Are Continuous Cruisers an endangered species?

[matty40s]

Cough, not constant.....continuous.

[Paul's Nulife4-2]

Hi all,

Capt Golightly,good luck,hope it works for you as well.

Matty 40s,thanks for that.you are Ofcourse quite right.

Dean s,My watermaker Sucks up water from what ever source you happen to be floating in (hopefully) ,Puts it through 5 sorts of filters including charcoal,Before passing it through a reverse osmosis pump & membrane & then finally zapping it with the correct spectrum of Ultra violet light,the end result is up to 60gal per 24hr of fish,weed,bug,cyst & virus free drinking water,that tastes pretty dame good,it also saves buying,carrying back & storing heavy supermarket bottles,or useing hosepipes.I even use this water to flush my loo plumbed in straight to my water system. No smelly bits left in the bowl.Literally !.& I never run out.

[Phil Ambrose]

I applaude PN42's post and oh yes water makers are usually Blue Water bits of kit (not too many water points in mid 0cean) first time I,ve heard of one on the cut, did toy with the idea myself but not cheap.

Phil

[Paul's Nulife4-2]

Thanx Phil,

Yes,I suppose It's pricey to buy & set up initially.your right (thousands).But,its unlimited clean free water from there on out,I truly wouldn't be without it ..Mine is a Very old & obsolete one,but it works faultless,I can't even see a make or stamp on it,the only place I can get the bulb & filters are by job lot from America !.then I cut them to fit properly,I've still got about 2yrs worth left. Then I will DEFINITELY replace it. There are much newer & dare say better ones out now,ime sure. & its one of those extravagance that becomes a necessity,& improves quality of life aboard for me.Still,.I will stop it there,as I don't want to go off topic,

Edited September 21, 2013 by Paul's Nulife4-2

[Neil2]

I think Paul's contribution sums up what most of us feel. Occasionally I have found myself echoing the complaints about bridge hoppers then I reflect that the vast majority of CCers I have met have been genuinely cruising the network. So I wonder if the number of "continuous moorers" is actually quite a small percentage of those who hold a CC licence. I don't know - does anybody know? From what I read there are certainly hot spots here and there where there are problems but my guess is those individuals giving cause for complaint are vastly outnumbered by folks like Paul and many others.

 

I think it's appropriate to add that I think without exception all the CCers I'm met have been excellent examples of the human race. I often wonder if it's the lifestyle that makes them so, or if it's a qualification needed to spend your life constantly travelling

[Capt.Golightly]

wow Paul I'm lost in admiration for your water filtration plant mate! it sounds utterly brilliant! apologies to all for drifting slightly rant-wards back there it certainly wasn't directed at anyone here as all the boaters I have thus far encountered have been just as I hoped...very sound people indeed! thanks to all of you for your replies and the great deal of help i have already received..Andrew,

Edited September 22, 2013 by Capt.Golightly

[onionbargee]

You need to take into account Diesel is now at 97p a liter, thats 8 or 10 pound a days cruising, many boaters choose CC'ing as a cheap option, how many hours does a true constant cruiser do a year ?

 

 

 

[Paul's Nulife4-2]

Hi ya Onionbargee,

Diesel is,without doubt,one of my biggest expenses.probably after food n drink,& I love my food n drink..Ive just gone through some of my notes ect & it seams I averaged 1920lts,& ran Approx 485 eng hrs per yr ,(I note eng hrs,as miles arnt as easy to log when Tidal),based on some of the 3yrs notes n scribbles I kept for some reason or another.+ there will be a bit of fuel for heating/generator in there as well. So yes,I guess £1700 per yr on cherry.at an Ave price of 0.85p ish per ltr ,again taken over the 3yrs.(its worth saying,I had to top up via jerry cans with road 'white' diesel from a garage on a cpl of occasions,which inturn has raised the Ave price paid for fuel,.but needs must) but I still don't think that's to bad.it was after all ,one of my ONLY Bill's..I know people who spend more than that down the pub !.

Just as a foot note,,for anyone that's interested.Or new to boating,& was wondering about some coatings - .My TOTAL cruising /living budget inc all boat expenses insurance & license ect was on Ave,over the 3yrs £8.850per yr,for 2 people & a dog !!.

Whilst exploring the Lower Tidal Thames,The Thames Estuary,The Walton backwaters,The Medway Estuary,The Tidal Medway And The Non Tidal Medway.A beautiful play ground,with numerous temp anchorage,steeped in history.& well worth the visit.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Paul's Nulife4-2

[GoodGurl]

You need to take into account Diesel is now at 97p a liter, thats 8 or 10 pound a days cruising, many boaters choose CC'ing as a cheap option, how many hours does a true constant cruiser do a year ?

 

 

 

i don't know about constant continuous cruisers but we have done about 900 miles so far this year. and diesel is 79.9 at norbury wharf.

[Athy]

As a slightly OT aside from this discussion, where's that house? I want it!

[Capt.Golightly]

It has long been my opinion that only the rich love geldt, for the rest of us it serves as the links of the unseen chain which binds us to their mechanism for the production of more. Therefore any back room move to curtail our freedom to live and move outside of their orbit comes as no surprise to me at all

Edited September 22, 2013 by Capt.Golightly

[BlueStringPudding]

 

Well, come on then - what's your view?

 

Richard

 

I'll tell you:

 

Do I think CaRT are actively launching an aggressive attack on CCers? No. No I don't think that. They don't need to because intolerant, resentful people in places like this forum are doing that for them.

 

CaRT ain't stupid. They know they can't survive without the license fees of thousands and thousands of boaters. They're trying to top the coffers up with fundraising and donations because like every charity, they are obliged to try and diversify their income streams. However they need canalside businesses and they need boaters licenses. The cost of maintaining waterways and locks are (in business accounting terms, not literally) fixed costs - those costs fluctuate "relatively" little in relation to the number of boats on the canal. A rusted and woodrot-ridden fooked lock gate is a fooked lockgate whether for a single marina boater on his holidays or for ten CCers passing through it. One might argue that wear-and-tear is just as likely sped up by inexperienced hireboaters, litterers and vandals, as it is higher numbers of experienced boaters using them with care.

 

So why would CaRT do anything to reduce the number of license fees they receive in the short-mid term... without a very well thought out and planned alternative business model for the distant future?

 

Segway into the next conversation, which might be on what is CaRT's plans for the distant future? If anything like the other Trusts and holders of public funds I've been working with for the last few years, b*gger all. They're biding their time, trying to secure as much individual, local, regional, national and probably international funding as they can, while waiting to see who gets into power next - as there may be no money for anything like heritage, leisure, culture, arts and the like, after 2015-16.

 

As you were...

[RLWP]

 

I'll tell you:

 

Do I think CaRT are actively launching an aggressive attack on CCers? No. No I don't think that. They don't need to because intolerant, resentful people in places like this forum are doing that for them.

 

 

Heck - is that me?

 

Richard

[Tacet]

Well, my take is that they are not endangered in the short term, but I am less confident over a longer period.

 

The biggest threat to the principle is the possible/probable expansion of the little-moving continuous cruiser. Recent pressure from boaters to CRT seems to have been calling successfully for less onerous implementation of the law/guidelines - i.e. Western K&A, winter moorings and RMP. Whilst well-intentioned, I'm sure, it does tend to reinforce the view that many/all CCers do not, in fact, wish to navigate at all.

 

I am not usually one for conspiracy theories, but the K&A guidance (for example) pretty much condones what Davies held not to be bona-fide navigation - on the same stretch of canal too. In the same vein, the new winter moorings permits are issued (ONLY to be issued!) to those who have declared that they will engage in bona-fide navigation throughout the period of their license. It seems to me that CRT, when issuing a new licence, cannot reasonably be satisfied etc etc etc if it has recently issued a permit waiving the need to navigate for a period up to five months. Maybe this point does not matter in itself, but taken together the relaxations must inevitably encourage those that cannot or do not wish (or no longer wish) to navigate far, to come/remain on the cut.

 

The CCer gets a very good deal, with few exceptions he/she pay less overall to CRT and benefits more.

 

But should the pressure points expand and multiply, the criticism (whether well-founded or not) from other users, waterway-neighbours, local authorities and others could lead to calls for a change in legislation to address the perceived issue. The format of such a change is anybody's guess but those with long memories may recall BWs pre-1995 proposal that every boat should have a home mooring.

 

 

 

 

[matty40s]

In the same vein, the new winter moorings permits are issued (ONLY to be issued!) to those who have declared that they will engage in bona-fide navigation throughout the period of their license. It seems to me that CRT, when issuing a new licence, cannot reasonably be satisfied etc etc etc if it has recently issued a permit waiving the need to navigate for a period up to five months. Maybe this point does not matter in itself, but taken together the relaxations must inevitably encourage those that cannot or do not wish (or no longer wish) to navigate far, to come/remain on the cut.

 

The CCer gets a very good deal, with few exceptions he/she pay less overall to CRT and benefits more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do they pay less if in previous years they paid nothing,and how do they benefit more, if they still have to move as they are not permitted on designated VM or within 1km of a marina for more than 14 days??

Edited September 23, 2013 by matty40s

[LoneWolf]

 

Heck - is that me?

 

Richard

 

not in my view

[Ange]

 

not in my view

nor mine

[GoodGurl]

Well, my take is that they are not endangered in the short term, but I am less confident over a longer period.

 

The biggest threat to the principle is the possible/probable expansion of the little-moving continuous cruiser. Recent pressure from boaters to CRT seems to have been calling successfully for less onerous implementation of the law/guidelines - i.e. Western K&A, winter moorings and RMP. Whilst well-intentioned, I'm sure, it does tend to reinforce the view that many/all CCers do not, in fact, wish to navigate at all.

 

I am not usually one for conspiracy theories, but the K&A guidance (for example) pretty much condones what Davies held not to be bona-fide navigation - on the same stretch of canal too. In the same vein, the new winter moorings permits are issued (ONLY to be issued!) to those who have declared that they will engage in bona-fide navigation throughout the period of their license. It seems to me that CRT, when issuing a new licence, cannot reasonably be satisfied etc etc etc if it has recently issued a permit waiving the need to navigate for a period up to five months. Maybe this point does not matter in itself, but taken together the relaxations must inevitably encourage those that cannot or do not wish (or no longer wish) to navigate far, to come/remain on the cut.

 

The CCer gets a very good deal, with few exceptions he/she pay less overall to CRT and benefits more.

 

But should the pressure points expand and multiply, the criticism (whether well-founded or not) from other users, waterway-neighbours, local authorities and others could lead to calls for a change in legislation to address the perceived issue. The format of such a change is anybody's guess but those with long memories may recall BWs pre-1995 proposal that every boat should have a home mooring.

 

 

 

 

you really should get out more,not all CC'rs reside on the K&A, not all CC'rs refuse to move,also CC'rs dont have it easy nor do they pay less than a marina moored boat as those that do comply (and there are more than you think) use the marina mooring costs in diesel and then some. tell you what lets ask CRT to make a compliance list for a CC license and whilst we're at it lets make all VM's 24 hours so no one can overstay, then when that's done CRT can then fork out a few hundred thousand pounds extra a year on patrol officers to make sure the rules are obeyed.

[Tacet]

How do they pay less if in previous years they paid nothing,and how do they benefit more, if they still have to move as they are not permitted on designated VM or within 1km of a marina for more than 14 days??

Sorry, if I was not clear. The comparison was between a CCer and those with a home mooring - not between a CCer who takes a (temporary) mooring and one who does not. Those with a home mooring will almost always make a direct or indirect payment to CRT, which is a cause of resentment for some. I accept that the equation gets more doubtful if the CCer takes a mooring at some point - but he is not obliged to do so

[BlueStringPudding]

 

Heck - is that me?

 

Richard

 

No, Richard, not you.

 

But there's many a thread to peruse on this forum where some boaters rant and bitch and snide about "collective nouns" of other boaters. More often than not it's those who have chosen to pay for a mooring, preaching intolerance and resentment about those who have chosen not to. It's a choice. So why do they persecute and stir? Bitterness? Boredom? Who knows. Who does it harm? Who cares? Not CaRT I don't think. At least not until it becomes useful to them to use as a lever for forcing the kind of changes that bring them additional revenue. And no doubt that will impact on all boaters not just CCers. By which time the moaning intolerant party will rant and be bitter about that instead - forgetting they've probably fuelled it.

Well, my take is that they are not endangered in the short term, but I am less confident over a longer period.

 

The biggest threat to the principle is the possible/probable expansion of the little-moving continuous cruiser. Recent pressure from boaters to CRT seems to have been calling successfully for less onerous implementation of the law/guidelines - i.e. Western K&A, winter moorings and RMP. Whilst well-intentioned, I'm sure, it does tend to reinforce the view that many/all CCers do not, in fact, wish to navigate at all.

 

I am not usually one for conspiracy theories, but the K&A guidance (for example) pretty much condones what Davies held not to be bona-fide navigation - on the same stretch of canal too. In the same vein, the new winter moorings permits are issued (ONLY to be issued!) to those who have declared that they will engage in bona-fide navigation throughout the period of their license. It seems to me that CRT, when issuing a new licence, cannot reasonably be satisfied etc etc etc if it has recently issued a permit waiving the need to navigate for a period up to five months. Maybe this point does not matter in itself, but taken together the relaxations must inevitably encourage those that cannot or do not wish (or no longer wish) to navigate far, to come/remain on the cut.

 

The CCer gets a very good deal, with few exceptions he/she pay less overall to CRT and benefits more.

 

But should the pressure points expand and multiply, the criticism (whether well-founded or not) from other users, waterway-neighbours, local authorities and others could lead to calls for a change in legislation to address the perceived issue. The format of such a change is anybody's guess but those with long memories may recall BWs pre-1995 proposal that every boat should have a home mooring.

 

 

 

 

In what way benefits more? No security, no facilities unlike marina moorings. So benefiting more than whom, and in what way?

 

I don't even understand what the "perceived issue" is. CaRT have introduced much more accessible and affordable winter moorings. As such more people take them up on the offer, who still have no additional security or facilities as a marina moorer has but it relaxes the rules in the months where CaRT struggle to maintain the waterways as navigable anyway (for obvious reasons). In the meantime CaRT generate the vital additional income they need because they've offered a "product" than hopefully more people will want. Win win, surely?

[Tacet]

you really should get out more,not all CC'rs reside on the K&A, not all CC'rs refuse to move,also CC'rs dont have it easy nor do they pay less than a marina moored boat as those that do comply (and there are more than you think) use the marina mooring costs in diesel and then some. tell you what lets ask CRT to make a compliance list for a CC license and whilst we're at it lets make all VM's 24 hours so no one can overstay, then when that's done CRT can then fork out a few hundred thousand pounds extra a year on patrol officers to make sure the rules are obeyed.

 

Not getting out enough is a charge that is very unlikely to stick in my case. I didn't say CCing was a cheap option - just that CRT see less of your money (typically) than those who take a mooring. Neither did I express any view on the numbers that regularly don't comply with the law.

 

I am a CCer.

[matty40s]

...and most of the time it's those Hudson owners...

 

although not Nicknorman as he is turning out to be ok. .....Have you seen the piccy of Carlt covered in lipstick getting his arse paddled?

[onionbargee]

you really should get out more,not all CC'rs reside on the K&A, not all CC'rs refuse to move,also CC'rs dont have it easy nor do they pay less than a marina moored boat as those that do comply (and there are more than you think) use the marina mooring costs in diesel and then some. tell you what lets ask CRT to make a compliance list for a CC license and whilst we're at it lets make all VM's 24 hours so no one can overstay, then when that's done CRT can then fork out a few hundred thousand pounds extra a year on patrol officers to make sure the rules are obeyed.

I went up the K&A to Devizes and back from Reading and i constantly cruised, there were no chuffing moorings even if i wanted to stop !

[carlt]

.....Have you seen the piccy of Carlt covered in lipstick getting his arse paddled?

He swore that he'd destroyed those negatives (or should that be "formatted the SD card").

Are Continuous Cruisers an endangered species?

 

Apparently there has been a new organisation formed to campaign to prevent their extinction...

 

The "National Society for the Preservation of Continuous Cruisers".

[Ex- Member]

I went up the K&A to Devizes and back from Reading and i constantly cruised, there were no chuffing moorings even if i wanted to stop !

 

Damned We were thinking of going up to Devizes toward Reading as we were told it's much quieter. We cruised from Seend to Dundas and back over the past few days and it was the same, packed solid bow to stern.

 

We're not going to bother travelling that way again for a long while, it's mayhem on the weekends too.

 

I'm beginning to think any endangerment will be over crowding LOL