Bridgewater Canal

[Idunhoe]

Nope, still don't get it! The reason CRT allow 14 days rather than 7 for boats heading from Leigh to Liverpool and back, surely, is that it takes more than 7 days' cruising on CRT waters to do that specific trip (including the Link). But nobody based on CRT waters needs more than 7 days to traverse the Bridgewater once or twice, regardless of whether they're heading to Liverpool or anywhere else.

As a CRT licence holder I believe it would be difficult for me to visit Manchester and stay for more than a couple of days

[Paul C]

As a CRT licence holder I believe it would be difficult for me to visit Manchester and stay for more than a couple of days

 

Peel holdings and CRT don't believe its difficult though, hence they have historically agreed that you get 7 days free on the Bridgewater in the reciprocal agreement. And looking at the travel times and stopping times, its not difficult logistically either (unlike a trip to-from Liverpool which needs 2x traverses of the Bridgewater and could easily fall foul of the "no return within 28 days" rule; or not fit into a 7 day period).

[TheBiscuits]

 

Peel holdings and CRT don't believe its difficult though, hence they have historically agreed that you get 7 days free on the Bridgewater in the reciprocal agreement. And looking at the travel times and stopping times, its not difficult logistically either (unlike a trip to-from Liverpool which needs 2x traverses of the Bridgewater and could easily fall foul of the "no return within 28 days" rule; or not fit into a 7 day period).

 

 

I thought the point of the extra 7 days on CRT water was so you could go to Liverpool, spend a week there and come back in the space of 14 days.

 

Interestingly, the extra 7 days agreement for Liverpool runs out in December 2016. Is this all just Bridgewater starting negotiations to extend it?

Edited June 9, 2016 by TheBiscuits

[Paul C]

 

 

I thought the point of the extra 7 days on CRT water was so you could go to Liverpool, spend a week there and come back in the space of 14 days.

 

Interestingly, the extra 7 days agreement for Liverpool runs out in December 2016. Is this all just Bridgewater starting negotiations to extend it?

 

To clarify "trip to Liverpool":

 

1. A boater based on on the Bridgewater, with a mooring on it, would struggle to do a trip involving a (possibly short) section of the Bridgewater, then into and out of Liverpool Link, then home again, without exceeding the "7 days on CRT" reciprocal agreement allowance their Bridgewater licence entitles them to, therefore there is an extra concession which allows 14 days on CRT waters for this trip.

 

2. A boater based on CRT waters, lets say for example Nantwich, might choose to do a long trip to Liverpool (via the Bridgewater). They would initially use the Bridgewater during the trip for 1-2 days, then once again be on CRT waters on the way to Liverpool (so no issues about a time limit etc). Their trip to-from Liverpool Link would typically mean they'd be coming back home, and need to use the Bridgewater to transit, around 10-14 days after their outwards transit. Thus its both outside the "7 free days" (because these can't be split across a longer time period, etc) and inside the "28 days no return"

[Richard10002]

But if the boater from Nantwich was allowed 14 days to get to Liverpool, spend a few days there, and get back, there would be no additional fee to pay.

 

The 14 days only needs to cover the trip from entering the Bridgewater on the way to Liverpool, and leaving the Bridgewater on the way back. 4 days on The Bridgewater would leave 10 days to get to Liverpool from Leigh, spend a few days there, and get back to Leigh.

 

Why CRT think it is worth offering an extra 7 days for Bridgewater boats to visit Liverpool, but not Preston, or Rufford, or Todmorden, or wherever, I dont know, but that's just how it is, and has been for a while.

[magictime]

But if the boater from Nantwich was allowed 14 days to get to Liverpool, spend a few days there, and get back, there would be no additional fee to pay.

 

The 14 days only needs to cover the trip from entering the Bridgewater on the way to Liverpool, and leaving the Bridgewater on the way back. 4 days on The Bridgewater would leave 10 days to get to Liverpool from Leigh, spend a few days there, and get back to Leigh.

 

Why CRT think it is worth offering an extra 7 days for Bridgewater boats to visit Liverpool, but not Preston, or Rufford, or Todmorden, or wherever, I dont know, but that's just how it is, and has been for a while.

 

But that still means Peel allowing boaters to use some of their 'free' days on the Bridgewater, cruise elsewhere for a while, then come back and use more of their allowance. And if they were happy to operate in that way, surely it would make far more sense all round simply to let people split the current 7-day allowance between two visits in, say, a 30-day period. Obviously it would suit CRT licence holders better (because they'd be able to transit the Bridgewater on the way to and from destinations other than Liverpool); but it would also (arguably at least) suit Peel better, by avoiding the need to check up on Liverpool bookings, and by ensuring that CRT licence holders only spend up to 7 days in a month (ish) on their waterway, rather than 7 days in a fortnight.

[cuthound]

What can they (peel holdings) do if people simply refuse to pay the 40 quid? I would politely tell their EO to do one if he tryed to get any money of me on a transit and return trip.

Rescind the reciprocal agreement, and only allow entry to the Bridgewater on receipt of payment?

[Horace42]

 

Thus its both outside the "7 free days" (because these can't be split across a longer time period, etc) and inside the "28 days no return"

My cynical view is the fee is based on a carefully designed tariff calculated to 'catch' as many boats as possible.for £40 who inadvertently overstay their allotted time - especially when the allotted time is not possible to meet by those making logical and realistic journeys.

And as someone has said previously, it costs £40 just to write a letter, then the money raised from the £40 fee makes no contribution to the function of the canal proper - so it might as well be scrapped.

 

Having said that, is the reciprical arrangement with CRT actually equitable to Peel.

 

Is the link essential in the area for hundreds of CRT boats to go somewhere useful, whereas there are only a few Bridgewater based boats by comparison to benefit from 7 days 'free' travel on CRT canals - thus a serious problem for Peel to collect fees whereas CRT are not really bothered.

[Paul C]

My cynical view is the fee is based on a carefully designed tariff calculated to 'catch' as many boats as possible.for £40 who inadvertently overstay their allotted time - especially when the allotted time is not possible to meet by those making logical and realistic journeys.

And as someone has said previously, it costs £40 just to write a letter, then the money raised from the £40 fee makes no contribution to the function of the canal proper - so it might as well be scrapped.

 

Having said that, is the reciprical arrangement with CRT actually equitable to Peel.

 

Is the link essential in the area for hundreds of CRT boats to go somewhere useful, whereas there are only a few Bridgewater based boats by comparison to benefit from 7 days 'free' travel on CRT canals - thus a serious problem for Peel to collect fees whereas CRT are not really bothered.

 

I'd say its not carefully designed. Rather, its crudely designed to catch a certain style of boater/boating behaviour but in doing so, inadvertently brings a legitimate use (such as going to Liverpool and back) within its scope.

 

The reciprocal agreement is just that - and as someone who moored on the Bridgewater, is very useful and certainly helped swing the choice of mooring towards there. Remember, there's plenty of canals in the NW area and its relatively easy to simply choose a different area, not on the Bridgewater canal. So it could/would have an affect on Bridgewater-based boaters, so its worth keeping.

 

Having said all that, Peel holdings "tolerate" the fact that they own the Bridgewater and boats use it, rather than "enjoy" it as one of their assets. They are a commercial company and if it makes a profit (which I doubt) its a very marginal one. Put it another way - if you were stood in front of a bunch of entrepreneurs in Dragon's Den, would you be confident "selling" the idea of managing an inland waterway, setting a bunch of rules, licence fees, etc and making money off it?

[Horace42]

Thanks Paul. I appreciate you taking the trouble to explain it to me. I am just an onlooker and have no strong views other than a sense of fairness in these thing

.

I am the wrong person to sell anything the Dragons' Den - no matter how profitable it was - but if I had to, I would make a business venture of CRT/Peel/EA etc, but without regard to customer wishes or concerns (a captive audience) - I would double or treble the cruising and mooring fees (or more) - charge a per-lock fee, a mileage fee, an overnight mooring fee etc (you get the idea) - until half the boaters abandoned in their droves. At that point I would stabilise the fees.- but to replace the 'lost' boaters would be a whole new boating fraternity happy tp pay the new high fees because their 'new' boats - bought at fraction of the list price in a disstressed sale from the fleeing community would help pay the new fees.

.

With half the boats there's half the wear-and-tear - and half the staff - but the same income.or more - I would make enough profit to pay the Dragons and leave enough to shovel bucket loads of money into my Threepees (3P's) for early retirement on enhanced pension.

But as I said, I'm just an onlooker ...and a cynic...cheers!...

[Cheshire cat]

There was quite a bit of wailing going on a couple of years ago when Bridgewater licences were jacked up significantly. As you have speculated, some of the boaters disappeared at that point.

 

The infrastructure doesn't suffer much wear and tear. The canal has sandstone coping stones along most of its distance so no banks to wash away and no locks to maintain either. Chunks of the towpath have been leased out to Sustrans and I think all the Elsan and pumpout facilities are privately owned.

[jonathanA]

Rescind the reciprocal agreement, and only allow entry to the Bridgewater on receipt of payment?

Nope don't see physically how they could do that.

 

I don't see how peel can enforce this unless we let them, without causing as much hassle for their licence holders - although if they don't care about their customers .....

[DeanS]

My understanding is that it has come about because of CRT licenced boats overstaying on the Bridgewater, resulting in stricter enforcement.

 

Another case of the selfish few spoiling it for the many.

 

This is not strictly true. As in all canals around the country, there are only certain hotspots where some boats may have overstayed....by years.........namely Castlefield basin. Many of those boats have now been offered winter moorings, running into permanent moorings. All the CRT boats that didn't want to overstay, have moved up into New Islington marina at the top of the Rochdale 9...so the BCC has lost out on their cash (they are now paying NI fees. Basically all that's happened is someone on the BCC decided they didn't want liveaboards on that canal, and chased them away...me included. I now have no need for the BCC....it would only be used to get to Wigan to get my boat blacked.....which is a huge pity...I think a lot of the canal side businesses will struggle without CRT boats.....I frequented shops in all the small towns along it, bought gas, fuel, etc at the chandleries....ate in all the restaurants....but I'm not going to pay £160 a month to cruise up and down it........

Edited June 9, 2016 by DeanS

[mayalld]

Nope don't see physically how they could do that.

 

I don't see how peel can enforce this unless we let them, without causing as much hassle for their licence holders - although if they don't care about their customers .....

 

It is comments like this that make me despair.

 

The whole "well I'm not going to play by the rules, and they can't do a damn thing about it" attitude.

 

That is the attitude that got us to this position. People didn't play fair, so Peel introduced new rules. Those new rules also hit a fair chunk of people who weren't pushing the envelope. So, thanks to the "I'll do what I want" crowd, we have collateral damage. And you think the answer is to engage in a bit more rule breaking?

 

You may be right that they would find it tricky to PHYSICALLY enforce payment for all entering their waters in terms of staffing toll booths at the 3 points of entry, but do they actually need to do that?

 

I can easily envisage a situation where they scrap the reciprocal arrangement, and introduce self-service short term licencing, with heavy penalties for those found not to have paid.

[cuthound]

Nope don't see physically how they could do that.

I don't see how peel can enforce this unless we let them, without causing as much hassle for their licence holders - although if they don't care about their customers .....

There are only a 3 entrances to the Bridgewater, so a chain or gate could easily be fixed to prevent access to CRT boats.

 

Would have a major impact on CRT's northwest network, as it joins 3 separate CRT canals together.

[Cheshire cat]

I remember when I was a child and my local NT property started charging for parking in the grounds. A man came round with a satchel and a ticket machine. My father flatly refused to pay on the basis it was a national asset. It didn't take long before the model was modified and you had to pay on the gate in order to get in.

[AndrewIC]

Meanwhile, today's announcement for Bridgewater licence holders is this....

 

"The Bridgewater Canal have launched the Platinum Licence, which permits extended hours of stay on your vessel on the Bridgewater Canal with unrestricted holiday periods on board throughout the year.http://www.bridgewatercanal.co.uk/boating/licensing"

 

The document itself is here: http://www.bridgewatercanal.co.uk/media/BoatingPDFs/Platinum_User_License_Conditions_2016.pdf

[Horace42]

The document itself is here: http://www.bridgewatercanal.co.uk/media/BoatingPDFs/Platinum_User_License_Conditions_2016.pdf

 

That was quick! They've taken note of my ideas for fees - see post above - #85.

[Arthur Marshall]

For interest, if Peel aren't very interested in the Bridgewater and don't make money out of it, why don't they just hand it to CRT?

[David Mack]

.http://www.bridgewatercanal.co.uk/boating/licensing"

That says the CRT licence holders are limited to 7 consecutive days on the Bridgewater, but says nothing about any minimum return period. So you could go back on CRT waters for a day and then return to the Bridgewater for another 7 days.

[Paul C]

For interest, if Peel aren't very interested in the Bridgewater and don't make money out of it, why don't they just hand it to CRT?

 

Who knows if they haven't already tried? Peel holdings may already be in discussion, but dispute the amount of money to sell it.

That says the CRT licence holders are limited to 7 consecutive days on the Bridgewater, but says nothing about any minimum return period. So you could go back on CRT waters for a day and then return to the Bridgewater for another 7 days.

 

See the original post and the links on post #2. There has been a recent change to the rules.

[Cheshire cat]

Have you looked at the price of a Platinum licence? It is comparale with being in the best marinas up here

Perhaps one of the issues is the need to maintain control over the swinging of Barton Aqueduct. I'm sure they wouldn't want to be giving C&RT 24 hrs notice and paying them for the pleasure.

[Richard10002]

Meanwhile, today's announcement for Bridgewater licence holders is this....

 

"The Bridgewater Canal have launched the Platinum Licence, which permits extended hours of stay on your vessel on the Bridgewater Canal with unrestricted holiday periods on board throughout the year.http://www.bridgewatercanal.co.uk/boating/licensing"

 

The document itself is here: http://www.bridgewatercanal.co.uk/media/BoatingPDFs/Platinum_User_License_Conditions_2016.pdf

 

There is no express limit in the normal licensing conditions to the hours of stay permitted on your vessel, nor any limit on holiday periods on board. The only thing I can see is that it is not permitted to use your vessel as a dwelling... with no definition of dwelling that I can see.

 

Thus the only benefit of the Platinum License is that it allows you to moor in one location for 28 days, although it doesnt say whether this is total days at the location in a year, or total days in any one visit. The current limit is a period of 24 hours at one location whilst in transit.

 

Given what I hear of the enforcement officer, he will interpret the above in whichever way suits his agenda on a particular day, or with a particular boat, or both. I heard that he told our then Club Chairman that, because I have 2 TV aerials, a 4G aerial, and a radio aerial, on my boat, I must be living on board. I suggested that if he knocked on my door late evening, at the address they have on record, it would be me telling him to sling his hook more often than not.

 

So quite a lot of money for not very much benefit???? and the actual benefit is not particularly clear.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Richard10002

[Richard10002]

There are only a 3 entrances to the Bridgewater, so a chain or gate could easily be fixed to prevent access to CRT boats.

 

Would have a major impact on CRT's northwest network, as it joins 3 separate CRT canals together.

I dont really care what they do as it is unlikely to affect me, but gates or chains, or whatever, would have to be manned, pretty much 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to allow Bridgewater licensed boats through, as well as the CRT boats which would be being recorded and charged on their return if appropriate. Thats 5 full time jobs, a lot of which would require unsociable hours pay of some kind. It would require about 1800 x £40 charges to fund just the wages at £15k per year.

 

Bit of a non starter really.

 

Having said that, there is no doubt that there are some boaters who have a CRT license, and no Bridgewater licence, but spend much more time than the odd 7 days on the Bridgewater so, if the rules are to be policed, some kind of monitoring and enforcement is necessary.

[kevinl]

For interest, if Peel aren't very interested in the Bridgewater and don't make money out of it, why don't they just hand it to CRT?

2015 figures from Companies House give a gross profit of £691,007 and an operating profit of £381,155, I'm not sure where the myth that the Bridgewater isn't profitable comes from. I'd call a gross profit of nearly £700k on a turnover of £1,147,027 amazingly profitable, that's about 2/3 of the turnover Is profit and about 25% operating profit, I wish I owned a piece of that.

K