Canal & River Trust sets out plans to review boat licensing

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Yes this^^^^^^^^ my boat would have a huge premium if they did this so thousands of greenies

One of my boats is 14 foot beam, the other is 23 feet.

Good job the 'big girl' isn't on C&RT waters.

[Steilsteven]

4 hours ago, Phoenix_V said:

 Charged by area, my 72' x 7' boat would still cost nearly as much as a 50' x 10.6" wide beam.  That doesn't sound like outright discrimination against the wide beam to me, particularly given that I can share locks and they can'

So can I.

[furnessvale]

45 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

One of my boats is 14 foot beam, the other is 23 feet.

Good job the 'big girl' isn't on C&RT waters.

Does rather make the point though.  Surely you wouldn't expect the big girl to pay the same as a narrowboat?

George ex nb Alton retired

[widebeamboy]

If I have a compost toilet I should expect a discount as I am using less services than those without.

[Steilsteven]

17 minutes ago, widebeamboy said:

If I have a compost toilet I should expect a discount as I am using less services than those without.

Absolutely!

[system 4-50]

I have just flown to San Francisco & back. At 9 stone I was charged the same fare as some 18 stone fatties. This is just not fair. 

[Steilsteven]

5 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

I have just flown to San Francisco & back. At 9 stone I was charged the same fare as some 18 stone fatties. This is just not fair. 

No it isn't fair if they have to occupy more than one seat but I thought that airlines were starting to charge extra in those circustances.

[Steilsteven]

34 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

Does rather make the point though.  Surely you wouldn't expect the big girl to pay the same as a narrowboat?

George ex nb Alton retired

No he should expect the narrow boat to pay the same as him.

[Phoenix_V]

2 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

Charged by area, my 72' x 7' boat would still cost nearly as much as a 50' x 10.6" wide beam.  That doesn't sound like outright discrimination against the wide beam to me, particularly given that I can share locks and they can'

Careful how you quote it was narrowboat owner Fincher wot actually said this

[Wanderer Vagabond]

2 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

No he should expect the narrow boat to pay the same as him.

Is this also how VEL licences should work, a flat rate method whereby a 40 artic should only be paying the same as a SMART car? and if not, why not?

[furnessvale]

2 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Is this also how VEL licences should work, a flat rate method whereby a 40 artic should only be paying the same as a SMART car? and if not, why not?

Given that large motor cars pay more, a lot more, VED than most of the heaviest HGVs on our roads, that is perhaps not the best comparison to make.

George ex nb Alton retired

[peterboat]

4 hours ago, widebeamboy said:

If I have a compost toilet I should expect a discount as I am using less services than those without.

I have that composting toilet so where is my discount?

[MtB]

29 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I have that composting toilet so where is my discount?

 

Down the pan, probably!!!

[matty40s]

37 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I have that composting toilet so where is my discount?

Crap idea....taking the pi $$

Edited March 8, 2017 by matty40s

[Irob]

Go on, i,ll chance my two pennies worth. Wouldnt paying per tonne of displacement be more logical and fair ?

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, Irob said:

Go on, i,ll chance my two pennies worth. Wouldnt paying per tonne of displacement be more logical and fair ?

Suits me - my 'tupperware' would come in at 6.5 / 9.5 tonnes.

I would need to know when the weighing is to be done as I currently have over 2.5 tonnes of fuel in the tanks.

[Irob]

Ok Alan de E, it was a silly idea. But couldnt the empty weight be calculated and certified. Surely 25', 45', 57', 62', 72' and widebeams similarly categorised would fall into approximate weight grades. I know lets do it by dimensions instead. Er ! Isnt that whats being proposed? Durr!

[Jen-in-Wellies]

If it went on displacement, then heavier boats should be charged at a lower rate as there is less water for CaRT to supply to fill the canal where they are.

Jenny

[Alan de Enfield]

13 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

If it went on displacement, then heavier boats should be charged at a lower rate as there is less water for CaRT to supply to fill the canal where they are.

Jenny

No, No, No - heavier boats should be charged more, as they need deeper water so they have sufficient water to displace their own weight - ergo - C&RT need to do more dredging and incur higher costs to maintain the canals suitable for 'heavy' boats.

'Light' boats can get away with 'shallow' water.

 

(NB - my boat has a 4' 6" draft)

[Drayke]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

No, No, No - heavier boats should be charged more, as they need deeper water so they have sufficient water to displace their own weight - ergo - C&RT need to do more dredging and incur higher costs to maintain the canals suitable for 'heavy' boats.

'Light' boats can get away with 'shallow' water.

 

(NB - my boat has a 4' 6" draft)

According to the manufacturer of my widebeam it has a draft of 30in and weighs about 26ton, boy your NB must be very heavy 

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, F DRAYKE said:

According to the manufacturer of my widebeam it has a draft of 30in and weighs about 26ton, boy your NB must be very heavy 

It is not a narrowboat. it is a 14 foot beam GRP

The NB is as in Nota Bene

 

nota bene

ˌnəʊtə ˈbɛneɪ/

verb

formal

verb: nota bene

1. (used in written text to draw attention to what follows) observe carefully or take special notice.

[Drayke]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

It is not a narrowboat. it is a 14 foot beam GRP

The NB is as in Nota Bene

 

nota bene

ˌnəʊtə ˈbɛneɪ/

verb

formal

verb: nota bene

1. (used in written text to draw attention to what follows) observe carefully or take special notice.

OK

[Detling]

On 21/02/2017 at 20:50, TheBiscuits said:

I assume that it is all about the home mooring status. Boats without a home mooring seem to be the focus of CRT, and these are already treated differently in the 1995 Act.

 

I expect that they will charge more for CC-declared boat licences, possibly by upping all the prices and then giving a discount (25%?) for boats with a validated home mooring.

 

Note that does not prevent them moving to area (LOA x Beam) based charging too!

They should apply the 25% discount to everyone who has to pay an 'end of garden' or NAA fee in their mooring charges, as we are subsidising the CCe'r and we use less facilities. We are effectively paying two fees to CART.  I choose to have a mooring so do pay but it is one more reason for a review. Many marina's won't take widebeams so if they have to pay more they could become like large diesel vehicles, not welcome in this century.

 

Tin hat time maybe.

 

[Drayke]

Now here’s a thought all wide canals should be for widebeams and all narrow canals for narrow boats.

[dmr]

20 minutes ago, F DRAYKE said:

Now here’s a thought all wide canals should be for widebeams and all narrow canals for narrow boats.

And 57 foot boats should not be allowed on canals built for 70 foot boats ???????    and cars should not be allowed on roads capable of taking a 38 tonne truck, where will it all end?

................Dave