Validating That A CRT Volunteer Is A CRT Volunteer.

[alan_fincher]

Far more likely they are CRT (staff or volunteers) and CRT management don't know they are doing it even if those on the ground do. From CRTs perspective I am sure they are not going to understand what the problem is.

 

According to a further reply just received....

 

We don't have this location set up on the Mobis system used by the volunteer rangers so a volunteer wouldn't have been able to log these into our systems. Only a staff member with access to SAP would have been able to do that. I'll check with the enforcement team to see if they can help shed some light in this.

 

 

So it seems a volunteer collecting boat data at this location would not be able to enter it into CRT databases.

 

I have passed the date this occurred, and the description given of the person back to CRT, and they are continuing to see if they can work out who he was, or why he was doing it.

 

I'm keeping an open mind, until we have any facts - there's little point in guessing, I feel.

[Jim Riley]

 

 

Now you've got me thinking. When I met the volunteer lock keeper at Littleborough, he was with another guy dressed in a black uniforum (black pants, white shirt) holding a clipboard....bit less friendly than the bubbly volunteer guy in his hi-vis top etc...and blue CRT shirt. I thought the guy in black was from CRT, but then the next day the official CRT data logger walked by and asked me for my index number, as I was on the offside getting water.

 

So who knows who the guy in black was.

 

I did also have 2 CRT guys wheel a very loud lawnmower past my boat at 8am....only to wheel it back again 10mins later...to their van...and they left. None of the towpath between my boat and their van had been trimmed, so I'm not sure what all that was about either....

 

all very confusing/amusing

If the bubbly guy was who I think he is, he was an official volunteer once and kept the t shirt. He's ok though.

[DeanS]

His whole manner and bearing was military. Could this be the same chap?

 

Nope...don't think so...I didn't see any shiny boots....lol...that's all we need....military dudes at locks

[jenlyn]

 

Nope...don't think so...I didn't see any shiny boots....lol...that's all we need....military dudes at locks

Stand by your beds!! You weedy lot of scrotes!!

I'll make your back crack, and your liver quiver! All before breakfast....

[Sabcat]

I suspect the types we're likely to get are far, far worse than ex military types (who, on the whole are ok). We're going to get pretend ex military types. An entirely different breed altogether.

[jenlyn]

I suspect the types we're likely to get are far, far worse than ex military types (who, on the whole are ok). We're going to get pretend ex military types. An entirely different breed altogether.

The dreaded STWS (special towpath waterborne services).

[Blazeaway]

Regarding mooring in the stretch of canal between locks 1 and 2 at Braunston.

 

We were assisting a friend in dry dock at UCCC and moored in the above. Not causing any problem at all and clearly with the right to stay there for 14 days (correct ?).

 

Volunteer lockie "advised us" it was restricted mooring area and wanted us to move on. We declined and were given some boll×x about IF 2 70 footers came down as 2 70 footers came up it could cause trouble. He also advised that it was ok for another noat to moor in our place as they were going into dry dock next morning. Note my mates boat would be coming out to allow that one in. So ok for him to moor but not us argument. I told him we would be moving following morning anyway. Then some 4 hours later 2 came up and 1 asked "do you have plans to move sir ?" Isaid "no" then added "but we will be leaving tomorrow" and was given a very sarcastic reply of "then you do have plans sir". We were moored at total of 3 days only. Left a bad taste what a pair of jumped up little ar$eholes.

[billS]

If Arnold Rimmer ever got back to earth...

[RLWP]

If Arnold Rimmer ever got back to earth...

 

A CRT salute - that would be worth seeing

 

Richard

 

MORE: Hang on, wouldn't he return as Ace Rimmer (What a guy!)

Edited July 17, 2015 by RLWP

[alan_fincher]

Regarding mooring in the stretch of canal between locks 1 and 2 at Braunston.

 

We were assisting a friend in dry dock at UCCC and moored in the above. Not causing any problem at all and clearly with the right to stay there for 14 days (correct ?).

 

Volunteer lockie "advised us" it was restricted mooring area and wanted us to move on. We declined and were given some boll×x about IF 2 70 footers came down as 2 70 footers came up it could cause trouble. He also advised that it was ok for another noat to moor in our place as they were going into dry dock next morning. Note my mates boat would be coming out to allow that one in. So ok for him to moor but not us argument. I told him we would be moving following morning anyway. Then some 4 hours later 2 came up and 1 asked "do you have plans to move sir ?" Isaid "no" then added "but we will be leaving tomorrow" and was given a very sarcastic reply of "then you do have plans sir". We were moored at total of 3 days only. Left a bad taste what a pair of jumped up little ar$eholes.

 

I am reluctant to post on this again, because I know I'll fall foul of those who are unhappy if I say that I have been asked not to make an answer public.

 

However I have followed this up with CRT, and was given an explanation, but when I asked if I could post it on here, (which I assumed they would agree to!), I was told that they would prefer me not to.

 

As I have asked, and they have said no, I feel deeply frustrated that I can't pass it on.

 

However what I am prepared to say is that the decision to try to stop people mooring in the shorter lock pounds at Braunston has not come from the volunteers themselves, but from permanent CRT staff responsible for enforcement.

 

Apparently they are not seeking to stop people mooring in the longer lock pounds, but are certainly seeking to do so in short pounds, such as the one between the bottom two locks.

 

So please don't blame the volunteers for trying to pass on this message.

 

I can only suggest that anybody who wants to know the background to this does as I did, and asks for an explanation. Maybe if enough of us ask they will decide instead that if they are going to come up with these rules that perhaps they need to publish that they are doing it, and the reasons why.

[RLWP]

It seems very unfair to get volunteers to enforce a spurious rule for secret reasons. Will there be signs in the future?

 

Richard

[David Schweizer]

Regarding mooring in the stretch of canal between locks 1 and 2 at Braunston.

 

We were assisting a friend in dry dock at UCCC and moored in the above. Not causing any problem at all and clearly with the right to stay there for 14 days (correct ?).

 

Volunteer lockie "advised us" it was restricted mooring area and wanted us to move on. We declined and were given some boll×x about IF 2 70 footers came down as 2 70 footers came up it could cause trouble. He also advised that it was ok for another noat to moor in our place as they were going into dry dock next morning. Note my mates boat would be coming out to allow that one in. So ok for him to moor but not us argument. I told him we would be moving following morning anyway. Then some 4 hours later 2 came up and 1 asked "do you have plans to move sir ?" Isaid "no" then added "but we will be leaving tomorrow" and was given a very sarcastic reply of "then you do have plans sir". We were moored at total of 3 days only. Left a bad taste what a pair of jumped up little ar$eholes.

 

I use the UCC dry dock in Braunston regularly, and would not even consider mooring in the pound between the two locks overnight. The pound is very short and has a regular tendancy for the water to drop by up to 18" overnight, if all paddles and gates have not been properly secured by the last boat through. UCC have a long stretch of towpath mooring below bottom Lock rented to them by CaRT, and If i need to wait for the dock to become vacant, UCC have always allowed me to "borrow" one of their moorings.

[jenlyn]

Now where did I hear a certain CEO state he wanted to see the trust as more open?

Hmmm, more reverse gears than a scania...

[David Schweizer]

It seems very unfair to get volunteers to enforce a spurious rule for secret reasons. Will there be signs in the future?

 

Richard

 

Whilst i agree that it may be unfair to expect volunteers to engage in any "enforcing" it does not seem unreasomnable to ask them to advise.

 

But people seem to have very short memories, this is not a "new rule". When BW employed a lock keeper at Braunston he made it quite clear to boaters that whilst limited mooring between the two bottom locks was permitted whilst people visited the shop, they could not moor there overnight, one of the"spurious" reasons beiong the inconsistency of overnight water levels.

Edited July 17, 2015 by David Schweizer

[RLWP]

 

Whilst i agree that it may be unfair to expect volunteers to engage in any "enforcing" it does not seem unreasomnable to ask them to advise.

 

But people seem to have very short memories, this is not a "new rule". When BW employed a lock keeper at Braunston he made it quite clear to boaters that whilst limited mooring between the two bottom locks was permitted whilst people visited the shop, they could not moor there overnight, one of the"spurious" reasons beiong the inconsistency of overnight water levels.

 

I can't make that square with Alan's comment:

 

However I have followed this up with CRT, and was given an explanation, but when I asked if I could post it on here, (which I assumed they would agree to!), I was told that they would prefer me not to.

 

What you say about levels makes sense, and would be easy to explain for a volunteer

 

Richard

Edited July 17, 2015 by RLWP

[frangar]

Whilst it may not be being enforced it the best way I would have thought common sense would mean that you didn't moor in short pounds overnight or longer.....however on the cut as in most walks of life common sense is now in short supply..........

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[alan_fincher]

 

Whilst i agree that it may be unfair to expect volunteers to engage in any "enforcing" it does not seem unreasomnable to ask them to advise.

 

People seem to have very short memories, this is not a "new rule". When BW employed a lock keeper at Braunston he made it quite clear to boaters that whilst limited mooring between the two bottom locks was permitted whilst people visited the shop, they could not moor there overnight, one of the"spurious" reasons beiong the inconsistency of overnight water levels.

 

But people do moor in some of those short pounds, even overnight, and whilst you or I would probably choose not to, how would they be aware that such a rule existed?

 

I have never until now been told by anybody there (permanent or volunteer) that these are no mooring areas, and if boats are not obstructing lock landings, and there are no signs, if somebody decides to accept possible issues with falling pounds, why shouldn't they.

 

Any way, according to the poster before mine, the reason given was not falling water levels overnight, but problems caused if there just happened to be four times 70 foot boats trying to negotiate the pound - a different (and probably far more "spurious"!) reason.

 

Whilst it may not be being enforced it the best way I would have thought common sense would mean that you didn't moor in short pounds overnight or longer.....however on the cut as in most walks of life common sense is now in short supply..........

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

 

But as has been pointed out, several of the shorter pounds at Braunston have permanently moored boats on the offside. If these are acceptable to CRT, why should people not moor between the lock landings in those pounds?

 

(To be clear - I would not - I have seen how badly the levels are controlled these days - but if that is the reason, then make the lengths no mooring, rather than leave them as unmarked tow-path, but then tell people who have already moored up there that they must move on).

[frangar]

But people do moor in some of those short pounds, even overnight, and whilst you or I would probably choose not to, how would they be aware that such a rule existed?

 

I have never until now been told by anybody there (permanent or volunteer) that these are no mooring areas, and if boats are not obstructing lock landings, and there are no signs, if somebody decides to accept possible issues with falling pounds, why shouldn't they.

 

Any way, according to the poster before mine, the reason given was not falling water levels overnight, but problems caused if there just happened to be four times 70 foot boats trying to negotiate the pound - a different (and probably far more "spurious"!) reason.

 

 

But as has been pointed out, several of the shorter pounds at Braunston have permanently moored boats on the offside. If these are acceptable to CRT, why should people not moor between the lock landings in those pounds?

 

(To be clear - I would not - I have seen how badly the levels are controlled these days - but if that is the reason, then make the lengths no mooring, rather than leave them as unmarked tow-path, but then tell people who have already moored up there that they must move on).

One reason may well be that there is more water on the offside than at the towpath. (!!!)....and also the boat may be secured in such a way to take account of the change in levels....possibly! When we have been looking at buying a property with a mooring the local office did mention that some we looked at may not get permission due to the length of the pound.

 

I can only think of one boat moored on the offside in the flight itself.

 

Whilst I'm not condoning what the volunteers have said I have noticed that it's becoming more common to moor..and I use the term loosely...a bit like the ropes!....in places that are far from ideal for a host of reasons.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[Tuscan]

For many years there was a boat moored just up from the Nelson with no obvious difficulties.

[David Schweizer]

 

But people do moor in some of those short pounds, even overnight, and whilst you or I would probably choose not to, how would they be aware that such a rule existed?

 

I have never until now been told by anybody there (permanent or volunteer) that these are no mooring areas, and if boats are not obstructing lock landings, and there are no signs, if somebody decides to accept possible issues with falling pounds, why shouldn't they.

 

Any way, according to the poster before mine, the reason given was not falling water levels overnight, but problems caused if there just happened to be four times 70 foot boats trying to negotiate the pound - a different (and probably far more "spurious"!) reason.

 

 

But as has been pointed out, several of the shorter pounds at Braunston have permanently moored boats on the offside. If these are acceptable to CRT, why should people not moor between the lock landings in those pounds?

 

(To be clear - I would not - I have seen how badly the levels are controlled these days - but if that is the reason, then make the lengths no mooring, rather than leave them as unmarked tow-path, but then tell people who have already moored up there that they must move on).

 

Are you sure about that Alan? from recollection, the two pounds which have permanent offside mooring are those immediately above and below Nelson lock which are the two longest pounds on the flight, The pound between the bottom two locks is not quite as short as the top two pounds, but it is only half the length of the two "Nelson" pounds.

 

Note: For those who are not as familiar with the Braunston flight, there are only five lock pounds

Edited July 17, 2015 by David Schweizer

[alan_fincher]

 

Are you sure about that Alan? from recollection, the two pounds which have permanent offside mooring are those immediately above and below Nelson lock which are the two longest pounds on the flight, The pound between the bottom two locks is not quite as short as the top two pounds, but it is only half the length of the two "Nelson" pounds.

 

Note: For those who are not as familiar with the Braunston flight, there are only five lock pounds

 

On reflection David, you are, I think correct - the two permanently moored boats I'm thinking of are probably opposite ends of the pound above Nelson lock, (the third lock pound as you ascend).

 

However, on looking at Google Earth, and measuring from top gate mitre of one lock to bottom gate mitre of the next, the "Nelson" pound seems to be about 182 yards long, whereas the first pound, (the one with the dry dock in) is about 178 yards, so the statement I have highlighted in red above is not at all correct.

 

In fact, there seems to be just 4 yards difference, (no more than the length of a small GRP cruiser), between the total length of the first pound, and the total length of the Nelson pound.

 

So they are so close in length, that I struggle to think of any reasoning about boats passing in the pound that should disallow mooring in the "dry dock" pound, but should freely allow it in the "Nelson" one. Either of these pounds has the lock gates separated by more than the length of 7 full length boats - surely more than enough that even passing a pair passing in opposite directions should not be an issue?

Edited July 17, 2015 by alan_fincher

[GUMPY]

I am flabergasted by this. No one with any sense would moor between Braunston top and bottom.

Its really simple the unwritten rule has been for as long as I can remember ( over 40 years ) you don't moor in lock flights.

[alan_fincher]

I am flabergasted by this. No one with any sense would moor between Braunston top and bottom.

Its really simple the unwritten rule has been for as long as I can remember ( over 40 years ) you don't moor in lock flights.

Mooring in the pounds above and below Nelson lock is a normal practice these days.

 

I wouldn't unless in an emergency, because I have seen how fast the levels fall, but there are never not boats moored there overnight in Summer these days.

 

I'm not sure if this Google maps linky will work or not.

 

EDIT: It seems to, I think...

 

About 4 boats moored on the toe-path above Nelson lock, (with further permanent moored offside), and about 6 in the pound below Nelson lock.

 

 

FURTHER EDIT:

 

I'd also question a blanket statement like "you don't moor in lock flights", because obviously this has to be tempered by the lengths of the pounds and also volatility of water levels.

 

Elsewhere on the GU, as examples, both Buckby and Stoke Bruerne flights have visitor moorings designated within the flights themselves, but obviously these are in the longest pound in each, not in the much shorter ones where relatively small losses of water can cause big changes of level. I happily moor in either of these, but I'd think twice about mooring in the much shorter pound above Nelson lock, because I know levels can quickly fall in that flight.

Edited July 17, 2015 by alan_fincher

[GUMPY]

I even struggle with the thought of mooring in the "long pound" at Stoke Bruene if there is no room at the top I will go all the way down.

 

its just common sense

 

ETA same at Buckby, even in the last pound below top lock

Also at Maffers wont stop in the flight even above bottom lock

Its just the way its always been.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Loddon

[RLWP]

I even struggle with the thought of mooring in the "long pound" at Stoke Bruene if there is no room at the top I will go all the way down.

 

its just common sense

 

I must find a map of all the short wharfs and arms in the lock pounds on the BCN. There were several on Farmer's Bridge

 

Richard