Jump to content

CRT has to say sorry - I think this is really bad


Rambling

Featured Posts

What I find interesting is that every time the clarion call is sounded, and we are urged to stick together as boaters, rather than be divided into leisure boaters and liveaboards (or any other split you care to mention), it always comes with the rider that OF COURSE this united group of boaters, who will not be partitioned into sub-groups MUST be represented by a liveaboard CCer.

 

Most boaters don't live on board. Most boaters aren't CCers. I regularly hear that as I am neither, my opinion on how the canals should be run is worth the square root of bugger all.

 

It seems to me that what the leisure boater wants and what the liveaboard wants are often at odds. That is fine, and there is a balance to be struck, but how do we get balance if we fall for the "all in this together" line and allow the minority to be the voice of all boaters?

Maybe those who live on the cut on a daily basis are in a better position to share their experiences and concerns about the cut. A bit like a fly on the wall.

 

How much do you see from the armchair? Believe it or not there is world beyond CWF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What you have failed to see is - the difference between the connection fee and the licence fee charging. In the marina, moorers pay for that thing called a connection fee. It is extra and is approximately 9% of the mooring fee. So, the connection is taken care of as a separate payment. Don't confuse it with a licence, which isn't required on private water. Do you think CRT would have to make it part a contract (NAA), if the law gave CRT the right of way in a marina. No, of course they wouldn't.

 

 

perhaps we need a new type of marina - 'not connected'.

in fact any old gravel pit equipped with pontoons, occupied by folks who don't really want to navigate and just want a cheap home.

actually the gravel pit doesn't even need to be full of water, so any old quarry will do.

perfect recycling of brownfield sites and non-seaworthy old boats, or even old portacabins from construction sites.

no need for Cmers to bridge hop any more.

.......... and it would free up lots of desirable mooring spaces for those who really want to cruise the waterways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

........................ coat rolleyes.gif

Edited by Murflynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe those who live on the cut on a daily basis are in a better position to share their experiences and concerns about the cut. A bit like a fly on the wall.

How much do you see from the armchair? Believe it or not there is world beyond CWF.

Doesn't that rather depend on how much boating you actually do.

 

There are boaters on here with a home mooring who clearly do far more actual boating than boaters who don't have one.

 

Put simply just because you live 'on the cut' does not actually mean you are in a better position to offer a view.

Edited by MJG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

perhaps we need a new type of marina - 'not connected'.

in fact any old gravel pit equipped with pontoons, occupied by folks who don't really want to navigate and just want a cheap home.

actually the gravel pit doesn't even need to be full of water, so any old quarry will do.

perfect recycling of brownfield sites and non-seaworthy old boats, or even old portacabins from construction sites.

no need for Cmers to bridge hop any more.

.......... and it would free up lots of desirable mooring spaces for those who really want to cruise the waterways.

 

They exist.

 

Usually called boatyards, but have a look in the overgrown bits at the back. The going rate oop North is £30 a week, no licence or BSS required, don't draw too much attention to yourselves or the boatyard.

 

One chap I know has been there 6 years, but 2 or 3 is quite common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have spoken to quite a few boaters who wanted to travel the system in their retirement, but due to all these difficulties and rules, have been put off by the hassle. It's a sad day when we start to lose genuine boaters -

 

but, perhaps that is what they are aiming for long term. I am one of those boaters who would like to CC in a few years, but I am put off, there must be dozens of boaters just thinking 'it's not worth the hassle' and won't be as relaxing as it should be, so won't bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have spoken to quite a few boaters who wanted to travel the system in their retirement, but due to all these difficulties and rules, have been put off by the hassle. It's a sad day when we start to lose genuine boaters -

 

but, perhaps that is what they are aiming for long term. I am one of those boaters who would like to CC in a few years, but I am put off, there must be dozens of boaters just thinking 'it's not worth the hassle' and won't be as relaxing as it should be, so won't bother.

 

 

We are more put off by the general lack of maintenance which means we are beginning to struggle with some lock gates and paddles coupled with lack of depth and vegetation maintenance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter whether you own a boat or not, live aboard and cruise or not, help restore waterways to eventually increase the system, or a just a gongoozler, CRT are making a pigs ear of everything.

 

Its a National asset for all to enjoy but it is principally a system of navigations which in them selves have bonuses to offer the surroundings, be it in town or country.

 

We dint need Volunteer lock keepers 5 years ago to help boats through locks so why do we have them now? Some "Statistics board" somewhere probably looks better will be the answer!

 

Theres a picture in this months "railway magazine" of a train passing Bedwyn on the K&A, the cut is virtually choked with weed leaving just a boat width, the canal looks disused!

 

CRT needs to be replaced with a sensible body of responsible adults who can manage the relatively small canal system we have, its only 2200 miles of track.

look at most big cities road systems and wonder how many miles of roads and fixtures they have and how many people actually run and maintain them?

 

CRT have lost the thread completely.

 

Lets encourage their replacement and let the system go back to a "BW" of sorts, it wasn't brilliant as BW but it was better imho.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's exactly it.

 

They are spending so much money in court cases yet seem to do very little to maintain the canals. There was some figure bandied about on here about a £100k court case (I think). How much are they spending on other things, not canal maintenance related? It would be interesting find out as it is public money I assume?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't that rather depend on how much boating you actually do.

 

There are boaters on here with a home mooring who clearly do far more actual boating than boaters who don't have one.

 

Put simply just because you live 'on the cut' does not actually mean you are in a better position to offer a view.

Just saw your sneaky edit and yes we are in a better position to offer a point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We dint need Volunteer lock keepers 5 years ago to help boats through locks so why do we have them now? Some "Statistics board" somewhere probably looks better will be the answer!

 

CRT have lost the thread completely.

 

Lets encourage their replacement and let the system go back to a "BW" of sorts, it wasn't brilliant as BW but it was better imho.

Money.

 

BW did not depend for future funding on the number of volunteers recruited, but CRT do. Many of the problems are that the old guard BW lot don't get that, and the new crop of CRT know nothing about boats and waterways, and in many cases don't care either.

 

It is probably worth mentioning that a lot of the older boaters probably didn't need assistance a decade ago, but are starting to appreciate it these days.

Do you honestly think it would revert to government control rather than be privatised? With this government I doubt it.

It won't be. It would end up with G4S or Serco running it, and I am pretty sure that would be a tragedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won't be. It would end up with G4S or Serco running it, and I am pretty sure that would be a tragedy.

That would be my expectation as well but there have been a couple of posts today which seem to suggest some poster seriously think it might go back into government control similar to the situation before CRT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be my expectation as well but there have been a couple of posts today which seem to suggest some poster seriously think it might go back into government control similar to the situation before CRT.

And presumably they think we will get King Arthur back as waterways minister!

 

I suspect a lot was better in their day. Eyesight, hearing, knees, the canals ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

perhaps we need a new type of marina - 'not connected'.

in fact any old gravel pit equipped with pontoons, occupied by folks who don't really want to navigate and just want a cheap home.

actually the gravel pit doesn't even need to be full of water, so any old quarry will do.

perfect recycling of brownfield sites and non-seaworthy old boats, or even old portacabins from construction sites.

no need for Cmers to bridge hop any more.

.......... and it would free up lots of desirable mooring spaces for those who really want to cruise the waterways.

 

 

 

In theory, CRT could have placed any condition into the NAA, as long as it didn't impact adversely the mutual benefit it would have for the marina and CRT.

 

Say, something silly - No boats called Neptune or Reginald or, the office doors must be painted green.

 

Why do you mention connected or not connected? It isn't an issue, well, not one I'm making material. And when someone wishes to take a mooring in a marina, the marina operator is not interested in whether the boat is going to be owned by someone that intends to cruise or stay put for the duration - it's all money to them. They wouldn't give a toss if boats were licensed or unlicensed. It doesn't effect their business. It doesn't effect their business either, that a paragraph in a contract says they must ensure all boats have a licence. It's a price they are willing to agree to, because it's a price the boater pays, in order to allow the marina to operate their business - and make money.

 

If the ratio of marinas was evenly split between those that required boaters to have a licence and those that didn't, which ones do you think would fill first, and stay full? Well, boaters do not have that choice in any numbers. So, I wouldn't call having a few of those types of marinas a realistic version of choice.

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In theory, CRT could have placed any condition into the NAA, as long as it didn't impact adversely the mutual benefit it would have for the marina and CRT.

 

Say, something silly - No boats called Neptune or Reginald or, the office doors must be painted green.

 

Why do you mention connected or not connected? It isn't an issue, well, not one I'm making material. And when someone wishes to take a mooring in a marina, the marina operator is not interested in whether the boat is going to be owned by someone that intends to cruise or stay put for the duration - it's all money to them. They wouldn't give a toss if boats were licensed or unlicensed. It doesn't effect their business. It doesn't effect their business either, that a paragraph in a contract says they must ensure all boats have a licence. It's a price they are willing to agree to, because it's a price the boater pays, in order to allow the marina to operate their business - and make money.

 

If the ratio of marinas was evenly split between those that required boaters to have a licence and those that didn't, which ones do you think would fill first, and stay full? Well, boaters do not have that choice in any numbers. So, I wouldn't call having a few of those types of marinas a realistic version of choice.

 

Yes, I'm sure that it would be choice.

 

However, it really isn't about choice.

 

You posed the question as to what a boater in a marina "gets" for their licence.

 

Well the answer is that they get a marina with a connection to the canal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, I'm sure that it would be choice.

 

However, it really isn't about choice.

 

You posed the question as to what a boater in a marina "gets" for their licence.

 

Well the answer is that they get a marina with a connection to the canal.

 

 

You need a licence to get into the marina and one to get out of the marina. The licence gives the marina access to business. The canal gives the boater access to the marina. Everyone inside the marina pays handsomely for the connection.

 

The condition requiring boats to have a licence, inside a marina, is nothing more nor less than protectionism, the abuse of a dominant position, the intimidation of customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You need a licence to get into the marina and one to get out of the marina. The licence gives the marina access to business. The canal gives the boater access to the marina.

 

The condition requiring boats to have a licence, inside a marina, is nothing more nor less than protectionism, the abuse of a dominant position, the intimidation of customers.

OK so if boats in marinas didn't have cruising licenses. Its a lovely bank holiday weekend - maybe some boaters would go for a boat trip. In an unlicensed boat.

 

It would be so easy not to buy a weekend license..

 

The only realistic way this could be controlled would be by having a toll gate system to get onto the cut itself.

 

Surely better to just pay for a license -in case- you want to go out for a weekend.

 

I suppose marinas could sell 3 day licenses but this would be approaching privatisation.

 

It's coming anyway I guess...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The ultimate solution to the argument is that marina operators own canals and charge individually for their use. Scrap cruising license and charge per day of boat being on any particular waterway.

 

 

Towpaths can be managed by local authorities as foot/cycle ways with the navigation managed by private operators.

 

Not a Good Thing really and another topic sorry for derailing this one !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK so if boats in marinas didn't have cruising licenses. Its a lovely bank holiday weekend - maybe some boaters would go for a boat trip. In an unlicensed boat.

 

It would be so easy not to buy a weekend license..

 

The only realistic way this could be controlled would be by having a toll gate system to get onto the cut itself.

 

Surely better to just pay for a license -in case- you want to go out for a weekend.

 

I suppose marinas could sell 3 day licenses but this would be approaching privatisation.

 

It's coming anyway I guess...

 

 

I'm not disagreeing with the principle of being licensed for the Trust's waterways, using it requires a licence. Would it be so odd for short term licences to be an option? Marinas are already working as agents for CRT, it wouldn't be approaching privatisation for marinas to be dealing with the issuing of short term licences. I'm sure there would be some mutual business arrangements involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes a toll booth at every lock seems a good idea to address Higgs' concerns with the NAA.

 

Then not only boaters could be charged a toll for passage along the cut, but walkers, dog-draggers, bikists and all the other current freeloaders too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes a toll booth at every lock seems a good idea to address Higgs' concerns with the NAA.

 

Then not only boaters could be charged a toll for passage along the cut, but walkers, dog-draggers, bikists and all the other current freeloaders too.

 

 

Except I'm dealing with a marina specific concern. I know what you're concerned about, your lack of a sense of proportion and having mild hallucinations.

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.