C&RT - A National trust for the waterways?? read on .....

[Laurence Hogg]

Could the IWA be the answer then?

 

In my opinion no. Not the organization it was and very weak when it comes to problems. A new private company set up as a charity LLP maybe be a better choice - but all probably a pipe dream.

Maybe call it "British Inland Waterways Executive"?

[Tuscan]

Could the IWA be the answer then?

Be careful what you wish for , the IWA chief Exec is already one of the trustees creating policy for CRT to administer. At a recent boaters meeting it was the IWA that stated that 500 miles a year should be the minimum distance that a boater should without a home mooring should be allowed to travel.

[bassplayer]

Be careful what you wish for , the IWA chief Exec is already one of the trustees creating policy for CRT to administer. At a recent boaters meeting it was the IWA that stated that 500 miles a year should be the minimum distance that a boater should without a home mooring should be allowed to travel.

But if we carry on wasting money on pointless pursuits we'll all be lucky to move 10 miles!

[Tuscan]

But if we carry on wasting money on pointless pursuits we'll all be lucky to move 10 miles!

So you don't think you would waste more pursuing those that haven't moved 500 rather than 5 or 10 at present?

[kris88]

Could the IWA be the answer then?

No! what a scary thought

 

Regards kris

[Ray T]

 

Damn good idea with a lot of positives, no different to volunteers running private railways and the like. There's more expertise in this forum than within the whole of CRT for a start but God knows how to achieve it, maybe wait for the inevitable CRT failure?

 

To my knowledge a person who is not a member of a private railway has to pay to use the private railways in the UK. Is the conclusion of adopted or private canal sections. "As you are now entering a private waterway that will be £x's please?" Or " Give us £x please and become a member."

 

Laurence, I think you will find the majority of our preserved private railways have paid officers at the top overseeing the running of them.

 

I believe The Saltisford Arm Warwick is private. Out of the goodness of their hearts they let a boater stop the first night free, there after a suggested donation is requested.

 

I personally would not like to see "our" canals carved up into many private canals each charging for the use of.

 

A return to the "good old days" of tolls for the usage thereof? Would it mean that every time I take our boat out of the marina onto the GU I would have to pay a toll, then another one when I move onto The Oxford?

Edited February 20, 2015 by Ray T

[bassplayer]

So you don't think you would waste more pursuing those that haven't moved 500 rather than 5 or 10 at present?

I'm just saying the money is better spent on maintenance so we can all enjoy moving around. Those who keep out of the way and mind their own business aren't a problem for me so long as they contribute something (not always money either - some actually look after the habitat around their boat...and of course some don't).

[bassplayer]

 

 

A return to the "good old days" of tolls for the usage thereof? Would it mean that every time I take our boat out of the marina onto the GU I would have to pay a toll, then another one when I move onto The Oxford?

Well there's a thought for funding. That's what they do in Ireland except you buy tokens which you use for locks and facilities. Mind you they aren't as backwards as us because they have electricity operated locks to allow it.

 

Having said that...I'd prefer to keep manual locks and preserve the history.....and that's the problem isn't it? You can't make a lot of money out of preserving things. Anyone who has lovingly restored a car or railway locomotive will probably unserstand this

[Paul C]

The subject (of tolls) has been visited before - I belive some time ago, BW asked their boating licence holders for an opinion on whether the Anderton lift (and a couple of other high-cost parts of the network) should be payable per use, or an adjustment made to the licence amount and free to use. The result was an overwhelming vote for free-to-use with the cost incorporated within the licence charge.

[b0atman]

I still think National Trust would have been a better option.

[bassplayer]

I still think National Trust would have been a better option.

Fine if you just want the canals to be turned Into a nature reserve. Isn't that what's going on with the Montgomery? I'm not even aaying that's a bad thing but it would probably force me down the camper route.

[Jerra]

I still think National Trust would have been a better option.

I think a National Trust style organisation but separate from NT would be best. You could then pay a membership thus raising funds and giving members some say in how the system was run.

 

Too many NT members would be able to out vote members interested in canals if both were under one organisation.

[kris88]

I think they kinda went half way this route with CRT. But not all the way, I think the current situation arises because CRT ( or some parts of it) still think they are a government body, rather than the customer facing third sector organisation that they actually are.

Regards kris

[Laurence Hogg]

My thoughts on revamping the licensing system are this.

 

Scrap the entire present system.

 

Introduce ANPR readers at all specific junctions, either side of mooring hotspots, etc etc.

 

Have one basic cruising licence irrespective of length for narrow beam and one for broad beam. Allow 200 included miles per year, then charge the mileage on a descending rate, ie the more you cruise the cheaper the rate.

 

Then have a residential licence irrespective of beam and length which includes no free miles.

 

For roving traders, trade boats etc have a additional licence to operate chargeable at a fixed annual rate.

 

Hire boats should have a trade licence and the option of charging the customer for a fixed route.

 

Overstaying on moorings for no good reason (ie stoppage) is added to the boats bill either monthly or annually.

 

The requirements to obtain a basic licence should be, BSS certificate, insurance, named senior competent skipper and in the case of residential craft a copy of their council tax payment.

 

The ANPR system could track boats, spot "overstayers", identify un registered craft and with the aid of enforcement officers rectify problems quickly.

 

As for boats with no licence who are "live aboards" have a simple law that the craft is removed to dry land with water, sewage and disposal facilities on hand, you don't need to float to live in a boat.

 

A bit "Draconian", maybe but a starting point and better than the can of worms we have now.

[cotswoldsman]

Laurance you have let me down now. Most of the Continuous Cruisers I know are retired and living on a pension. They get no council benefits that are not covered by the tax they pay (70% of council costs a paid by central government) you also now want to penalise that for cruising over 200 miles.

[bassplayer]

My thoughts on revamping the licensing system are this.

 

Scrap the entire present system.

 

Introduce ANPR readers at all specific junctions, either side of mooring hotspots, etc etc.

 

Have one basic cruising licence irrespective of length for narrow beam and one for broad beam. Allow 200 included miles per year, then charge the mileage on a descending rate, ie the more you cruise the cheaper the rate.

 

Then have a residential licence irrespective of beam and length which includes no free miles.

 

For roving traders, trade boats etc have a additional licence to operate chargeable at a fixed annual rate.

 

Hire boats should have a trade licence and the option of charging the customer for a fixed route.

 

Overstaying on moorings for no good reason (ie stoppage) is added to the boats bill either monthly or annually.

 

The requirements to obtain a basic licence should be, BSS certificate, insurance, named senior competent skipper and in the case of residential craft a copy of their council tax payment.

 

The ANPR system could track boats, spot "overstayers", identify un registered craft and with the aid of enforcement officers rectify problems quickly.

 

As for boats with no licence who are "live aboards" have a simple law that the craft is removed to dry land with water, sewage and disposal facilities on hand, you don't need to float to live in a boat.

 

A bit "Draconian", maybe but a starting point and better than the can of worms we have now.

Maybe the can of worms was best left closed. Fortunately much of the gloom and doom many of us portray on this forum isn't reflected out there when boating. I do find the debates interesting and I have modified some of my views accordingly (sometimes through those I clashed with).

 

The thing about debates is that if you aren't prepared to have your views modified then what's the point? Only maybe to show how clever or important one is. We only learn by listening, sometimes I learn from listening to myself (with horror).!

[Laurence Hogg]

Laurance you have let me down now. Most of the Continuous Cruisers I know are retired and living on a pension. They get no council benefits that are not covered by the tax they pay (70% of council costs a paid by central government) you also now want to penalise that for cruising over 200 miles.

 

As I said John,

 

"A bit "Draconian", maybe, but a starting point and better than the can of worms we have now."

 

The mileage could be altered as well as many other points, the thing is the system needs a proper overhaul, not a "quick fix and bodge it" like they are doing.

What I am suggesting in reality is learn from the past and use the old toll system but modernised.

[Machpoint005]

A toll system is going to discourage CMs from cruising, isn't it?

[b0atman]

Fine if you just want the canals to be turned Into a nature reserve. Isn't that what's going on with the Montgomery? I'm not even aaying that's a bad thing but it would probably force me down the camper route.

I think its a different body that's causing problems with the Montgomery.

[bassplayer]

I think its a different body that's causing problems with the Montgomery.

Yes, I realise that but hopefully the navigation will be retained despite other influences. For one, it was one of our travelling options for this year.

A toll system is going to discourage CMs from cruising, isn't it?

It depends on how many locks you have to go through, this country has lots of hills! It wouldn't discourage me, but not being able to go anywhere because of poor maintenance might...

[Laurence Hogg]

A toll system is going to discourage CMs from cruising, isn't it?

 

Yes it might but then by not triggering the ANPR over the section they are in they get charged for over staying so it hits both ways.

[bassplayer]

 

Yes it might but then by not triggering the ANPR over the section they are in they get charged for over staying so it hits both ways.

Why not put speed cameras in and go the whole way?

[Ray T]

Having said that...I'd prefer to keep manual locks and preserve the history.....and that's the problem isn't it? You can't make a lot of money out of preserving things. Anyone who has lovingly restored a car or railway locomotive will probably unserstand this

 

Slightly

A quote from a railway preservation video I have.

 

" There are some things that money can't buy like loyalty, feelings and a sense of history, and some things that only money can preserve, like those same loyalties, feelings and a sense of history."

[bassplayer]

Slightly

A quote from a railway preservation video I have.

 

" There are some things that money can't buy like loyalty, feelings and a sense of history, and some things that only money can preserve, like those same loyalties, feelings and a sense of history."

That's a nice quote, although sometimes money poisons good will.

[mango]

Fine if you just want the canals to be turned Into a nature reserve. Isn't that what's going on with the Montgomery? I'm not even aaying that's a bad thing but it would probably force me down the camper route.

I'm not sure but here is what is on the CRT website:

 

While the canal was closed to boats for many years, it is now being reborn as a cruiseway through the picturesque Welsh Marches. One restored section connects to the Llangollen Canal, while the other is only accessible by a slipway at Welshpool. Work continues to join the two sections through volunteers and the work of the restoration partnership.