Reasons for not allowing continuous on line mooring.

[b0atman]

BW management was mainly in it for the money.

Now we are a charitable trust then it should have been made more accountable to members i.e licence holders and those with vested interests like the fishing clubs.

[jenlyn]

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)

That came from a trustee when we discussed an extra charge for those applying to be cc. The charge was being linked to winter moorings.

The trustee was quite clear about it "can't be done steve, we do not have the power to bring in a new license". In fact, if you do some research on this forum, you will find reference to it :-)

[mayalld]

 

 

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.

Wrong.

 

The right to have no home mooring is predicated upon bona fide navigation.

 

Now let us assume that at some point in the future we arrive at the point where we get an objective test of what is bona fide navigation and that this test involves (say) a minimum 100 miles every year.

 

Your theory is that we will still have 100 boats on the towpath, just moving further.

 

My theory is that a fair few (those who pretend to cc now) will not want to play by those rules and will either leave the canal or take a mooring.

[alan_fincher]

 

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.

 

Get real!

 

If boats are moored a full half mile apart, you stay on tick-over between them? Why?

 

Your choice, but it is normally reckoned that if you kill your speed two or three boat lengths before a moored boat that that will be sufficient. So 'm reckoning that at least 800 of those 880 yards you say you are stuck in tick-over for you could actually be at "normal" speed.

[b0atman]

Wrong.

 

The right to have no home mooring is predicated upon bona fide navigation.

 

Now let us assume that at some point in the future we arrive at the point where we get an objective test of what is bona fide navigation and that this test involves (say) a minimum 100 miles every year.

 

Your theory is that we will still have 100 boats on the towpath, just moving further.

 

My theory is that a fair few (those who pretend to cc now) will not want to play by those rules and will either leave the canal or take a mooring.

a good theory but with week management problem will still be there.

Edited October 4, 2014 by b0atman

[Québec]

b0atman's reference to speedbumps, made me think that what we have on the system is, essentially and potentially, one gigantic residential area with a consequent 'tick over' speed limit. (Though, like many speed limits, there are always those who ignore the restrictions). Unlike the road system we don't have the equivalent of double yellow lines, clearways, red routes and speed cameras....or speed bumps.

 

It's obvious that the more boats using the system, the greater the number of tickover miles users will have to endure.

[jenlyn]

I like tick over. Plenty to see and enjoy. What's the rush?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Get real!

 

If boats are moored a full half mile apart, you stay on tick-over between them? Why?

 

Your choice, but it is normally reckoned that if you kill your speed two or three boat lengths before a moored boat that that will be sufficient. So 'm reckoning that at least 800 of those 880 yards you say you are stuck in tick-over for you could actually be at "normal" speed.

 

Ok - fair point - but what if those 100 boats are moored 1/4 mile apart (still 25 miles of boats), it isnt worth changing from tickover every 400 yards.

[John V]

 

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?

 

 

b0atman's reference to speedbumps, made me think that what we have on the system is, essentially and potentially, one gigantic residential area with a consequent 'tick over' speed limit. (Though, like many speed limits, there are always those who ignore the restrictions). Unlike the road system we don't have the equivalent of double yellow lines, clearways, red routes and speed cameras....or speed bumps.

 

It's obvious that the more boats using the system, the greater the number of tickover miles users will have to endure.

 

So someone please tell me ....Is the canal system for travelling or for housing?

 

If it is to be considered primarily a housing system then I suspect it is not fit for purpose

If it is primarily a leisure transport system then I suspect that using it as a housing system will render it unfit for purpose

 

The obvious reply is compromise but that I suspect will end up with a system that is fit for neither purpose

 

I don't have an answer, my vote would be for a transport system and that housing, had to be subordinate to that requirement

 

I do liveaboard and have always accepted the idea that if I am not cruising then I need a home mooring (if necessary off line)

[Traveller]

 

 

 

So someone please tell me ....Is the canal system for travelling or for housing?

 

If it is to be considered primarily a housing system then I suspect it is not fit for purpose

If it is primarily a leisure transport system then I suspect that using it as a housing system will render it unfit for purpose

 

The obvious reply is compromise but that I suspect will end up with a system that is fit for neither purpose

 

I don't have an answer, my vote would be for a transport system and that housing, had to be subordinate to that requirement

 

I do liveaboard and have always accepted the idea that if I am not cruising then I need a home mooring (if necessary off line)

[Tony Dunkley]

 

The right to have no home mooring is predicated upon bona fide navigation.

 

Now let us assume that at some point in the future we arrive at the point where we get an objective test of what is bona fide navigation and that this test involves (say) a minimum 100 miles every year.

 

 

When they thought it would suit their purpose C&RT decided, and announced, that 'bona fide navigation' and 'cruising' were the same thing. Unfortunately for them, in their usual blundering manner, they omitted to first look up the meaning of 'cruising' as relevant to inland waterways, which turned out to be . . . "sail about in an area without a precise destination" . . . so you can forget about 'objective' tests and mileage and go and find them a bandage for the corporate foot they've shot themselves in.

[rubblequeen]

Just a thought but what if CRT spent it's logging time by concentrating solely on the mooring areas that have a time restriction. Forget about who has and hasn't cruised far enough but ensure the designated time moorings are used correctly with a time limit as to when you can return. The parking wardens do it round our streets so can't be that hard.

 

This way the people who are using their boat for living on and have to pretend to be CCers can tow path moor after all they contribute in the licence fee just as much as the rest of us and I agree their boat takes up space somewhere.

 

If there is a particular problem in any one area then put a time limit along that tow path.

[Alf Roberts]

Just a thought but what if CRT spent it's logging time by concentrating solely on the mooring areas that have a time restriction. Forget about who has and hasn't cruised far enough but ensure the designated time moorings are used correctly with a time limit as to when you can return. The parking wardens do it round our streets so can't be that hard.

 

This way the people who are using their boat for living on and have to pretend to be CCers can tow path moor after all they contribute in the licence fee just as much as the rest of us and I agree their boat takes up space somewhere.

 

If there is a particular problem in any one area then put a time limit along that tow path.

Strangely.... that's exactly what's happening in many areas. Strict enforcement of visitor moorings and consensual management of other areas.

 

The problem seems to be - and is causing problems to leisure boaters - arbitrary restrictions where no research backs them up.

 

Unfortunately in some areas this is being undermined by zealot volunteer rangers with a personal agenda. Hopefully the complaints process is robust enough to deal with this - but don't hold your breath.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Alf Roberts

[Arthur Marshall]

Tickover speeds seem to vary hugely. I suspect some even speed up their tickovers in response to miles of moored boats - and I agree, there's no particular rush, but 3 mph, which is what I cruise at, isn't exactly rushing in the first place. So how do you define tickover? 2mph as some of the signs say? I'm unconvinced that many of us actually manage to cruise at 4mph - I get stuck behind boats often enough even at my leisurely pace.

If you've got a situation where you've got five miles of moored boats, I think it's ludicrous to expect anyone to go past them on tickover, and the moorers should appreciate that and tie themselves up properly.

[Bod]

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

Don't go giving out those ideas!!

 

Bod

[b0atman]

I understood that the speed guide line is walking pace assumed to be 4 mph (modern myth ?)

I work my boating plans as 3 lock miles per hour and generally achieve less sometimes walkers leave me behind .

Even at my pace slowing down past moored boats the standard of string usage is generally abysmal very few boaters use a springer line except springer owners of course lol

[Nightwatch]

I'm a permanent leisure boater. Without a home mooring. I am on a continual journey, presently held back on distance travelled by having to have work carried out onboard next week. I haven't broken any rules in the first three months of being a Permanant leisure boater, PLB,(oh dear, looks like i could become known as a PLeB).

 

I think £100 a month surcharge is too much.when farmer Giles allows boats to moor against his land and ,say, charges £150 a month for the privilege, what % of this cost goes to CRT? Maybe this amount, if introduced may be more acceptable.

 

Martyn

[Alan de Enfield]

........................., what % of this cost goes to CRT? Maybe this amount, if introduced may be more acceptable.

 

Martyn

 

My understanding is that C&RT charge Farmers / EOGs at a rate of 50% of the areas average mooring costs - irrespective of what the Farmer charges the boater.

[Top cat]

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

As I pay for my mooring I would be most cheesed off to have to pay more to subsidise those who don't.

 

TC

[MtB]

As I pay for my mooring I would be most cheesed off to have to pay more to subsidise those who don't.

 

TC

 

But you wouldn't pay more.

 

Assuming you have a towpath mooring already, your license fee would need to rise by somewhat less than the cost of your towpath mooring.

 

If you choose to moor in a marina then you wouldn't be having to pay more, that would be your choice.

 

 

MtB

[bassplayer]

As I pay for my mooring I would be most cheesed off to have to pay more to subsidise those who don't.

TC

We all pay for the privilege to temporarily moor beside the tow path from our licence fee (amongst other things)

 

It's ones choice to pay extra for an additional permanent mooring and the extra privileges which come with that....well that's the way I see it...

 

Whether all of us aren't paying enough to cover maintenance of the infrastructure and the running of CRT is another matter. If it's revenue which is the problem then CRT would be better off making the organisation leaner and stop wasting money on enforcement (which I can never see generate revenue)...

[John V]

We all pay for the privilege to temporarily moor beside the tow path from our licence fee (amongst other things)

 

It's ones choice to pay extra for an additional permanent mooring and the extra privileges which come with that....well that's the way I see it...

 

Whether all of us aren't paying enough to cover maintenance of the infrastructure and the running of CRT is another matter. If it's revenue which is the problem then CRT would be better off making the organisation leaner and stop wasting money on enforcement (which I can never see generate revenue)...

 

not having enforcement guarantees a drop in revenue

[Sir Nibble]

OK, result of allowing this. First lines of boats will appear near town centres and begin to slowly spread outwards like some watery version of suburban creep. After a while groups will appear and defend one another's spot when they go for water or fuel. The canal will become a sewer due to the scarcity and value of space precluding movement without the help of aforesaid space defenders, it just won't be worth moving. Rubbish will pile high between visits to disposal points and probably burned. The biggest drawback is that for the kind of use we now refer to as continuous mooring, whilst it looks wonderful to not have to move, it would soon become impossible to move without becoming homeless, unless of course you are part of a gang.

[John V]

 

 

 

So someone please tell me ....Is the canal system for travelling or for housing?

 

If it is to be considered primarily a housing system then I suspect it is not fit for purpose

If it is primarily a leisure transport system then I suspect that using it as a housing system will render it unfit for purpose

 

The obvious reply is compromise but that I suspect will end up with a system that is fit for neither purpose

 

I don't have an answer, my vote would be for a transport system and that housing, had to be subordinate to that requirement

 

I do liveaboard and have always accepted the idea that if I am not cruising then I need a home mooring (if necessary off line)

 

 

OK, result of allowing this. First lines of boats will appear near town centres and begin to slowly spread outwards like some watery version of suburban creep. After a while groups will appear and defend one another's spot when they go for water or fuel. The canal will become a sewer due to the scarcity and value of space precluding movement without the help of aforesaid space defenders, it just won't be worth moving. Rubbish will pile high between visits to disposal points and probably burned. The biggest drawback is that for the kind of use we now refer to as continuous mooring, whilst it looks wonderful to not have to move, it would soon become impossible to move without becoming homeless, unless of course you are part of a gang.

 

same thing different wording!!!

 

So is anyone else going to put their name to one side or the other of the question

 

Are canals for travelling or housing ?

[bassplayer]

not having enforcement guarantees a drop in revenue

I doubt that very much. Legal action costs, enforcement officers, IT technology, signage....Against a small percentage of boaters, some of who won't cough up anyway...