Reasons for not allowing continuous on line mooring.

[Theo]

Having read through much of Cotswoldsman's topic on being accused of non compliance with the continous cruising guidelines SWMBO and I (continuous cruisers, hurrah!) had a bit of a discuss about the reasons for not allowing people to moor on line continousuly for a prolonged period without paying a fee for a proper mooring.

 

We came to the conclusion that the main reason is that people who do this often make a mess of the towpath. They might have scruffy boats that sit about being undecorative for a long time. Some people might say that they spoil the view.

 

It could be contended that if these people are forced to move on then they will cost CRT considerably more. They will use more water and wear out locks and swing bridges and stuff. If they stay where they are the cost to CRT approaches zero. Neither do they take up more space. A 60 foot boat takes up 60 feet of canal bank wherever it is moored. Making them move merely means that the 60 feet of space that is taken moves from place to place. It does not become greater.

 

It could be said that the continuous cruiser should pay for the extra wear on the system. I used to pay £130 per month for my mooring. How about a surcharge on the license fee for my unbridled use of the system. Would £100 per month to pay for my extra use of assets be unreasonable? That would still save me £30 a month. If I choose to continuously moor and not use the assets then that is my choice.

 

So one could contend that all this navel gazing about what constitutes continuous cruising could be avoided by CRT saying "Show us your mooring invoice or pay a surcharge. One you have paid your surcharge you can moor wherever you like up to the time limit for that place. Forget about the 14 day rule but obey time limits on notices."

 

Mess on the towpath is, of course, a pain and can be a blight. So a rule of "Nothing on the towpath except mooring pins or a generator." properly enforced, should sort that.

 

What do you think?

 

N

[jenlyn]

Having read through much of Cotswoldsman's topic on being accused of non compliance with the continous cruising guidelines SWMBO and I (continuous cruisers, hurrah!) had a bit of a discuss about the reasons for not allowing people to moor on line continousuly for a prolonged period without paying a fee for a proper mooring.

 

We came to the conclusion that the main reason is that people who do this often make a mess of the towpath. They might have scruffy boats that sit about being undecorative for a long time. Some people might say that they spoil the view.

 

It could be contended that if these people are forced to move on then they will cost CRT considerably more. They will use more water and wear out locks and swing bridges and stuff. If they stay where they are the cost to CRT approaches zero. Neither do they take up more space. A 60 foot boat takes up 60 feet of canal bank wherever it is moored. Making them move merely means that the 60 feet of space that is taken moves from place to place. It does not become greater.

 

It could be said that the continuous cruiser should pay for the extra wear on the system. I used to pay £130 per month for my mooring. How about a surcharge on the license fee for my unbridled use of the system. Would £100 per month to pay for my extra use of assets be unreasonable? That would still save me £30 a month. If I choose to continuously moor and not use the assets then that is my choice.

 

So one could contend that all this navel gazing about what constitutes continuous cruising could be avoided by CRT saying "Show us your mooring invoice or pay a surcharge. One you have paid your surcharge you can moor wherever you like up to the time limit for that place. Forget about the 14 day rule but obey time limits on notices."

 

Mess on the towpath is, of course, a pain and can be a blight. So a rule of "Nothing on the towpath except mooring pins or a generator." properly enforced, should sort that.

 

What do you think?

 

N

I think it comes down to how the waterways are managed.

Apart from the fact they cannot charge extra for a licence, or bring in a new one if you like, it still boils down to management. No matter how much money you throw at something, if that money is not "managed" we will still be where we are.

[b0atman]

If boats are not moored where the visitor moorings are (these need looking at)then I have absolutely no problem with continuous moorers .

However a mooring permit should be looked at so as to be fair to other boaters .

Genuine continuous cruiser should be exempt this mooring permit.

[Theo]

If boats are not moored where the visitor moorings are (these need looking at)then I have absolutely no problem with continuous moorers .

However a mooring permit should be looked at so as to be fair to other boaters .

Genuine continuous cruiser should be exempt this mooring permit.

This would not avoid the knotty problem of defining and policing continuous mooring.

 

N

Edited October 9, 2014 by Theo

[Tuscan]

I think it comes down to how the waterways are managed.

Apart from the fact they cannot charge extra for a licence, or bring in a new one if you like, it still boils down to management. No matter how much money you throw at something, if that money is not "managed" we will still be where we are.

Some would argue that the winter towpath permit is in fact charging extra for a license, that said I think it's a good thing. Jenlyn is right thought there is no point in changing anything until CRT management work out how any change could be effectively managed.

[MtB]

I think there is a very good case in several ways for handing out towpath moorings for free and raising the license fee to everyone to account for the loss of moorings income.

 

 

MtB

[Detling]

I think there is a very good case in several ways for handing out towpath moorings for free and raising the license fee to everyone to account for the loss of moorings income.

 

 

MtB

But those of use who cruise get fed up passing miles of moored boats on tick over. Maybe if you changed the system to 'we pass at full speed ' and if you aren't moored properly tough then OK.

[matty40s]

Having read through much of Cotswoldsman's topic on being accused of non compliance with the continous cruising guidelines SWMBO and I (continuous cruisers, hurrah!) had a bit of a discuss about the reasons for not allowing people to moor on line continousuly for a prolonged period without paying a fee for a proper mooring.

 

We came to the conclusion that the main reason is that people who do this often make a mess of the towpath. They might have scruffy boats that sit about being undecorative for a long time. Some people might say that they spoil the view.

 

It could be contended that if these people are forced to move on then they will cost CRT considerably more. They will use more water and wear out locks and swing bridges and stuff. If they stay where they are the cost to CRT approaches zero. Neither do they take up more space. A 60 foot boat takes up 60 feet of canal bank wherever it is moored. Making them move merely means that the 60 feet of space that is taken moves from place to place. It does not become greater.

 

It could be said that the continuous cruiser should pay for the extra wear on the system. I used to pay £130 per month for my mooring. How about a surcharge on the license fee for my unbridled use of the system. Would £100 per month to pay for my extra use of assets be unreasonable? That would still save me £30 a month. If I choose to continuously moor and not use the assets then that is my choice.

 

So one could contend that all this navel gazing about what constitutes continuous cruising could be avoided by CRT saying "Show us your mooring invoice or pay a surcharge. One you have paid your surcharge you can moor wherever you like up to the time limit for that place. Forget about the 14 day rule but obey time limits on notices."

 

Mess on the towpath is, of course, a pain and can be a blight. So a rule of "Nothing on the towpath except mooring pins or a generator." properly enforced, should sort that.

 

What do you think?

 

N

When I leave a mooring, you could not tell have been there.

I do not invade the towpath with crap while I am here.

I am not a scruffy boat.

Depending on work, I may only cruise over a local area for 6-9 weeks (painting), then move on.

education and enforcement are key to keeping the towpaths clear and moving.

Edited October 3, 2014 by matty40s

[luctor et emergo]

I think there is a very good case in several ways for handing out towpath moorings for free and raising the license fee to everyone to account for the loss of moorings income.

 

 

MtB

Have you made an entry in the 'vested interest ' journal??

 

 

 

[jenlyn]

But those of use who cruise get fed up passing miles of moored boats on tick over. Maybe if you changed the system to 'we pass at full speed ' and if you aren't moored properly tough then OK.

Other factors of course are, the ground moored to may be a bit soft, the area may be a bit shallow, and of course there may be a few who have not moored as they should.

 

Then of course, you have the pillocks who want to get round as fast as possible, don't like sharing, don't take into account the reasons listed above, and generally think they are on a motorway.

[John V]

I've been thinking over Theo's post and one problem strikes me that I don't think has been addressed in the post. That is overcrowding in certain areas and the subsequent over stretching of facilities,

 

How do you ensure that very busy areas are "thinned out" so that there are sufficient visitor moorings/facilities for boats that are genuinely on a journey?

 

The other thing isn't this standing the whole reason for the existence of the canals on its head?

 

Surely they were built to provide a transport route and then as trade died to be a recreational travel system?

 

Are you suggesting that the core reason for the canals now should be a system of housing?

Edited October 3, 2014 by John V

[matty40s]

Looking again at Theo's post. it is based on a view of 6 months cruising, OOp north.

He hasn't seen the system in the depths of Winter when " CC boats overstaying" tend to dissapear back into their marinas, giving a truer picture.

Theo, give us an opinion when you have travelled a bit more and seen REAL congestion/issues. Maybe over 2 years. In the winter months, of course you will still be CC-ing and not seeking refuge in a marina won't you????

Edited October 3, 2014 by matty40s

[Noah T]

 

How do you ensure that very busy areas are "thinned out" so that there are sufficient visitor moorings/facilities for boats that are genuinely on a journey?

 

I think there is a strong case for enforcement in order to achieve this. Even eg in London, it's only certain areas that are 'busy' in terms of lack of space to moor up somewhere.

 

But elsewhere, ie in places where there is hardly ever a problem finding a mooring space, what is the actual point of enforcing the CC rule?

[luctor et emergo]

Careful, you're veering towards sensibility..

 

 

 

 

 

It will not do.. Confusing non sencical mooring restrictions will be introduced, and rigorously enforced.. Eh. Well.. Introduced anyway. Before being changed. As we see fit. No, no, as demand requires.. Um..um. To stop....

 

Help..

[Ange]

Well our boat is a bit on the scruffy side - that paint job that was meant to happen last year didn't actually transpire so Iona still wears a 20 year old paint job that is getting decidedly jaded!

 

However we never leave anything on the towpath! We have been photographed on one occasion with the contents of our roof on the towpath (thanks Matty ) but that was only for a short while.

 

I think the actions of a few tarnish the rest of us, which is a shame.

[BlueStringPudding]

But those of use who cruise get fed up passing miles of moored boats on tick over. Maybe if you changed the system to 'we pass at full speed ' and if you aren't moored properly tough then OK.

 

 

But the point Theo was making is that it is exactly the same number of moored boats as there is now! The number of boats doesn't change and the number of nights or days they moor doesn't change. If there's 100 boats moored here and there, sometimes in groups and sometimes in the middle of nowhere, on a given stretch of canal you are cruising along - whether they move after 14 days or not, there will still be 100 boats on that given stretch of canal. Or if there's xx thousands of boats moored on the whole system - whether they move after 14 days or not there will still be xx thousands of boats moored on the system and you'll still have to slow down to tickover when you pass them. So your argument about passing moored boats on tickover doesn't stack up.

[cotswoldsman]

Some would argue that the winter towpath permit is in fact charging extra for a license, that said I think it's a good thing.

What have I missed? I must try and keep up but then I am only 10 days away from becoming an OAP.

Having read through much of Cotswoldsman's topic on being accused of non compliance with the continous cruising guidelines SWMBO and I (continuous cruisers, hurrah!) had a bit of a discuss about the reasons for not allowing people to moor on line continousuly for a prolonged period without paying a fee for a proper mooring.

 

We came to the conclusion that the main reason is that people who do this often make a mess of the towpath. They might have scruffy boats that sit about being undecorative for a long time. Some people might say that they spoil the view.

 

It could be contended that if these people are forced to move on then they will cost CRT considerably more. They will use more water and wear out locks and swing bridges and stuff. If they stay where they are the cost to CRT approaches zero. Neither do they take up more space. A 60 foot boat takes up 60 feet of canal bank wherever it is moored. Making them move merely means that the 60 feet of space that is taken moves from place to place. It does not become greater.

 

It could be said that the continuous cruiser should pay for the extra wear on the system. I used to pay £130 per month for my mooring. How about a surcharge on the license fee for my unbridled use of the system. Would £100 per month to pay for my extra use of assets be unreasonable? That would still save me £30 a month. If I choose to continuously moor and not use the assets then that is my choice.

 

So one could contend that all this navel gazing about what constitutes continuous cruising could be avoided by CRT saying "Show us your mooring invoice or pay a surcharge. One you have paid your surcharge you can moor wherever you like up to the time limit for that place. Forget about the 14 day rule but obey time limits on notices."

 

Mess on the towpath is, of course, a pain and can be a blight. So a rule of "Nothing on the towpath except mooring pins or a generator." properly enforced, should sort that.

 

What do you think?

 

N

Well you were moored when I passed you last week hehe

[Phil Ambrose]

Interesting thread, reminds me somewhat of the argument between the BA and live aboards (on the Broads) and we put forward the argument that what is the difference between a boat occupied by a person for 1 week X 52 ie a hire boat and a boat occupied by a person for 52 weeks, the boat still takes up the same amount of water, as far as I know the BA are still trying to work that one out.

Oh and just for the record, its not about cost to the infrastructue because there is none, no locks (apart from sea locks but they don't count), no swing bridges, no sanitary stations, no water points and maybe 6 rubbish points but think these are subsidised by local councils.

Phil

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

But the point Theo was making is that it is exactly the same number of moored boats as there is now! The number of boats doesn't change and the number of nights or days they moor doesn't change. If there's 100 boats moored here and there, sometimes in groups and sometimes in the middle of nowhere, on a given stretch of canal you are cruising along - whether they move after 14 days or not, there will still be 100 boats on that given stretch of canal. Or if there's xx thousands of boats moored on the whole system - whether they move after 14 days or not there will still be xx thousands of boats moored on the system and you'll still have to slow down to tickover when you pass them. So your argument about passing moored boats on tickover doesn't stack up.

 

The problem is when you have one boat moored, then half a mile later another boat, then half a mile later another boat - you never get above tickover.

Now if that 100 boats were all moored "nose to tail", and they averaged 50 foot length, you would be passed all 100 boats within 1 mile instead of 50 miles.

[John V]

There are areas where it's a heck of a lot more than 100 boats moored nose to tail.....it's mile after mile (and incidentally it wasn't near London)

[b0atman]

What have I missed? I must try and keep up but then I am only 10 days away from becoming an OAP.

 

I have got 25 days to go but we both have to wait 4 weeks before we get any money

But those of use who cruise get fed up passing miles of moored boats on tick over. Maybe if you changed the system to 'we pass at full speed ' and if you aren't moored properly tough then OK.

Hope you haven't given yourself 2 greenies for that post .I personally have luckily no reason to speed past moored boats but even at tick over have been shouted at by the boats whos mooring lines hang loose so much so that one boats where in the water.

[manxmike]

Living on the Isle of Man I only get a limited amount of time I can spend cruising the canals and spending mile after mile on tickover does tend to reduce the distance I am able to travel.

 

I'm not suggesting I want to go water skiing or break the speed of sound, but it would be nice to be able to make progress.

 

I am fascinated by the boaters who moor up with vast amounts of slack in their ropes and then shout torrents of abuse when you pass them at a speed that doesn't even cause a ripple. Half a dozen of those and most people will say "sod it" and speed up - if you are going to get abuse then you might as well make it worthwhile.

 

Recently I have passed several boats, always moored in the same place, with amazing collections of empty milk containers etc covering every square inch of the boat and spilling onto the towpath. One even had a collection of about six generators - none of them running!

 

Are these the remains of the travellers who took to the canals in the seventies to escape the awfullness of daily life and the rubbish normality generates?

[AndrewIC]

Maybe if you changed the system to 'we pass at full speed ' and if you aren't moored properly tough then OK.

Some might say that this has already happened, apart from some of us old fashioned types!

[b0atman]

CRT are now looking at speed humps to slow boats down in congested areas

[mayalld]

I think it comes down to how the waterways are managed.

Apart from the fact they cannot charge extra for a licence, or bring in a new one if you like, it still boils down to management. No matter how much money you throw at something, if that money is not "managed" we will still be where we are.

Do point out where if says that they couldn't charge a different rate (not saying they should do, but they are not prohibited from such a course)