Jump to content

Rugby mooings


nipper

Featured Posts

Those wonderful people at C.A.R.T. have spent a lot of money lately improving the towpath along the Rugby 14 day moorings area, It's all nice and tidy and could really provide the full team of bike racers hours of enjoyment speeding along it!

Unfortunately, absolutely nothing has been done about improving the available depth of water along that area and boats still have to moor some way off the bank. And just to add to the interest, C,A,R,T. have taken away all the old rings that have been in place for years, so boats wanting to moor have  new soft earth to put a pin or two in to hold them!

As if taking out the best moorings and putting a water point in there place wasn't enough, now this!

Does anyone at C.A.R.T. know anything about boating at all?

Rant over!

Nipper

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

leaked memo.....

 

Rugby Canal Day - date to be finalised - Summer 2017

There will be several flash fishing contests there over the summer holidays arranged by the CRT Fishing management team and a towpath speed cycling challenge arranged by the CRT Cycling management team.

Dog walkers will be given free dog poo bags out at a specially commissioned CRT "Dog Walkers are Lovely" Gazebo courtesy of licence payers and the CRT Dog Walkers encouragement focus group.

Demonstrations of canoeing and paddle boarding will be hosted by the CRT Watersports management team and several tents offering lentil stew should be in place staffed by the CRT Diversity in Eating Habits on our Waterways think tank team.

nb - please alert the Stoppages list so Moorings can be suspended for two weeks surrounding this exciting event - we don't want those bloody boaters spoiling the event.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, nipper said:

Unfortunately, absolutely nothing has been done about improving the available depth of water along that area and boats still have to moor some way off the bank. And just to add to the interest, C,A,R,T. have taken away all the old rings that have been in place for years, so boats wanting to moor have  new soft earth to put a pin or two in to hold them!

 

There's nothing that should be done about the bank there - it's stone revetment and an original feature of the "new" cuts of the Oxford Canal.

I don't think they had much choice about the water point - the supply was a casualty of the redevelopment of the retail park behind.

Matty - that's far too likely to happen to be funny! :)

Edited by Rose Narrowboats
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it CRT's intention is to make much of the length on that side of the bridge where the water point was and beyond "no mooring", hence, no doubt, the reason for removing the rings.

They say that the original sloping sides there are a historic feature that must not be modified, so whatever is done with the tow-path, you could never get close to the bank anyway.  Unless they have since changed their minds the length will eventually be marked as no mooring.

In a meeting I attended they claimed they were extending the visitor moorings Southwards on the other side of the bridge, and will be installing rings.  I questioned repeatedly whether they could possibly create as much new space South of the bridge as they were taking away North of the bridge.  They said there would be no loss of visitor mooring overall, but I remained unconvinced.

Have the moorings yet been extended South of the bridge, as they said they would, please?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The moorings were never really official visitor moorings south of the bridge except for the park area (Rugby Council operated) which has lost a quarter of its length for the new water point.

So, by sticking an official visitor mooring sign on the towpath side and removing the moorings altogether west of the bridge, they effectively lose NO official visitor moorings, but lose a good 6 or 7 ACTUAL mooring spaces. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

As I understand it CRT's intention is to make much of the length on that side of the bridge where the water point was and beyond "no mooring", hence, no doubt, the reason for removing the rings.

They say that the original sloping sides there are a historic feature that must not be modified, so whatever is done with the tow-path, you could never get close to the bank anyway.  Unless they have since changed their minds the length will eventually be marked as no mooring.

In a meeting I attended they claimed they were extending the visitor moorings Southwards on the other side of the bridge, and will be installing rings.  I questioned repeatedly whether they could possibly create as much new space South of the bridge as they were taking away North of the bridge.  They said there would be no loss of visitor mooring overall, but I remained unconvinced.

Have the moorings yet been extended South of the bridge, as they said they would, please?

 

It looked the same as it has always done , the last bit of moorings, south of the bridge and on the starboard side, are on the bend where the soft ground is!

Don't ask me how i know, although it was years ago!:blush:

Nipper

Edited by nipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rugby does need more moorings though, from the tunnel you have that long line of permit holders, then its rough bank with a tiny towpath, then its the bleak part down to the hire boat arm, then the fancy new path that you cant get on, then the official moorings that are always rammed!

Not that there is much to see in Rugby mind!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dave Payne said:

Rugby does need more moorings though, from the tunnel you have that long line of permit holders, then its rough bank with a tiny towpath, then its the bleak part down to the hire boat arm, then the fancy new path that you cant get on, then the official moorings that are always rammed!

Not that there is much to see in Rugby mind!

 

As in, Newbold tunnel? The first (quite long) stretch beyond it has public moorings, before you reach the long-term moorings (which have a very odd in-out arrangement of coping stones).

Last year a long-term moorer told us that the last two mooring spaces at the Rugby end of the Newbold stretch are never let out by CART and that anyone casually mooring there would thus not get in anyone's way. But don't tell anybody else that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sitting here waiting for the BSS Examination man to arrive to inspect Largo's bits.

While I have been waiting, I've been thinking about these mooring rings!

I don't know why they were put there in the first place, perhaps some edumicated soul cold tell me, but, presume they were for workboats unloading or loading whatever goods were made and providing raw materials for such goods that Rugby produced or wanted!

Now this, I would think would come under Rugby's Local history.

Is it in C.A.R.T.'s  remit to take away such history from towns such as Rugby and not say a word about it?

Maybe Rugby towns historians are not aware of having some of the towns history taken away by C.A.R.T. who, after all said and done is a charity, much like, i presume the Historians of Rugby are.

Sorry, I promise I will try to get a life, honest!

Nipper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-5-29 at 18:11, alan_fincher said:

As I understand it CRT's intention is to make much of the length on that side of the bridge where the water point was and beyond "no mooring", hence, no doubt, the reason for removing the rings.

They say that the original sloping sides there are a historic feature that must not be modified, so whatever is done with the tow-path, you could never get close to the bank anyway.  Unless they have since changed their minds the length will eventually be marked as no mooring.

In a meeting I attended they claimed they were extending the visitor moorings Southwards on the other side of the bridge, and will be installing rings.  I questioned repeatedly whether they could possibly create as much new space South of the bridge as they were taking away North of the bridge.  They said there would be no loss of visitor mooring overall, but I remained unconvinced.

Have the moorings yet been extended South of the bridge, as they said they would, please?

 

They had not been extended when i past about three weeks ago, also though if they are to extend then they also really need to keep on top of the vegetation on the off side, also not sure if the flat owners at the next bridge would be happy about having mooring rings installed there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to answer a few question that have cropped up in this thread.

I came up through Rugby today and the moorings south of bridge 58 are indeed having and have had rings concreted to place, also the overgrown towpath all the way down to bridge 59, where the flats are close to the canal, has been cut back and all the grass has been mown. It would suggest to me that rings are indeed being installed down that area,  but mooring along there would cause a hazard, as the offside trees and shrubs come well out into the centre of the cut there!

Nipper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, nipper said:

Just to answer a few question that have cropped up in this thread.

I came up through Rugby today and the moorings south of bridge 58 are indeed having and have had rings concreted to place, also the overgrown towpath all the way down to bridge 59, where the flats are close to the canal, has been cut back and all the grass has been mown. It would suggest to me that rings are indeed being installed down that area,  but mooring along there would cause a hazard, as the offside trees and shrubs come well out into the centre of the cut there!

Nipper

What's more, the rings are at a decent spacing. So far today they've got as far as the bend. Hopefully, the offside veg will get cut back as well, but if we all report it then it will increase the chance of that happening. Possibly. Maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The above is in line with my understanding of their plans.  I had my doubts about the suitability for visitor moorings going further Southwards, so I agree, if reporting offside vegetation and getting it dealt with would improve things, then as many people as possible need to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.