CRT to introduce mooring strategy for its entire waterway system

[Tuscan]

Anyway, we already have pay-for premium moorings in Llangollen and there doesn't seem to be much objection to that. . So I am quite happy to pay £6 for a reasonably good chance of getting a mooring at the end, with power thrown in as a bonus.

I am confused why does it cost £25 to stay at Stoke Breune with no facilities and £6 to stay at Llangollen with an electricity point. I understand it's quite easy to pay at Llabgollen but at Stoke Breune there is no one to take the money. A very strange pricing policy.

[bassplayer]

I am confused why does it cost £25 to stay at Stoke Breune with no facilities and £6 to stay at Llangollen with an electricity point. I understand it's quite easy to pay at Llabgollen but at Stoke Breune there is no one to take the money. A very strange pricing policy.

Which one would would be the most acceptable if it ended up in court? I've been saying for ages that CRT should make it clear that the £25 fine, whoops sorry, charge, is voluntary to keep them out of trouble.

[nicknorman]

I am confused why does it cost £25 to stay at Stoke Breune with no facilities and £6 to stay at Llangollen with an electricity point. I understand it's quite easy to pay at Llabgollen but at Stoke Breune there is no one to take the money. A very strange pricing policy.

Not really. You can stay at Stoke Bruerne for free. You only have to pay £25 if you want to hog more than your fair share of mooring resource. SB is a pretty little place but surely 2 days is enough to count every brick/stone in every house, and there isn't much else to do there. As we all know the £25 is only there as a "discouragement", whereas the £6 is there to allow most folk reaching the terminus of the Llangollen to have somewhere to night stop.

I expect you also know that "Bargee Traveller" is not in itself antonymic

Yes I know that. However it is antonymic in the context of a group of boaters whose primary objective is to remain stationary in one place as much as possible.

[bassplayer]

You only have to pay £25 if you want to hog more than your fair share of mooring resource

When's the last time you went through SB? I don't see many boats on the 48h tunnel stretch so it's not as if everyone is fighting over the 'mooring resource'.

 

Back in the days it was 14 day, it was busy but we always found a mooring on that stretch. Now everyone seems to go for the 7 day pound. Even that has spaces when we go through.

 

The thing is, not all of us want to cruise every day. Many people stay 7 or 14 days in the same place on holiday.

 

SB is a pretty little place but seems much quiter than it used to be. I know the pubs have complained about the changes to the mooring durations.

 

'If it isn't broken, don't fix it' springs to mind.

[mayalld]

How do you know this?

 

Because we regularly hear of people who live a "low impact lifestyle" wanting certain things to be free or at a reduced cost.

 

I support the right of anybody to eschew whatever material things in life they wish to, and to either work less hours or work in a role that they enjoy but at lower pay because their rejection of material things allows that.

 

What I can't support is people whose view of a low impact lifestyle is only about the working less or working as they please, but aren't actually prepared to accept the reduction in material benefits that follow.

I wonder Dave, is that your also attitide to all those on benefits who live in land based homes? Why is is it any different if they live in a boat?

 

If CRT started to provide special purpose moorings in London there is no reason why benefits can't be used in some cases to pay for them. In fact I understand some already do use benefits to pay for moorings.

 

This isn't primarily about those "on benefits". It is about those who CHOOSE what they describe as a low impact lifestyle, then complain that things cost money, and they can't have them.

 

So far as I am concerned, being on benefits is not something that people have a right to CHOOSE.

[nicknorman]

When's the last time you went through SB? I don't see many boats on the 48h tunnel stretch so it's not as if everyone is fighting over the 'mooring resource'.

Back in the days it was 14 day, it was busy but we always found a mooring on that stretch. Now everyone seems to go for the 7 day pound. Even that has spaces when we go through.

The thing is, not all of us want to cruise every day. Many people stay 7 or 14 days in the same place on holiday.

SB is a pretty little place but seems much quiter than it used to be. I know the pubs have complained about the changes to the mooring durations.

'If it isn't broken, don't fix it' springs to mind.

Only been through a few times over the years, none since the new rules came in. However "back in the day" I recall always having difficulty mooring in the tunnel pound. Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far the other way, I don't know, but anyway I wasn't particularly supporting the new strategy, merely pointing out its different aim compared to Llangollen.

[bassplayer]

 

Because we regularly hear of people who live a "low impact lifestyle" wanting certain things to be free or at a reduced cost.

 

I support the right of anybody to eschew whatever material things in life they wish to, and to either work less hours or work in a role that they enjoy but at lower pay because their rejection of material things allows that.

 

What I can't support is people whose view of a low impact lifestyle is only about the working less or working as they please, but aren't actually prepared to accept the reduction in material benefits that follow.

 

 

This isn't primarily about those "on benefits". It is about those who CHOOSE what they describe as a low impact lifestyle, then complain that things cost money, and they can't have them.

 

So far as I am concerned, being on benefits is not something that people have a right to CHOOSE.

I'm just trying to understand what you mean when you say "low impact lifestyles USUALLY means a lifestyle predicated on earning very little, and expecting everything for FREE on the grounds that you have no money".

 

Have you been to any events where members of the NBTA have attended and spoken to them about your views?

[Mike Todd]

Whilst I agree that should be the case for moorings with no facilities, I see no harm in making a charge for moorings that have additional facilities attached.

 

Everyone would still have the option of paying for their use or finding a free mooring elsewhere.

 

I don't see how charging for a mooring equates too:

 

"Creating ‘premium’ short-term moorings for a fee effectively makes parts of the waterways a no go area for Bargee Travellers."

 

after all, everyone has the option to pay to moor there.

Much as I was going to post. I would especially welcome the opportunity to book a short mooring for a specific date, as in Rembrandt Gardens, in locations where either I wish to be sure of finding somewhere or where there is high demand. (Or has known extras such as electricity - see Llangollen mooring basin)

 

I would quite like to debate a longer term future where such premium facilities are chargeable as part of a plan to keep the general licence fee lower, so long as the experience available to those who only want to pay for the general licence is not seriously dented.

 

For example, I find it remarkable that features such as the Anderton Lift and the Standedge Tunnel, both of which involve significant staff costs to access, remain without additional charge.

 

As funding streams changes, it is not credible to refuse to engage in the debate. Much better to do so and seek to shape the outcome to be as favourable as possible.

[bassplayer]

Only been through a few times over the years, none since the new rules came in. However "back in the day" I recall always having difficulty mooring in the tunnel pound. Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far the other way, I don't know, but anyway I wasn't particularly supporting the new strategy, merely pointing out its different aim compared to Llangollen.

Pendulum swung too far the other way, probably. Then again I suppose some might see that as a success.

 

I wonder sometimes whether differences we see between places like SB and Llangollen are more down to local pressures exerted on CRT, maybe from the council or local boaters associations.

 

I think they got Llangollen right but SB very wrong.

[mayalld]

I'm just trying to understand what you mean when you say "low impact lifestyles USUALLY means a lifestyle predicated on earning very little, and expecting everything for FREE on the grounds that you have no money".

 

Have you been to any events where members of the NBTA have attended and spoken to them about your views?

 

My comments relate to those who claim a low impact lifestyle, not something that the NBTA has any monopoly on.

 

And yes, I have spoken to people who espouse a low impact lifestyle and discussed the fact that just because they eschew material things doesn't mean that society must do likewise in dealing with them.

[bassplayer]

 

For example, I find it remarkable that features such as the Anderton Lift and the Standedge Tunnel, both of which involve significant staff costs to access, remain without additional charge.

 

 

I must admit I was pleasantly surprised by this too. Maybe some canal features are seen to more appropriate for funding by tax payers or public donations, than others.

 

I'm not so sure as the tow path in most areas get lots of visits from walkers, cyclists, fishermen etc. The boats are a huge part of these attractions so maybe it's reasonable to subsidise boaters to a degree.

[Alan de Enfield]

I must admit I was pleasantly surprised by this too. Maybe some canal features are seen to more appropriate for funding by tax payers or public donations, than others.

 

I'm not so sure as the tow path in most areas get lots of visits from walkers, cyclists, fishermen etc. The boats are a huge part of these attractions so maybe it's reasonable to subsidise boaters to a degree.

 

 

I would suggest that Boats & boaters are 'subsidised' a great deal - our licence fees do not cover anything like the costs of maintaining the 'track' let alone paying for all of the legal fees and court cases.

[bassplayer]

 

My comments relate to those who claim a low impact lifestyle, not something that the NBTA has any monopoly on.

 

And yes, I have spoken to people who espouse a low impact lifestyle and discussed the fact that just because they eschew material things doesn't mean that society must do likewise in dealing with them.

I think the key swerve word there is 'espouse'.

 

Nothing wrong with chewing thoughts over with mates in the pub but it doesn't sound like you have spoken to anyone actually living this 'low impact lifestyle' to me

 

There's a challenge for you.

 

 

I would suggest that Boats & boaters are 'subsidised' a great deal - our licence fees do not cover anything like the costs of maintaining the 'track' let alone paying for all of the legal fees and court cases.

Absolutely. CRT get a lot of money from wayleave charges too for pipelines and cables which cross the waterways.

 

I'm just suggesting we as boaters do give a lot back to the community in more ways than just money.

[Stewart Kirby]

Much as I was going to post. I would especially welcome the opportunity to book a short mooring for a specific date, as in Rembrandt Gardens, in locations where either I wish to be sure of finding somewhere or where there is high demand. (Or has known extras such as electricity - see Llangollen mooring basin)

 

I would quite like to debate a longer term future where such premium facilities are chargeable as part of a plan to keep the general licence fee lower, so long as the experience available to those who only want to pay for the general licence is not seriously dented.

 

For example, I find it remarkable that features such as the Anderton Lift and the Standedge Tunnel, both of which involve significant staff costs to access, remain without additional charge.

 

As funding streams changes, it is not credible to refuse to engage in the debate. Much better to do so and seek to shape the outcome to be as favourable as possible.

BW used to charge for the Anderton Lift and the Standedge Tunnel but because they got money for their restoration from the Natioal Lottery they were told by the Lottery Commissioners to remove the charge.

[Tuscan]

Not really. You can stay at Stoke Bruerne for free. You only have to pay £25 if you want to hog more than your fair share of mooring resource. SB is a pretty little place but surely 2 days is enough to count every brick/stone in every house, and there isn't much else to do there. As we all know the £25 is only there as a "discouragement", whereas the £6 is there to allow most folk reaching the terminus of the Llangollen to have somewhere to night stop.

.

Judging by the picture in this months Towpath Talk the "discouragement" seems to be working as it was in Foxton last Friday. it would be interesting to discover whether it is the 48 hours or the £25 signage that has just put boaters off stopping even for 24 hours. I must own up that we have got out of the habit of stopping at Stoke Breune,

[bassplayer]

Judging by the picture in this months Towpath Talk the "discouragement" seems to be working as it was in Foxton last Friday. it would be interesting to discover whether it is the 48 hours or the £25 signage that has just put boaters off stopping even for 24 hours. I must own up that we have got out of the habit of stopping at Stoke Breune,

I suppose in the back of our minds, if we had to come off the boat for an emergency or there was a fault with the boat, you'd be worried about picking up a £25 fine/charge each day. So reduce that risk by staying on a 14 day.

 

Perhaps some of us aren't mooring at these spots out of protest. Perhaps we prefer to moor up with other boaters for social and security reasons. Perhaps, the whole idea of the £25 threat just grates on us so much we move on to an area which seems more welcoming!

[mayalld]

I think the key swerve word there is 'espouse'.

 

Nothing wrong with chewing thoughts over with mates in the pub but it doesn't sound like you have spoken to anyone actually living this 'low impact lifestyle' to me

 

There's a challenge for you.

 

 

Actually, you are agreeing with me here!

 

In my view, many of those who TALK about having a low impact lifestyle don't actually embrace all that is involved, and truly live it.

 

If your low impact lifestyle involves any expectation that you should be able to access goods and services at less than the going rate because you have a low impact lifestyle, then you don't actually have a low impact lifestyle.

 

If CRT feel that there is a market for paid for overnight moorings, and people are prepared to pay for these moorings, then there is a going rate.

[Naughty Cal]

Judging by the picture in this months Towpath Talk the "discouragement" seems to be working as it was in Foxton last Friday. it would be interesting to discover whether it is the 48 hours or the £25 signage that has just put boaters off stopping even for 24 hours. I must own up that we have got out of the habit of stopping at Stoke Breune,

Is there any particular reason for that?

 

Pretty much all of the visitor moorings where we are are 48 hours max, with a few 72 hour spots or Boston is 5 days.

 

There are of course still places you can get against the bank and moor for 14 days if your please

[bassplayer]

 

Actually, you are agreeing with me here!

 

In my view, many of those who TALK about having a low impact lifestyle don't actually embrace all that is involved, and truly live it.

 

If your low impact lifestyle involves any expectation that you should be able to access goods and services at less than the going rate because you have a low impact lifestyle, then you don't actually have a low impact lifestyle.

 

If CRT feel that there is a market for paid for overnight moorings, and people are prepared to pay for these moorings, then there is a going rate.

As I thought. You haven't spoken to any of them.

[nicknorman]

Judging by the picture in this months Towpath Talk the "discouragement" seems to be working as it was in Foxton last Friday. it would be interesting to discover whether it is the 48 hours or the £25 signage that has just put boaters off stopping even for 24 hours. I must own up that we have got out of the habit of stopping at Stoke Breune,

Seems rather obtuse to say that "Due to the rule changes I know there will be lots of space, therefore I shan't moor there". Unless of course you want to moor for a long period in which case I suggest that is best done away from the "honeypot" sites like SB. Anyway, fine by me, I've made a mental note that overnight mooring at SB or Foxton should be pretty much assured even in summer.

[mayalld]

As I thought. You haven't spoken to any of them.

 

Define "them"

 

If you mean people who actually embrace the low impact lifestyle, I have spoken to a very small number of them, and as they don't run round with the "I have a low impact lifestyle, so I should get preferential treatment" attitude, I haven't criticised anything of their view of the world.

 

If you mean people who only CLAIM to have a low impact lifestyle, I have spoken to a fair few.

 

So far as I am concerned, anybody who thinks that the world owes them a discount in order to support their "low impact lifestyle" is kidding themselves.

[Greylady2]

I might buy a motorhome, anyone want to buy a boat with no secure future.

 

Crt sort yourselves out or fill the canals with soil, at least i would know whats what

Edited July 1, 2016 by Greylady2

[bassplayer]

 

Define "them"

 

If you mean people who actually embrace the low impact lifestyle, I have spoken to a very small number of them, and as they don't run round with the "I have a low impact lifestyle, so I should get preferential treatment" attitude, I haven't criticised anything of their view of the world.

 

If you mean people who only CLAIM to have a low impact lifestyle, I have spoken to a fair few.

 

So far as I am concerned, anybody who thinks that the world owes them a discount in order to support their "low impact lifestyle" is kidding themselves.

Those who you have spoken to who have "low impact lifestyles" and a lifestyle predicated on earning very little, and who expect everything for FREE on the grounds that they have no money.

[Naughty Cal]

I might buy a motorhome, anyone want to buy a boat with no secure future.

 

Crt sort yourselves out or fill the canals with soil, at least i would know whats what

A little harsh.

 

When you actually get out there and start boating you will realise it is absolutely nothing like what is portrayed by a few on here.

[bassplayer]

A little harsh.

 

When you actually get out there and start boating you will realise it is absolutely nothing like what is portrayed by a few on here.

I hope you are right about that in the future.

 

Having said that I was warned several years ago that things would get much worse in a just a few years and I'm still enjoying it despite the increase in control freakery.