places where wide boats cause problems for others when passing (look at our two 14' beam boats breasted up!) - one wonders. Not for no reason did 'Progress' and I assume 'Pioneer' also, get left to carry out maintenance duties only.

 

Who is causing who the problem? If a canal was built to a wide gauge it was built to accomodate wide barges and said barges should be able to pass in the same fashion as narrow boats on a narrow canal. If they can't do that it's because the canal hasn't been maintained properly.

The reason the trials with 'Progress' and 'Pioneer' failed was because contrary to appearences the G.U. is a narrow gauge canal. As you may be aware the northern half was modernised in the thirties with wide locks and bridges which the southern half already had but the Grand Union Canal Co. failed to complete the job, the channel was never widened. If this had been done canal carrying would have survived a lot longer than it did and wide boats wouldn't be causing so many problems for ''others''.

 

I like Dutch barges, our first boat was one. They are characterful and different. Cannot say the same about some modern tin boxes - I'm sure they fulfil a task, but they are uneasy on the eye.

 

Have to concur on this one, some new builds are downright ugly and I object to them being called Dutch. Mine I hasten to add is a beautiful 1923 Luxe Motor.

 

 

.

[Derek R.]

(Derek R. @ Sep 17 2008, 06:52 PM) *

The majority of 'narrow' boats on the system are built to a 6'10" beam standard - Trap No.1.

 

Ever heard the expression ''tongue in cheek ''Derek?

 

Yes.

However, as there are more new build boats with 6'10" as stated than there are historic narrow boats at anything between 7' and a couple or three more inches, I didn't see it as tongue in cheek, more a likely misconception (seemingly shared by 'Waterways') that 'all' 'narrow' boats were built to 6'10".

 

 

Derek: Some time ago on Thames, boat licences were issued on length times breadth - the area covered. It might seem a more reasonable system, but most of the river was accessible to most of the boats.

 

A very long time ago, but I've never met anyone who considered this as fair or reasonable. There is no justification for charges based on size, all private users should pay the same regardless. In BW's consultation a single fee system was ruled out on the basis that the 500 smallest boats would see an increase of 58%.At 2008 prices this would mean the lowest priced licence (£373) increasing to £592, an increase of £219, this was considered to be unfair. On the other hand, it was considered to be fair to increase the fee of a 4.5m beam craft by 60% an increase of at least £500! That £50 is only next year, provided they choose that option rather than a percentage for the first year.

 

You speak of fairness, yet consider that a 14' narrow beam cruiser should pay the same as a 110' x 16' beam Tjalk?

 

That £50 is on top of the 9% increase coming our way. Whether it's next year or otherwise, it is based upon a figure chosen by someone who considers that all 'narrow' boats are 6'10" (2.1m) beam, some person or persons not familiar with the narrow beam canal gauge as built 200yrs ago.

 

 

Derek: But seeing so many places where wide boats cause problems for others when passing (look at our two 14' beam boats breasted up!) - one wonders. Not for no reason did 'Progress' and I assume 'Pioneer' also, get left to carry out maintenance duties only.

 

Who is causing who the problem? If a canal was built to a wide gauge it was built to accomodate wide barges and said barges should be able to pass in the same fashion as narrow boats on a narrow canal. If they can't do that it's because the canal hasn't been maintained properly.

The reason the trials with 'Progress' and 'Pioneer' failed was because contrary to appearences the G.U. is a narrow gauge canal. As you may be aware the northern half was modernised in the thirties with wide locks and bridges which the southern half already had but the Grand Union Canal Co. failed to complete the job, the channel was never widened. If this had been done canal carrying would have survived a lot longer than it did and wide boats wouldn't be causing so many problems for ''others''.

 

It was government that failed to finance the continued improvements to the Northern GU, and there was a little matter of a small man with a moustache in Germany stamping his feet. It had been intended to run 100ton barges through from Brentford to Birmingham. But lack of funds and circumstances changed all that. Two narrow boats could also carry almost as much as Progress, and be more flexible inasmuch as they could access ALL the system AND were able to pass in the available width of canal as it was. With this barge traffic in mind, the Southern GU lock cills were lowered to allow 5'6" depth, but only as far as Berkhamsted. With one wide (14') beam boat moored, two narrow boats have a limited amount of room to pass. I've even had a canoeist shout at me to get out of the way as he raced to overtake me as I was passing a moored 14' beam boat, crashing through brambles as he did so (Tring cutting, daft place to tie with a boat that wide).

 

Derek: I like Dutch barges, our first boat was one. They are characterful and different. Cannot say the same about some modern tin boxes - I'm sure they fulfil a task, but they are uneasy on the eye.

 

Have to concur on this one, some new builds are downright ugly and I object to them being called Dutch. Mine I hasten to add is a beautiful 1923 Luxe Motor.

 

Some of the prettiest. What engine? Picture?

[Steilsteven]

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You speak of fairness, yet consider that a 14' narrow beam cruiser should pay the same as a 110' x 16' beam Tjalk?

 

Yes, neither vessel incurs a greater cost to BW than the other,in fact about 95% of the system could be filled in without any effect to the latter yet the proposal could raise the owners licence to something in the region of £1700. The licence is for maintaining the system not for some imagined advantage of one boat over another.

The cruiser owner has a real advantage over the barge owner, for instance, if both were moored in my local marina the cruiser would be paying about £1200 p.a. but the barge would be paying about £10000.Fair enough because the barge takes up more rentable space.

 

That £50 is on top of the 9% increase coming our way. Whether it's next year or otherwise, it is based upon a figure chosen by someone who considers that all 'narrow' boats are 6'10" (2.1m) beam, some person or persons not familiar with the narrow beam canal gauge as built 200yrs ago.

 

Actually it's 6.6%+ £50 if both options 2 & 3 are addopted, 9%+ £50 if just option 2, 11.2% if option 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was government that failed to finance the continued improvements to the Northern GU, and there was a little matter of a small man with a moustache in Germany stamping his feet. It had been intended to run 100ton barges through from Brentford to Birmingham. But lack of funds and circumstances changed all that. Two narrow boats could also carry almost as much as Progress, and be more flexible inasmuch as they could access ALL the system AND were able to pass in the available width of canal as it was. With this barge traffic in mind, the Southern GU lock cills were lowered to allow 5'6" depth, but only as far as Berkhamsted. With one wide (14') beam boat moored, two narrow boats have a limited amount of room to pass. I've even had a canoeist shout at me to get out of the way as he raced to overtake me as I was passing a moored 14' beam boat, crashing through brambles as he did so (Tring cutting, daft place to tie with a boat that wide).

 

I think you should check your facts with David Blagrove, also 180 pairs of boats were built by the G.U.C.C.Co during 1935/6 when G.U.C.Co. abandoned their attempt at creating a wide beam route to Birmingham. It had nothing to do with the government or the war.

 

 

 

 

 

Some of the prettiest. What engine? Picture?

 

Daf 475

[fuzzyduck]

Welcome to being poked with the shitty end of the stick gentlemen.

 

Actually on some ex working boats, I can't fault BWs thinking, if someone is prepared to licence a 70 foot boat for 25 foot of cabin space, they obviously have a higher willingness and ability to pay.

[Derek R.]

Steilsteven: I think you should check your facts with David Blagrove, also 180 pairs of boats were built by the G.U.C.C.Co during 1935/6 when G.U.C.Co. abandoned their attempt at creating a wide beam route to Birmingham. It had nothing to do with the government or the war.

 

It must have been a joint effort. We know that the GU embarked upon a grand expansion scheme ahead of its capabilities, but the government agreed to carry the interest on a £500,000 development loan. The opening was in 1934, but still with more work to be carried out for barges to reach Brum. The company also had in mind to widen Watford and Foxton, but the government refused to further co-operate.

 

The Second World War had a major effect on the GU, as elsewhere. Most would have seen storm clouds on the horizon well before September 1939, and I perceive this would certainly had some effect on new transport developments when thoughts were turning to armaments.

[David Schweizer]

I think you should check your facts with David Blagrove, also 180 pairs of boats were built by the G.U.C.C.Co during 1935/6 when G.U.C.Co. abandoned their attempt at creating a wide beam route to Birmingham. It had nothing to do with the government or the war.

 

Yes, I am sure that is correct. Our Captain knew Leslie Morton (the former General Manager of ther GUCCC) quite well, and can recollect him telling us that the main reason that the Company discontinued their plans to use wide carrying boats was because they were less economic, less flexible and the Boatmen did not like them. As far as I know, the only regular wide boat taffic to contionue on the GU after the War were the Marylebone Rubbish Boats which were essentially Day Craft carrying the Borough's rubbish from the City to the old quarries in Harefield. This traffic ceased some time around the late 1950's/early 1960's.

 

I recall Leslie telling us lots of other things as well, but then he was a bit of a raconteer, especially after a few pints.

[Alastair]

Removing the rivers-only discount!

 

Absolutely unbelievable. BW do sweet FA to maintain the rivers. A patrol officer passes our way once every couple of years, they don't dredge or carry out any maintenance apart from the locks. That is only done when the locks are damaged.

 

I can't see why anyone would object to only paying for part of the system that they use. If I was just on one canal, I can pay a license for that canal, I don't have to buy a Gold license. If I am only using rivers, then I should only have to pay for river usage.

[GUMPY]

Removing the rivers-only discount!

 

Absolutely unbelievable. BW do sweet FA to maintain the rivers. A patrol officer passes our way once every couple of years, they don't dredge or carry out any maintenance apart from the locks. That is only done when the locks are damaged.

 

Much the same as canals then!

[SteveE]

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

 

There's nothing complicated or unexpected about this. A sneaky, high spending government will constantly look for ways to fleece the nation of more of its money and little underhand, back door methods like this are ideal. As for comments - the government has the biggest delete button and shredder in the land for stuff it doesn't like.

SteveE