Towpath improvements

[Higgs]

I'm sure it was clear. Boaters do need to get more involved. Too many, and I include myself, sat back and expected CRT to have the money to do everything. It now looks like that isn't true.

I feel they could do more, but more help from the boating fraternity may well help.

The councils seem to provide money to upgrade towpaths, but if the Shropshire folk can do it then why not others.

 

 

It might be welcome to have councils chip in a bit of money, but where in the rules should that be at the expense of denying a main financing group some consideration.

[MtB]

What about using a girder clamp - they have a large hole through the casting, parallel to the bolt?

 

Chris G

 

 

Those look just the job, thanks!

[Arthur Marshall]

 

 

It might be welcome to have councils chip in a bit of money, but where in the rules should that be at the expense of denying a main financing group some consideration.

The rules originally said canals had no future once the bulk of trade went pear-shaped. Instead of moaning, a stack of people got mucky and stuck in, often working actively against the "rules".

There aren't any rules, really, unless you decide that's what they are. There is the odd fact, though, such as councils haven't got much money and what they do have is being savagely cut. If you (not any you in particular, just you generic) think they're going to shut another couple of libraries so they can afford rings for boaters, you're nuts. And I'd rather have a lock gate fixed than a mooring ring.

If someone can afford sixty grand or whatever for a boat and a few grand a year for licences and mooring, perhaps they can afford to chip in a bit of time, money or support for their local society in doing something for themselves.

ETA We all know the system isn't what it was a few years ago (though a lot better than it was donkey's years back). It really isn't going to survive unless the enthusiasts, which is largely us, get involved. CRT's brief is too wide and only partly focussed on boaters. No-one else really cares at all.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Arthur Marshall

[Dalesman]

They have problems in Skipton as well see :http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/leatest/8779-where-as-the-cash-gone

[churchward]

The rules originally said canals had no future once the bulk of trade went pear-shaped. Instead of moaning, a stack of people got mucky and stuck in, often working actively against the "rules".

There aren't any rules, really, unless you decide that's what they are. There is the odd fact, though, such as councils haven't got much money and what they do have is being savagely cut. If you (not any you in particular, just you generic) think they're going to shut another couple of libraries so they can afford rings for boaters, you're nuts. And I'd rather have a lock gate fixed than a mooring ring.

If someone can afford sixty grand or whatever for a boat and a few grand a year for licences and mooring, perhaps they can afford to chip in a bit of time, money or support for their local society in doing something for themselves.

ETA We all know the system isn't what it was a few years ago (though a lot better than it was donkey's years back). It really isn't going to survive unless the enthusiasts, which is largely us, get involved. CRT's brief is too wide and only partly focussed on boaters. No-one else really cares at all.

Exactly so

[Higgs]

The rules originally said canals had no future once the bulk of trade went pear-shaped. Instead of moaning, a stack of people got mucky and stuck in, often working actively against the "rules".

There aren't any rules, really, unless you decide that's what they are. There is the odd fact, though, such as councils haven't got much money and what they do have is being savagely cut. If you (not any you in particular, just you generic) think they're going to shut another couple of libraries so they can afford rings for boaters, you're nuts. And I'd rather have a lock gate fixed than a mooring ring.

If someone can afford sixty grand or whatever for a boat and a few grand a year for licences and mooring, perhaps they can afford to chip in a bit of time, money or support for their local society in doing something for themselves.

ETA We all know the system isn't what it was a few years ago (though a lot better than it was donkey's years back). It really isn't going to survive unless the enthusiasts, which is largely us, get involved. CRT's brief is too wide and only partly focussed on boaters. No-one else really cares at all.

 

I've never really asked that those other than the boaters should be excluded in the thinking. I would though ask that boaters are not excluded either.

 

If towpaths need to be reconditioned, and it is the councils money that is used, and the council and CRT do not see fit to give some thought to the canal user, then I'm afraid my thoughts will not be including any thought for the pedestrian or cyclist. Let the towpath stay as rough as hell and leave the ground soft enough to drive a pin in to it. If there can be no provision for the boater, then, it's no use to me.

 

As far as getting involved, you may know that I'm a marina moorer and that I pay all of my licence fee etcetera for a facility that I do not have the time to use. Considering the way I view the payment of the licence fee in a private marina, I am not very sympathetic to the idea of not actually contributing enough, as it is.

[Dave_P]

Th same is happening everywhere, most of the new cycle motorways in Birmingham are council funded.

Not so. Most of the money that Birmingham council is spending on cycle paths has come directly of the DFT as part of of their Cycle City Ambition Grants.

 

http://road.cc/content/news/90116-prime-minister-announces-%C2%A377-million-funding-cycling-projects-england

Edited March 6, 2016 by Dave_P

[Arthur Marshall]

 

As far as getting involved, you may know that I'm a marina moorer and that I pay all of my licence fee etcetera for a facility that I do not have the time to use. Considering the way I view the payment of the licence fee in a private marina, I am not very sympathetic to the idea of not actually contributing enough, as it is.

I'm aware of that, which is partly why I stressed the "generic you". I can understand your point of view - you wouldn't be using the rings (or lack of them) anyway. But there's a lot of other people out there who DO miss the mooring facilities but don't do anything about it - my point about the SU Soc is that there they did.

[Higgs]

I'm aware of that, which is partly why I stressed the "generic you". I can understand your point of view - you wouldn't be using the rings (or lack of them) anyway. But there's a lot of other people out there who DO miss the mooring facilities but don't do anything about it - my point about the SU Soc is that there they did.

 

 

Why do boaters have to miss the mooring facilities? Is it such an abstract thought to expect them to be built into the equation. It may be that the H&S executive are just trying to protect stupid and 'blind' people from tripping over their own shoe lacers. How expensive could it be to cast a lump of concrete with a recessed housing for a mooring ring.

 

The SU Soc are to be applauded.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Higgs

[cuthound]

I wonder if it is as a result of either CRT or the council simply failing to specify what they require? They probably specify the material, but unless a grass strip adjacent to the canal xxmmm wide, or rings or bollards are explicitly specified they will not be provided by the contractor.

 

As one who has spent most of his career working on major projects, I quickly realised that the specification is the playing field upon which the game of contracting is played.

 

The specifier tries to include everything required without wriggle room when writing the specification (but usually fails), and the contractor reads it an thinks "he's left that out, so I'll wait until I've got him over a barrel, then charge him what I like".

 

If the budget is tight, then unless it's absolutely essential the extra gets left out.

[Paul C]

 

I've never really asked that those other than the boaters should be excluded in the thinking. I would though ask that boaters are not excluded either.

 

If towpaths need to be reconditioned, and it is the councils money that is used, and the council and CRT do not see fit to give some thought to the canal user, then I'm afraid my thoughts will not be including any thought for the pedestrian or cyclist. Let the towpath stay as rough as hell and leave the ground soft enough to drive a pin in to it. If there can be no provision for the boater, then, it's no use to me.

 

As far as getting involved, you may know that I'm a marina moorer and that I pay all of my licence fee etcetera for a facility that I do not have the time to use. Considering the way I view the payment of the licence fee in a private marina, I am not very sympathetic to the idea of not actually contributing enough, as it is.

 

To be fair though, boaters who actually do boating, don't need the towpath at all until they moor for lunch/end of day's cruising etc. A boat can easily cope with poor condition towpaths, fenced off areas, restricted access, kissing gates, locked gates, areas of no towpath at all etc simply by moving along in the canal instead. And a boater, even one who stops most of the time, can move and choose the piece of towpath and its general surroundings.

 

A walker, or cyclist on a particular route is more or less relying on the towpath being available for 100% of that route, or a suitable diversion.

[Theo]

 

ETA We all know the system isn't what it was a few years ago (though a lot better than it was donkey's years back). It really isn't going to survive unless the enthusiasts, which is largely us, get involved. CRT's brief is too wide and only partly focussed on boaters. No-one else really cares at all.

 

Not at all sure that I do know that.

 

I have been boating since 1977 and a boat owner since 2006. In 2008 we did a long cruise (2000 miles) and in 2014 we started living aboard and have done 2,236 miles since leaving Sileby Mill on 27th April. SWMBO and I were remarking to one another as we came up the Wolverhampton 21 in what excellent condition that locks are. Every lock except the top one was set for us and hadn't leaked enough to make us open the bottom paddles before opening the gates. The towpath is in the process of being resurfaced, leaving a couple of feet of grass between the Armco or copings. On the way from Llangollen which was our last main stopping point (We stayed for 16 days because the bridge stoppage overran.) we noted that there had been loads of trimming of vegetation so the usable navigation was wider and the views better. Much of the work had been done this winter by the looks of the cut ends.

 

I think that there has been much improvement in recent years and months.

 

Nick

[Higgs]

 

To be fair though, boaters who actually do boating, don't need the towpath at all until they moor for lunch/end of day's cruising etc. A boat can easily cope with poor condition towpaths, fenced off areas, restricted access, kissing gates, locked gates, areas of no towpath at all etc simply by moving along in the canal instead. And a boater, even one who stops most of the time, can move and choose the piece of towpath and its general surroundings.

 

A walker, or cyclist on a particular route is more or less relying on the towpath being available for 100% of that route, or a suitable diversion.

 

 

I still don't see why, in essence, mooring facilities have to be abandoned for the sake of the non-boater. If cyclists and pedestrians wish to use the rough parts, they can. Nobody is stopping them.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Higgs

[Paul C]

 

 

I still don't see why, in essence, mooring facilities have to be abandoned for the sake of the non-boater. If cyclists and pedestrians wish to use the rough parts, they can. Nobody is stopping them.

 

I'm not sure you can even claim that mooring facilities have been abandoned. I've asked if there's piling/armco, if so then mooring is still fine (with nappy pins). There's strong reasons for NOT automatically installing rings in tarmac'd towpath, and lets remember that rings are not normally in the general towpath anyway.

[Higgs]

 

I'm not sure you can even claim that mooring facilities have been abandoned. I've asked if there's piling/armco, if so then mooring is still fine (with nappy pins). There's strong reasons for NOT automatically installing rings in tarmac'd towpath, and lets remember that rings are not normally in the general towpath anyway.

 

 

I'm not necessarily advocating any particular form of mooring point. Just for some, where a boater used to be able to moor, and wanted to moor, prior to any resurfacing.

[Richard Fairhurst]

I'm not necessarily advocating

 

Indeed - if you're just posting to a canal forum, you're not really "advocating" to any effect at all, because this isn't where the decisions are made.

 

If you want mooring rings to be put in on a towpath resurfacing project - and that's not a bad thing - then you need to be "advocating" somewhere where people actually listen. You could join a national user group and provide input to CRT's national policies that way. You could look for planning applications when they come up on your local council website, and make representations there. Or you could form a local group that advocates for boaters' facilities in your local area.

 

Up to you. Complaining about CRT here may be therapeutic, but it doesn't actually change anything.

[Higgs]

 

Indeed - if you're just posting to a canal forum, you're not really "advocating" to any effect at all, because this isn't where the decisions are made.

 

If you want mooring rings to be put in on a towpath resurfacing project - and that's not a bad thing - then you need to be "advocating" somewhere where people actually listen. You could join a national user group and provide input to CRT's national policies that way. You could look for planning applications when they come up on your local council website, and make representations there. Or you could form a local group that advocates for boaters' facilities in your local area.

 

Up to you. Complaining about CRT here may be therapeutic, but it doesn't actually change anything.

 

 

Merely posting thoughts. As for getting things changed, posting here can test the water. It's a discussion forum, after all. As a whole, boaters have no power/leverage, and that is an issue. I work on the assumption that CRT don't have to listen. Spitting into the wind.

[MtB]

 

 

I'm not necessarily advocating any particular form of mooring point. Just for some, where a boater used to be able to moor, and wanted to moor, prior to any resurfacing.

 

 

And when the moaning about the state of the cut focuses on something as trivial as the presence or otherwise of mooring rings, this illustrates the rest of it must be in broadly fine fettle!

[Loafer]

 

 

And when the moaning about the state of the cut focuses on something as trivial as the presence or otherwise of mooring rings, this illustrates the rest of it must be in broadly fine fettle!

 

 

Agree. I never want to moor where there are mooring rings. Too many kids, dogs, and adults gas-bagging all day.

 

I'd happily pay an increased license fee to keep the towpaths BOATER friendly though.

 

Like rows of marked spikes that emerge from the towpath, on detection of an approaching speeding cyclist.

[Theo]

 

Indeed - if you're just posting to a canal forum, you're not really "advocating" to any effect at all, because this isn't where the decisions are made.

 

If you want mooring rings to be put in on a towpath resurfacing project - and that's not a bad thing - then you need to be "advocating" somewhere where people actually listen. You could join a national user group and provide input to CRT's national policies that way. You could look for planning applications when they come up on your local council website, and make representations there. Or you could form a local group that advocates for boaters' facilities in your local area.

 

Up to you. Complaining about CRT here may be therapeutic, but it doesn't actually change anything.

And a third greenie from me!

 

 

Agree. I never want to moor where there are mooring rings. Too many kids, dogs, and adults gas-bagging all day.

 

I'd happily pay an increased license fee to keep the towpaths BOATER friendly though.

 

Like rows of marked spikes that emerge from the towpath, on detection of an approaching speeding cyclist.

 

No end of mooring rings on the SUC and Llangollen. When we were there over the last couple of months we rarely found a boat using them.

 

N

[Higgs]

 

 

And when the moaning about the state of the cut focuses on something as trivial as the presence or otherwise of mooring rings, this illustrates the rest of it must be in broadly fine fettle!

 

If moorings are lost that were otherwise available, prior to maintenance, you have lost something. It hasn't improved something for your "state of the cut". How many other bits of trivia are needed for it to add up to something you'd pay attention to.

[Higgs]

 

No end of mooring rings on the SUC and Llangollen. When we were there over the last couple of months we rarely found a boat using them.

 

N

 

 

Although I pass my local lock almost daily, I very rarely see anyone using it.

[MtB]

 

If moorings are lost that were otherwise available, prior to maintenance, you have lost something. It hasn't improved something for your "state of the cut". How many other bits of trivia are needed for it to add up to something you'd pay attention to.

 

 

Thousands.

[Higgs]

 

 

Thousands.

 

 

Death of a Thousand cuts.

[Paul C]

 

If moorings are lost that were otherwise available, prior to maintenance, you have lost something. It hasn't improved something for your "state of the cut". How many other bits of trivia are needed for it to add up to something you'd pay attention to.

 

Boaters become towpath walkers if they moor up and walk the dog, or walk to the shops, or something. The "loss" of the grass to bang mooring pins in is countered by the gains in (for example in the pic in the OP) having an all-weather, all-season surface to walk on. Its convenient pigeonholing people into "walkers", "fishermen", "cyclists", "boaters" etc but its not as simple as that, people who use boats also walk, cycle, fish etc. And if we are considering the benefit to walkers vs the loss to boaters, there's a massively greater number of the former (and the boater can choose where to moor too - thus countering their perceived loss).