Winter Moorings prove popular

[Ray T]

5 December 2016

 

WINTER MOORINGS PROVE POPULAR

 

As winter settles in the Canal & River Trust is reporting that more boaters than ever before are taking up moorings for the season with the number of winter mooring permits sold rising 169% year-on-year to 522 (2015: 194 permits).

 

The Trust picked a range of winter mooring sites across the country to offer boaters as wide a choice as possible, which took into account boaters’ feedback on last year’s winter mooring spots. This collaborative approach has meant that this year winter moorings have been taken up at 104 locations, a 46% increase (2015: 71 locations).

 

Winter moorings provide a service for boaters who may not want to cruise as the nights grow longer and the weather can be grim. The proceeds from winter mooring sales go back into the waterways to provide for their care, and this year £250,500 has been raised so far (2015: £101,000).

 

Mike Grimes, head of boating at Canal & River Trust, said: “While the canals in winter can be extremely beautiful the conditions can turn challenging and some boaters want the assurance of a particular mooring to keep their boat. We’ve spent a lot of time working on what we can offer boaters, and listening to what they want. I’m pleased the moorings have proved so popular. There are still some spots available so if the recent cold snap has cooled the prospects of cruising, do take a look at our website and see if you can find a winter mooring that appeals to you.”

 

Winter moorings are available until 31 March 2017, and a list of the sites and prices can be found at www.canalrivertrust.org.uk/winter-moorings. Bookings for the winter moorings can be made through the Trust’s boat licensing site: https://licensing.canalrivertrust.org.uk/Account/Register.

 

If you have any questions about winter moorings please call customer services on 0303 040 4040 or email wintermoorings@canalrivertrust.org.uk.

 

ENDS

 

For further media requests please contact:

Fran Read, national press officer, Canal & River Trust

m 07796 610 427 e fran.read@canalrivertrust.org.uk

[Athy]

Thanks for the update, Ray. £150,000 of extra income should come in very useful; have you any information as to how it will be spent?

My suggestion would be to take on some more lengthsmen to look after parts of the canals where they can be useful in maintaining and improving local conditions. That sum should pay for half a dozen of them for a year.

[matty40s]

Its a shame they don't include figures from 2014, with the roving permits. I do believe the income was in the region of £1/2m

Last year was only 4 months, and some of the locations from many years of winter moorings were removed..... another reason the figure was less.

[sueb]

Wont the money go on paying the bosses pensions?

[alan_fincher]

Its a shame they don't include figures from 2014, with the roving permits. I do believe the income was in the region of £1/2m

Last year was only 4 months, and some of the locations from many years of winter moorings were removed..... another reason the figure was less.

 

Yes, if ever an article was "economic with the truth" this is surely it.

 

They quote 2015, where what they did that year was massively unpopular, and hence they sold remarkably few. Also as Matty says, they were not available for as long a period, so any comparison needs to acknowledge that.

 

A comparison to 2014 would, I'm sure, tell a very different story.

 

EDIT:

 

It does!

 

From these meeting minutes:

 

Winter Moorings

MS provided the headline winter mooring income figure for 2014/15 and 2015/16.

In 2014/15 WM income was £389,308.29,

3662 months of WM / 863 WM permits were sold

In 2015/16 WM income was £183,878.03,

1319 months of WM / 462 permits were sold

 

 

So for 2015/2016 to better 2014/2015, they are still some £139,000 short, I think.

 

I'll stop there because I might just be writing an "exclusive" for NarrowBoatWorld here, if they read this!

Edited December 5, 2016 by alan_fincher

[Athy]

Wont the money go on paying the bosses pensions?

I doubt it. As I understand it, when an employee receives a pension at the end of so many years' service, they get back what they have put in over the years. I think I paid 6% of my salary into the Teachers' Superannuation fund during my career.

[Alan de Enfield]

Thanks for the update, Ray. £150,000 of extra income should come in very useful; have you any information as to how it will be spent?

 

 

It will no doubt go into Shoosmiths 'coffers', or, for when they next decide to 'settle out of court'

[Dave_P]

 

Yes, if ever an article was "economic with the truth" this is surely it.

 

They quote 2015, where what they did that year was massively unpopular, and hence they sold remarkably few. Also as Matty says, they were not available for as long a period, so any comparison needs to acknowledge that.

 

A comparison to 2014 would, I'm sure, tell a very different story.

 

EDIT:

 

It does!

 

From these meeting minutes:

 

 

So for 2015/2016 to better 2014/2015, they are still some £139,000 short, I think.

 

I'll stop there because I might just be writing an "exclusive" for NarrowBoatWorld here, if they read this!

 

"In 2015/16 WM income was £183,878.03"

 

So why does this press release claim £101,000?

 

Are they comparing like-with-like?

While we're on the subject of Winter Moorings. What would prevent someone bidding on and taking a permanent CRT mooring over winter. These often work out cheaper than WMs and have better facilities. Isn't the minimum duration 3 months? Then just cancel the agreement in the spring.

[mrsmelly]

I doubt it. As I understand it, when an employee receives a pension at the end of so many years' service, they get back what they have put in over the years. I think I paid 6% of my salary into the Teachers' Superannuation fund during my career.

 

6% Jees we would have killed to pay 6%.

[Captain Pegg]

Wont the money go on paying the bosses pensions?

It will no doubt go into Shoosmiths 'coffers', or, for when they next decide to 'settle out of court'

Directly it will do neither of those things. No one will be sat there in CRT Towers with £250k in their hand wondering what to do with it.

 

CRT will have forecast an income including that from (winter) moorings when they set their operatIonal budget for the 2016/17 financial year and set the expenditure to align with that forecast income. What really matters isn't so much the absolute number and how it compares to last year, but how it relates to the forecast for this year. They doubtless budget for legal expenditure and enforcement activities and they carry risk around out of court settlements (and indeed the judges ruling in any cases that do proceed). That's where a surplus income from winter moorings may come in handy for them. There is presumably more scope for variation than long term moorings albeit in reality it is small sums of money. Shoosmiths will of course be paid under the terms of their contract with CRT and I think logically would themselves make less from an out of court settlement.

 

JP

[Athy]

 

6% Jees we would have killed to pay 6%.

I didn't need to take it as far as that.

Which profession were you in, and what pension contribution did you make?

[Alan de Enfield]

I didn't need to take it as far as that.

Which profession were you in, and what pension contribution did you make?

 

I was a 'Manager' in a multi-national manufacturing company - our contribution was 7.5% and matched by the company.

Pension was 'Final salary' (fortunately)

[Athy]

 

I was a 'Manager' in a multi-national manufacturing company - our contribution was 7.5% and matched by the company.

Pension was 'Final salary' (fortunately)

Now that you mention it, my schools also matched my contributions - all except one, which managed to "mislay" my and their contributions for one term - and my union sorted them out! Yes, mine too was "final salary", I'm not sure if teachers still get that type of pension now.

[mrsmelly]

I didn't need to take it as far as that.

Which profession were you in, and what pension contribution did you make?

 

I used to wear a big silly blue hat and we payed 11%........worth it though, but at the time it was nearly as much a s my mortgage.

[Athy]

 

I used to wear a big silly blue hat and we payed 11%........worth it though, but at the time it was nearly as much a s my mortgage.

Ah, gotcha.

[Chewbacka]

I doubt it. As I understand it, when an employee receives a pension at the end of so many years' service, they get back what they have put in over the years. I think I paid 6% of my salary into the Teachers' Superannuation fund during my career.

Not always the case (though it is for people that have more recently started company pension contributions) which is why so many companies have a black hole in their pension funds. It depends what type of scheme they have - final salary or defined contribution.

[Bewildered]

These figures must be wrong; 169% increase, that's impossible as all percentages are out of ?

[matty40s]

I am seeing a definite lack of boats on designated Winter Moorings in the East Midlands.

Less than the last two years by far. I wonder if the majority of the upturn is darn Sarf.

Edited December 6, 2016 by matty40s

[Captain Pegg]

These figures must be wrong; 169% increase, that's impossible as all percentages are out of 100

It's an increase of 1.69 times. If you start with 1 and end up with 2.69 that is an increase of 1.69 times the original; or to put it another way it's an increase of 169%.

 

By your logic it would be impossible to more than double the original number.

 

JP

Edited December 6, 2016 by Captain Pegg

[Bewildered]

It's an increase of 1.69 times. If you start with 1 and end up with 2.69 that is an increase of 1.69 times the original; or to put it another way it's an increase of 169%.

By your logic it would be impossible to more than double the original number.

JP

Percent derives from the Latin Centum, as in Percentum, parts of a century 100.

Anything expressed as more than 100% is just wrong.

[Paul C]

Percent derives from the Latin Centum, as in Percentum, parts of a century 100.

Anything expressed as more than 100% is just wrong.

 

Not necessarily, it depends what the percentages represent, and whether the lower and upper limits of 0 and 100 are applicable, meaningless or exist etc.

[alan_fincher]

These figures must be wrong; 169% increase, that's impossible as all percentages are out of

 

The above was not true when I did maths at school.

 

(I doubt they have changed it since!)

Percent derives from the Latin Centum, as in Percentum, parts of a century 100.

Anything expressed as more than 100% is just wrong.

 

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58166.html

[Bewildered]

Not necessarily, it depends what the percentages represent, and whether the lower and upper limits of 0 and 100 are applicable, meaningless or exist etc.

Percentage represents the sum or total

Logically the total should be the new figure of 522 permits sold and the old figure of 194 can then be expressed as a percentage of the sum.

522/100=5.22

5.22 = 1%

194/5.22 = 37.16% of the total

The statement should read as; last year was 63% less permits were sold

[alan_fincher]

Percentage represents the sum or total

Logically the total should be the new figure of 522 permits sold and the old figure of 194 can then be expressed as a percentage of the sum.

522/100=5.22

5.22 = 1%

194/5.22 = 37.16% of the total

The statement should read as; last year was 63% less permits were sold

 

Please read what I just posted. Here it is again.....

 

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58166.html

[sirweste]

I too like Matty have been noticing empty winter moorings. I was surprised that Stoke Bruene wasn't nose to tail when I got there once I saw the winter mooring designation.

I'm now at lower Cosgrove and there's no one on the designated moorings here either.

 

Good news for a non-winter moorer really.