widebeam licence fee

[BenC]

Benc surley your answer is to weld your two boats together and pay one licence I'm shure theres a post on here about someone who does this _

Regards kris

I pay 1 and a half for the pair. A butty is pretty useless by its self! Fair I think. I get to use the motor leave the butty at home (it is home). B

[peterboat]

Well seeing as how you asked and just my thoughts:-

 

I would imagine that if one can afford a longer boat (when new) they must have more money. Length costs. Much like more expensive bigger engined, 4x4's and the like get to pay more road tax now days under the guise of CO2 emissions.

 

Have a google around the France issue. Loads of people were up in arms over it.

 

I'm sure it will happen here sooner or later. Marinas charge more even on linear mooring. I can see how it would work on an inside moorings though.

Dont bring in emisions just imagine all those vintage/bmc engined boat owners when their licence goes through the roof!!

 

Peter

[kris88]

I'm shure bw/cart must have thought about this ,there's some reason they haven't tried it before

benc I think the point is you licence two boats

If my licence doubled I'd be off the water,or be making my boat electric 50% discount I believe

Regards kris

Edited August 24, 2013 by kris88

[Duchess Omnium]

On the Thames it is the area, not just the length. That seems reasonable to me. The logic of those who argue it should be based on the percentage of the system you can navigate is only a step away from a system based on where you do navigate, suggesting you could have a much cheaper, stay-put license, for boats that agree never to move -- but I don't think many people would think that was a good idea.

[churchward]

On the Thames it is the area, not just the length. That seems reasonable to me. The logic of those who argue it should be based on the percentage of the system you can navigate is only a step away from a system based on where you do navigate, suggesting you could have a much cheaper, stay-put license, for boats that agree never to move -- but I don't think many people would think that was a good idea.

I think it is the same for Nene licences too. Is it so for all EA waters?

 

I suppose it is just they way BW/CRT have done it. As said above it does have the merit of longer boats being (to buy new at least) more expensive and likewise shorter ones cheaper so people entering boating with a small boat have a cheaper licence. There may be merit to in a licence based on area.

 

However, I don't see it as one of the most burning issues that require a fix. You have to work it out some way and length seems OK to me.

[mrsmelly]

Hello,

Planning for the distant future, changing narrowboat to widebeam ........ I have a dream !!

Am I right in thinking the licence fee is the same per length and the width is irrelevant ?

Cheers

Hi

 

No. That depends on the waterway you are on,

 

Tim

Yes but it shouldn't be, as far as I am concerned, should reflect the price of a pair, full price for motor and half price for butty. Why is this not the same for wide boats?

Err because a PAIR is two boats and a widebeam is errm ONE boat. I cannot even nearly see the similarity.

 

Tim

two narrow boats in a lock, one wide beam! Twice as much water being pumped, therefore twice the licence. But, it should be the surface area, or a percentage of. Surely you can see my point

Perhaps we should charge car parking fees the same way? bigger car etc etc

It's not about moving, it's about mooring. Widebeams need twice the width to moor up, and therefore should pay double

 

Simple maths. Nobody questions the fact that longer boats pay more than shorter boats. Why should wider boats be diferent?

Yours are typical narrowboat only thoughts. Remember narrowboats are just one of many type of boats on the inland waterways . Boats are built anywhere between about four feet and many othet sizes above that. how many scales of width would you put. On the proper working canals such as the A and C and the bigger rivers length is used not beam and as for taking up more water, where we park our boats at work the river is about 200 feet plus wide ( Its a narrow bit ) so we hardly block navigation more than a narrowbem would.

Tim

[DeanS]

It's not about moving, it's about mooring. Widebeams need twice the width to moor up, and therefore should pay double

 

Simple maths. Nobody questions the fact that longer boats pay more than shorter boats. Why should wider boats be diferent?

 

but I pay 3 times for the same piece of water already.I pay a CRT licence for my small plot of water. I pay the marina for the EXACT SAME piece of water, and because I live on that piece of water, I pay the Council as well. I no longer use VMs, so I think all those who do use VMs should pay more, since VMs cost CRT a lot of money. We can spin this anyway you like. I cant use the Ashton, or the Macclesfield or the Peak canals. I cant go south. Every lock I have to open BOTH gates....so when they are stiff I have twice the pain. Can I have a discount please?

[MtB]

I think CRT are missing a trick here. By charging for deck area the system could be made fairer at a stroke.

 

And I don't accept the argument about widebeams not being able to use the whole of the system. Everybody knows they never move anyway.

 

 

MtB

 

 

(Edit to add a missing smiley!)

Edited August 25, 2013 by Mike the Boilerman

[DeanS]

I think CRT are missing a trick here. By charging for deck area the system could be made fairer at a stroke.

 

And I don't accept the argument about widebeams not being able to use the whole of the system. Everybody knows they never move anyway.

 

 

MtB

 

I just got back from 200mile cruise. Scraped my base plate the entire trip.

 

eta....did anyone lose a pair of jeans? I found them round my prop

Edited August 25, 2013 by DeanS

[MtB]

A 200 mile cruise? You should pay FOUR TIMES the rate the rest of us pay!

 

 

MtB

[DeanS]

A 200 mile cruise? You should pay FOUR TIMES the rate the rest of us pay!

 

 

MtB

 

I should pay a quarter, because I cleared the path of weeds, tyres, and denim jeans, for every narrowboat behind me I'm off to bed. Gnite

[onionbargee]

deep boats keep the system clear, at the expense of their base plates. Long boats can't explore the whole system either. surely its only time till wide boats are charged more, after all it for charity! When you pay more for two historic boats and more and more wide boats seem to be on the system, you can surely see my point! I'm not picking on wide boats but the system must be fair. I think that any boat before 1973 should be free like road tax!

Deep boats don't keep anything clear, the silt is just moved out to the banks and makes the moorings shallower, only dredging keeps things clear. silt doesn't magically dissapear at the passing of an ex working boat.

 

In any case your boats are set up as permenent shallow draft.

 

You have 2 boats that can in theory be seperate places at one time, a half price butty is a good deal.

[onionbargee]

I had 2 narrowboats ( breasted up) on one licence for about a year, they were connected by welded chains, i asked BW/CRT if they would accept it for licencing, and i got a lightning fast reply 8 months later, which without once mentioning licences was 4 pages of whaffle like " i would need both engines running and 2 people steering " or " it would damage the canal bed", or " it would be unsteerable", eventually the new enforcement officer refused the licence, so i asked him why, " you need an RCD" ...wrong, " won't comply with standards of construction rules".......wrong , just a never ending stream of BS until they now refuse to discuss the issue, saying i would have to take them to court to get an answer.

 

 

They tried to seize my other boat, and turned up with a sneering, and arrogant attitude, and could not tell me what rule, byelaw or licence condition i had broken. so i have no sympathy with the fact that i just sailed off and had it craned out, which it was pencilled in for anyway. 1 - 0 to me . All i asked for was a straight answer in the first place.

 

I put in a formal complaint to get an answer, but the enforcement officer who is responsible now refuses to acnowledge my emails.

 

 

[bargemast]

Not in France now. Sq/m now in France. Still generally cheaper than here though.

 

Don't suppose it will be long before it happens here.

 

It's not Sq/m now in France, it used to be like that, but this year for the first time it all changed, and because of their new rates a 70' narrowboat has a very bad deal, as now you pay the highest rate, which is from 14m onwards 466,96 € + 7.71 € x lenght in meters.

 

In the Sq/m period they had a fair deal, but that's all over now, there's a 10 % discount for early payment.

 

Peter.

Edited August 25, 2013 by bargemast

[saltysplash]

two narrow boats in a lock, one wide beam! Twice as much water being pumped, therefore twice the licence.

?

[DaveC]

On the Thames, as has been said, the charge is for area, but no discount for boats that can't get under Osney bridge and thus can't use all of the river.

 

Besides, how many boats, wide or narrow, use all of the system?

 

 

Dave

[luctor et emergo]

Why should I pay more, just because my boat is longer?

 

Why should I pay more, just because my boat is wider?

[Gingerbeer]

Maybe boats should be charged by color. Nice new shiny boats with pretty colors pay less because they look pretty on the water while the dull, haven't seen a paint can for 30 years, pay more because they are an eyesore. I think pink boats should pay less than black ones...just a personal choice....what do you think?

 

Why should a 73 foot pay more than an 18 foot. Many locks cannot take the longer boat so they are limited to where they can go. Should they pay less? But then again you can fit many more 18 footers into a lock and maybe only one or two longer ones. Less water use. But how many small boats are waiting to get into the lock at any given time? Should they wait until there is enough to fill the lock or will one lonely boat go ahead and use it for themselves? is it about who uses the most water in the locks or how much is displaced in the canal? Should a widebeam pay more even though they cannot use the entire system or a really long NB while the smaller guys can use it all without problems but pay much much less? Maybe the same fee for everyone would be better...certainly much fairer, no arguing over size.

[Biggles]

 

It's not Sq/m now in France, it used to be like that, but this year for the first time it all changed, and because of their new rates a 70' narrowboat has a very bad deal, as now you pay the highest rate, which is from 14m onwards 466,96 + 7.71 x lenght in meters.

 

In the Sq/m period they had a fair deal, but that's all over now, there's a 10 % discount for early payment.

 

Peter.

You are of course quite right. I got it the wrong way round. Silly me.

[blackrose]

On the Thames from memory the licence was based on square feet

 

That's correct. I don't know why some people are talking as if it's universal that licence fees are always calculated according to length. It may be that way on some parts of the system, but certainly not all. I think some people never venture off the canals so they have that 'narrow' mindset and assume it's the same everywhere.

On the Thames, as has been said, the charge is for area, but no discount for boats that can't get under Osney bridge and thus can't use all of the river.

 

Besides, how many boats, wide or narrow, use all of the system?

 

em,

Dave

 

Most of us do not or cannot use the entire system. But whichever part of the system we're licenced for, we pay for that entire system.

[MikeV]

Maybe wide beams should pay less they can't travel the whole system

According to an article I read recently 75% of the network is wide (over 2.1m). So would:

- Licence fee = Length * Width * £XX.xx for boats under 2.1 meters wide

- Licence fee = Length * Width * £XX.xx * 75% for boats over 2.1 metres

be fair?

[Delta9]

.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Delta9

[blackrose]

According to an article I read recently 75% of the network is wide (over 2.1m). So would:

- Licence fee = Length * Width * £XX.xx for boats under 2.1 meters wide

- Licence fee = Length * Width * £XX.xx * 75% for boats over 2.1 metres

be fair?

 

75% of the system may be wide, but if a boat wider than 7ft is north or south of the narrow bit in the middle then much less then 75% will be accessible, unless the boat is craned out and craned back in on the other side.

 

Anyway, in my opinion the whole idea of complaining about others and trying to increase their fees has more to do with the politics of envy than anything else and is indicative of a petty mindset. It's along the same lines as complaining about CCers, liveaboards or those without moorings and trying to get them to pay more. It actually does nothing to improve things for anyone and all it does is assuage the complainants' bitterness. In the end all that happens is that stricter rules and higher fees are implemented for everyone, which negatively impact on all of us! That's what we're seeing with CRT at the moment. I and many others have been saying the same thing for years, but some people won't stop complaining and won't be happy until we are all controlled by an authoritarian waterways regime. Isn't it time we stuck together, broadened our horizons and stopped complaining about those who we think might be having a slightly better time than us? There are much worse things going on in the world!

Edited August 25, 2013 by blackrose

[fudd]

I'm not for charging any boater more money, but its now only time. I pay time and a half for a pair, why? If a wide beam pays one license? I'm restricted on the system, and very rarely take both boats, less these days then I'd like to! Wide beams are entering the system more and more, flats in the south east. It will happen that they have to pay more in the future

I think you should pay for two boats then. You are lucky getting a discount. I'd keep quiet if I were you. ?

[blackrose]

I think you should pay for two boats then. You are lucky getting a discount. I'd keep quiet if I were you.

 

Yes, I think people with buttys are getting an insignificant, minor benefit that the rest of us don't get. They have two boats so they should pay for two boats. They've been getting this discount for years - it's time for them to pay! Let's complain to CRT about it!

Edited August 25, 2013 by blackrose