IWA

[ditchcrawler]

I think it has been some time since the IWA represented the interests of the majority of boaters.

So are the majority of its members fat or narrow boat owners, that of course includes cruisers as some of them are fat or narrow?

[dogless]

Greenie (matty40s)

 

But isn't the wide beam issue just a phase that will disappear (largely into marinas) when the cruising difficulties become apparent?

 

Rog

Edited February 13, 2017 by dogless

[matty40s]

Greenie (matty40s)

But isn't the wide beam issue just a phase that will disappear (largely into marinas) when the cruising difficulties become apparent?

Rog

The cruising difficulties will not become apparent to them, only to others.☺

[magpie patrick]

Greenie (matty40s)

 

But isn't the wide beam issue just a phase that will disappear (largely into marinas) when the cruising difficulties become apparent?

 

Rog

 

I was wondering that, but markets are very slow to respond and the boats will be with us for 50 odd years. If neither was the case people wouldn't be buying boats and heading for London and indeed there would be fewer boats to buy because the older boats wouldn't still be with us.

 

In any event, most people buying what Matty calls the monoliths aren't planning on taking them very far.

 

I'm always loathe to be precriptive, and it would take many years before we could get "standards" in place but I do wonder of the navigation authorities collectively might wish to come up with some kind of "navigability" criteria for craft just as there is a BSS. Car construction standards don't prevent individuality, but they do prevent you driving around with spikes on your tyres or a battering ram on the radiator grill.

[alan_fincher]

Greenie (matty40s)

 

But isn't the wide beam issue just a phase that will disappear (largely into marinas) when the cruising difficulties become apparent?

 

Rog

 

Very few marinas in the area Matty is talking about are able to accommodate many wide beams, I believe. Virtually all the wide beams are on-line in my experience, and, as Matty suggests, regularly at the least helpful places. (Even if there is a straight stretch of canal, why do they regularly seem intent on picking the narrowest bits opposite the biggest overhanging trees, with the greatest potential for whipping off chimneys cans and mops on boats trying to get past).

 

I totally agree with Matty - turning (say) a £750 licence fee into (say) a £1000 licence fee is not going to have any great effect. If people are spending £100K on a boat, spending (say) an extra £250 annueally om a licence is not greatly going to change the dynamics that virtually every new boat delivered on to a canal like the GU is typically between 10' 6" and 12' wide.

[koukouvagia]

 

I agree something needs to be done to limit the numbers of widebeams coming onto unsuitable parts of the system, what that is I don't know.

There were 67 wide boats of varying descriptions between Marsworth and Whilton last month, some moored in ridiculous places.

 

It's the rate of increase of widebeams that's as worrying as the raw numbers.

These figures are taken from my log on the same trip from Cowroast to Stoke Bruerne in June for the past four years:

2013 - 35

2014 - 48

2015 - 65

2016 - 78

I didn't note how many of these were on the move in years 2013 - 15, but I counted only three moving last year. The rest were moored and, as Matty says, many of them in stupid places.

[matty40s]

My counts are generally done in the depths of Winter as it seems to give a truer view of suggested towpath congestion , most marina based Summer dumpers are back in the marina.

I have noticed many boats in the last 12 months which used to be short hopping CC-ers, have moved to Long Term Mooring spots, indeed, the East Midlands mooring locations are far quieter this year than for many a year.

Fradley, Shardlow, Loughborough, Kilby Bridge, Hawkesbury etc all have seemed virtually empty from previous years CC numbers.

[dogless]

I've not been down to London on the GU since 2013, but that's where we're heading this spring. I'll be interested to view the 'issue' first hand.

 

Certainly, in the midlands, we've noticed far fewer boats on permanent mooring sites, and wondered if this is customers choosing to move into the increasing number of marinas, or C&RT not making the moorings available for use.

 

The wide beam boats we have seen regularly in the Braunston area, have all taken permanent moorings now.

 

I still believe the majority of people choosing a wide beam, do so for comfort of living conditions, and cruising (for most) is not a serious consideration. The majority will settle onto moorings or in marinas.

 

The situation may need to be monitored, but I don't think licensing is a correct method of regulation.

 

Rog

[peterboat]

Widebeams can only go on a bit of canal designed for them but that is not my point The IWA like RBOA and the NBTA are supposed to be putting on a united front for boat owners not stabbing us in the back to further their own personal aims. If they want to put something forward like they have they should ask their members what they think.

I have sent an email and called the bank to cancel by subs other members with widebeams should maybe do the same this is the only way they will listen to us when the members have hit them hard in the pocket

Edited February 13, 2017 by peterboat

[erivers]

On the question posed, I'd support a charge based on deck area - as already in use on EA waterways.

 

 

Only the EA Thames area charges by deck area.

 

Charges are by length only on Anglian region waterways and the Medway.

 

An attempt by the EA to extend charging by area to its other waterways as part of its so-called "harmonisation" project resulted in an unholy mess and was abandoned.

[MtB]

 

My point is this association is supposed to represent us the boaters and if it doesnt ask us, it is now a dictatorship so its past its sell by date clearly!

 

 

Yes I totally understand this point you're making.

 

It's just that it seems fundamentally iniquitous that a monster widebeam should pay the same licence fee as a snake-slim narrowboat of the same length, so I agree with their suggestion.

 

IWA members are obviously never going to agree on this so pretty pointless asking them.

[magictime]

I personally don't see the issue with paying by area. We already pay by length....I've never seen why fat boats should pay less than a motor & butty??

 

It does seem pretty arbitrary that licence fees are based on one dimension (length) and not the other (width). I mean, unless I'm overlooking some reason why space along the bank is at more of a premium than space across the channel or in a lock.

 

The argument is invalid but fat boaters say they only have access to half the system, unlike a motor and a butty.

 

Invalid because the fat boat wears out the half system it is stuck in, twice as much.

 

...and because you could equally well argue that boats longer than 59ft or so only have access to part(s) of the system.

 

Don't forget the narrow boats which are over 57 feet should pay less as they can't do the northern waters

Like that!

A higher price for a CC licence would also be fairer in my opinion.

 

Why? I've never heard a rationale for this that makes sense. The usual assumption seems to be that boaters without home moorings must typically make more use of CRT infrastructure/facilities each year than boaters with home moorings. But I don't see what there is to justify that assumption; I mean, CCers might or might not live aboard, use Elsan points, cruise long distances through lots of locks, etc., and the same goes for non-CCers as far as I can see.

Edited February 13, 2017 by magictime

[Victor Vectis]

Anything that penalises fatarse boats gets my vote.

[Peter X]

The odd aspect of all this to me is that the one place where a wider boat costs more to licence/register is the Thames, where it matters least because the river is so wide! My feeling is that, assuming it wouldn't be too difficult to introduce for practical or legal reasons, CRT ought to charge more for a widebeam than for a narrow boat of the same length, because they tend to be a greater obstacle to navigation, but only maybe 50% more not double. This alone would be only a small part of the answer to congestion problems, but would be fairer.

 

The big question relating to the congestion on the ever-popular Regent's Canal and in other hotspots is how some kind of charging by area could be both fair and practical. I suspect it has to come one day and the only choice will be how it's done; the devil is in the detail. If and when it comes, CRT could make a lot more money in London, the Western K&A etc. and spend it on keeping the system in general open.

[BruceinSanity]

Widebeams can only go on a bit of canal designed for them but that is not my point The IWA like RBOA and the NBTA are supposed to be putting on a united front for boat owners not stabbing us in the back to further their own personal aims. If they want to put something forward like they have they should ask their members what they think.

I have sent an email and called the bank to cancel by subs other members with widebeams should maybe do the same this is the only way they will listen to us when the members have hit them hard in the pocket

If you want an organisation that lobbies exclusively for boaters interests, join NABO. IWA hasn't seen itself as a purely boaters organisation since the shift in policy over 20 years ago that led to what became NABO breaking away.

[Tony Brooks]

My point is this association is supposed to represent us the boaters and if it doesnt ask us, it is now a dictatorship so its past its sell by date clearly!

 

I am afraid that they never have just represented the boaters and I doubt their charter allows them to. They are supposed to represent the good of the waterways and waterways users in general and that includes boaters, anglers, twitchers, walkers and even cyclists. Unfortunately their ongoing gerrymandering of the CaRT representative elections seems to have resulted in very few if anyone actually representing just boaters' interests. I can not see how an IWA office holder can legitimately represent boaters' interests above those of say angling.

 

They lost my contribution when they sent me and expected me to buy raffle tickets that were to build a linear velodrome around Stoke (they termed it towpath improvements). This coincided with the first CaRT elections and their stated intent to move both their national and regional magazines online. That in itself shows just how out of touch they were. I those days boaters with onboard broadband were very few and far between with those who had it hardly being representative.

 

I suppose we all should join NABO but its been years since I heard anything about them standing up to CaRT.

 

 

 

[Scholar Gypsy]

The odd aspect of all this to me is that the one place where a wider boat costs more to licence/register is the Thames, where it matters least because the river is so wide! My feeling is that, assuming it wouldn't be too difficult to introduce for practical or legal reasons, CRT ought to charge more for a widebeam than for a narrow boat of the same length, because they tend to be a greater obstacle to navigation, but only maybe 50% more not double. This alone would be only a small part of the answer to congestion problems, but would be fairer.

 

The big question relating to the congestion on the ever-popular Regent's Canal and in other hotspots is how some kind of charging by area could be both fair and practical. I suspect it has to come one day and the only choice will be how it's done; the devil is in the detail. If and when it comes, CRT could make a lot more money in London, the Western K&A etc. and spend it on keeping the system in general open.

 

The issue on the Thames is lock capacity, especially at the smaller locks and on a busy bank holiday Monday!

 

I think you are suggesting a higher licence fee if your boat only leaves the M25 zone for say 30 days a year?

[system 4-50]

If the licence fee is to be limited by the area of the network accessible due to the boat's dimensions, could I have a really, really, fat boat sitting in a long pound, for free? Maybe double-ended?

[magpie patrick]

The odd aspect of all this to me is that the one place where a wider boat costs more to licence/register is the Thames, where it matters least because the river is so wide! My feeling is that, assuming it wouldn't be too difficult to introduce for practical or legal reasons, CRT ought to charge more for a widebeam than for a narrow boat of the same length, because they tend to be a greater obstacle to navigation, but only maybe 50% more not double. This alone would be only a small part of the answer to congestion problems, but would be fairer.

 

The big question relating to the congestion on the ever-popular Regent's Canal and in other hotspots is how some kind of charging by area could be both fair and practical. I suspect it has to come one day and the only choice will be how it's done; the devil is in the detail. If and when it comes, CRT could make a lot more money in London, the Western K&A etc. and spend it on keeping the system in general open.

 

I can see what you're saying, but around Bath the problem is arguably a shortage of canal rather than a surplus of boats! We have one canal only, it ends in the city, and it makes a bee line out of it so only around six or seven miles is "near" Bath.

 

Of course I would say that seeing as I'm chairman of an organisation promoting the restoration of a canal, which would add ten miles or more, all of which is near Bath...

[FadeToScarlet]

OK, here's a proposal.

 

£2.50 per square foot of water space taken up.

 

I.e. 72' x 7' (like mine) = £1260 P.A.

 

70' x 14' = £2450

 

62' x 10' = £1550

 

57' x 7' = £997.50

 

50' x 12' = £1500

[matty40s]

What is that going to solve??

Raising licence fees will NOT stop the influx of widebeams.

At Pillings Lock, there must be over 80 now, with more coming in all the time.

I only hope they don't all decide to go cruising on the same bank holiday.

Edited February 13, 2017 by matty40s

[Richard Fairhurst]

My point is this association is supposed to represent us the boaters

 

No, it isn't. IWA is a charity and therefore it's supposed to fulfil its charitable objectives.

 

Those objectives are:

 

 

For the public benefit to advocate the conservation use maintenance and development of the inland waterways of the British Isles the works relating thereto and any craft or buildings or structures now or previously associated therewith, to advocate and promote the restoration and the maintenance in good condition of such waterways and associated craft and buildings and structures and advocate and promote their fullest use for appropriate commercial and recreational purposes.

 

To educate the public and other bodies about the use and benefits of such waterways whether by the production of leaflets, magazines, the conduct of seminars or workshops or such other means as the Association may from time to time determine.

 

To promote and commission research into inland waterways and publication of the results of such research

[MtB]

The licence fee is in the broadest terms a tax on boat ownership. A bit like Council Tax on a house.

 

So broadly speaking the more boat you have in the water, the more tax you should pay on it. In my opinion.

[peterboat]

 

No, it isn't. IWA is a charity and therefore it's supposed to fulfil its charitable objectives.

 

Those objectives are:

 

Doesnt say anything in there about interfering with License costs on boats does it?

[magictime]

Doesnt say anything in there about interfering with License costs on boats does it?

 

Nor does it say anything about holding raffles, selling T-shirts, running events, recruiting members, lobbying CRT or Parliament, running WRG camps, etc. etc. So what? It's a set of broad objectives, not a list of permitted activities.