On-line mooring consultation

[Arthur Marshall]

43 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

Long term online moorings are fine, so long as we are allowed to travel past them at a good speed.

Unfortunately, what might be a good speed to me and you, may well be half the speed that someone on a day boat goes past. I don't mind too much being hit by one of them at 2mph, I do object when they ram me at about 5! There shouldn't be a problem going past moored boats between 2 and 3 mph, I'd have thought, but then my tub doesn't go faster than that anyway, so what do I know?

I just think there should be a sensible limit to the number of boats on an online mooring, whether CRT or private, towpath or offside. Ten boats fine, fifteen OK, twenty just about bearable, still can't see the end of the line when you've been boating for twenty minutes, no.

[b0atman]

2 hours ago, system 4-50 said:

Long term online moorings are fine, so long as we are allowed to travel past them at a good speed.

have you considered that your time management is wrong

[Jim Riley]

On 19/12/2017 at 17:05, b0atman said:

have you considered that your time management is wrong

Ah, everyone out of step but you! Maybe it's your time management that's faulty. 

Perhaps you should just let others get on with it, within the rules of course.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Jim Riley

[dor]

On 19/12/2017 at 12:19, Horace42 said:

 

And to spend the extra money from raised 'home' moorings on a lot more 14 day moorings for CC's to use free of charge - at the same time avoiding the need to slow down because the long lines of on-line moorings will have disappeared.    

It is not something I propose. I mention it for what it is worth.

Problem sorted.

Why would they need to spend more money on 14 day moorings?  There are already over 2,000 miles of them on the system already.

[john6767]

2 hours ago, dor said:

Why would they need to spend more money on 14 day moorings?  There are already over 2,000 miles of them on the system already.

I thought the idea was to get rid of 14 day visitor moorings anyway, given it's 14 day by default anyway.  This this a change of stance?

[Jerra]

3 hours ago, Jim Riley said:

Ah, everyone out of step but you! Maybe it's your time management that's faulty. 

Perhaps you should just let others get on with it, within the rules of course.

There are times on some canals where I think the rule must be go everywhere at tickover!    Boats as far as the eye can see and beyond.

I totally agree with Arthur Marshal above.

[Cheshire cat]

a mile of moorings at 2 mph takes 30 minutes, at 3mph 20 minutes. 10 minutes out of the day isn't the end of the world. I know it feels like you've been on tickover for ever but in reality the time lost is insignificant.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Cheshire cat said:

10 minutes out of the day isn't the end of the world

It is when the 4 minute warning siren goes off.

After the 'nuclear lessons' at School we used to discuss what we would/could do in that 4 minutes.

[Jerra]

15 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

a mile of moorings at 2 mph takes 30 minutes, at 3mph 20 minutes. 10 minutes out of the day isn't the end of the world. I know it feels like you've been on tickover for ever but in reality the time lost is insignificant.

We are considerably slower than 2 mph on tickover.  I have been shouted at going far slower than that.

[system 4-50]

If what I wanted was to travel slowly past parked boats, I'd find a marina with an island and go round and round and round ....

It is not a 10 min loss of time that is the problem, its the 50% increase in hassle.

[ditchcrawler]

On 19/12/2017 at 15:40, Arthur Marshall said:

Unfortunately, what might be a good speed to me and you, may well be half the speed that someone on a day boat goes past. I don't mind too much being hit by one of them at 2mph, I do object when they ram me at about 5! There shouldn't be a problem going past moored boats between 2 and 3 mph, I'd have thought, but then my tub doesn't go faster than that anyway, so what do I know?

I just think there should be a sensible limit to the number of boats on an online mooring, whether CRT or private, towpath or offside. Ten boats fine, fifteen OK, twenty just about bearable, still can't see the end of the line when you've been boating for twenty minutes, no.

I can't get above 3.5 mph going past your moorings

[Horace42]

18 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I can't get above 3.5 mph going past your moorings

3.5 mph in my boat is fast - and causes a big bow wave and wake - it must have something to with being tankshape rather than shipshape.  

[Arthur Marshall]

22 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I can't get above 3.5 mph going past your moorings

That's the advantage of being on an undredged bit of the Macclesfield.  You must have a hell of an engine to get up to 3.5 on our bit - even with no boats to get in the way I struggle to do 3... at 3.5 you must be washing the towpath nicely down the hillside, so we'll know who to blame when the next breach happens!

[mrsmelly]

On 12/22/2017 at 13:53, Cheshire cat said:

a mile of moorings at 2 mph takes 30 minutes, at 3mph 20 minutes. 10 minutes out of the day isn't the end of the world. I know it feels like you've been on tickover for ever but in reality the time lost is insignificant.

Completely agree. I dont care two hoots if there is 2 miles of them its tickover when passing it realy isnt a problem whatsoever. We are bathtub users in the main, fast boating is fun with a nice v8 petrol or similar at the coast on a boat shaped boat.

[MtB]

On 22/12/2017 at 13:53, Cheshire cat said:

a mile of moorings at 2 mph takes 30 minutes, at 3mph 20 minutes. 10 minutes out of the day isn't the end of the world. I know it feels like you've been on tickover for ever but in reality the time lost is insignificant.

 

2mph is however, way faster then 'tickover'.

[Jim Batty]

Is the following controversial?

Personally I think there should be more small collections of on-line live aboard moorings loosely scattered about the system, supplied by CRT for a reasonable fee. There is clearly a massive demand for them in some areas, for a variety of reasons, and many boaters engaged in 'bridge hopping' would be happy to settle on and pay for one of these. Happier boaters, less congestion in popular places (?), greater income for CRT to spend on canal upkeep. 

How could these marvellous moorings be funded? CRT should be encouraging local and regional councils and governments to become active partners in developing these online moorings -- indeed subsidise them; even run electricity and water to them.

For a wide variety of reasons Britain is massively short of housing, and many local councils are desperate to develop more local housing ... because they are legally responsible to do it. You'd think they would welcome CRT's offer of partnership with open arms. Surely the development in a community of, say, a dozen such moorings to house a dozen local families, would be much, much, much less expensive than the usual alternatives of securing planning permission and local support to build the infrastructure (sewers, water, electricity, roads, ...) for 12 homes on a brownfield or agricultural plot at the edge of town or village. 

What about having to slow down when cruising past these wonderful new live aboard online moorings? Given that they would be newly built and locally subsidised, why not build them properly? Such as with: 1) good depth (>4-foot?); 2) indented slightly into the towpath where possible; 3) proper rings or bollards; 4) decent fendering.

By 'decent fendering' I mean the installation of a type of strip fendering similar to that seen in coastal moorings -- made of shock absorbing composite materials in 'B' or 'D' or 'M' sections that protect boats and cushion movement. This isn't rocket science -- more 'rubber science'! With online moorings constructed like this, there would be no need to pass boats at tick over -- they could probably be passed at about 3mph without undue rocking, bobbing, shuffling back and forth. 

What's not to like?

 

[system 4-50]

and mobile homes (including tatty caravans with no wheels) in alternate lay-bys on our roads?

Edited December 26, 2017 by system 4-50

[Mike Todd]

20 hours ago, Jim Batty said:

Is the following controversial?

Personally I think there should be more small collections of on-line live aboard moorings loosely scattered about the system, supplied by CRT for a reasonable fee. There is clearly a massive demand for them in some areas, for a variety of reasons, and many boaters engaged in 'bridge hopping' would be happy to settle on and pay for one of these. Happier boaters, less congestion in popular places (?), greater income for CRT to spend on canal upkeep. 

How could these marvellous moorings be funded? CRT should be encouraging local and regional councils and governments to become active partners in developing these online moorings -- indeed subsidise them; even run electricity and water to them.

For a wide variety of reasons Britain is massively short of housing, and many local councils are desperate to develop more local housing ... because they are legally responsible to do it. You'd think they would welcome CRT's offer of partnership with open arms. Surely the development in a community of, say, a dozen such moorings to house a dozen local families, would be much, much, much less expensive than the usual alternatives of securing planning permission and local support to build the infrastructure (sewers, water, electricity, roads, ...) for 12 homes on a brownfield or agricultural plot at the edge of town or village. 

What about having to slow down when cruising past these wonderful new live aboard online moorings? Given that they would be newly built and locally subsidised, why not build them properly? Such as with: 1) good depth (>4-foot?); 2) indented slightly into the towpath where possible; 3) proper rings or bollards; 4) decent fendering.

By 'decent fendering' I mean the installation of a type of strip fendering similar to that seen in coastal moorings -- made of shock absorbing composite materials in 'B' or 'D' or 'M' sections that protect boats and cushion movement. This isn't rocket science -- more 'rubber science'! With online moorings constructed like this, there would be no need to pass boats at tick over -- they could probably be passed at about 3mph without undue rocking, bobbing, shuffling back and forth. 

What's not to like?

 

Have you done the sums aka a Business Plan?

[Jim Batty]

Hi Mike

No, I'm not ideally equipped, and don't have the time resources, to develop this to the detail of a business plan.

It's a suggestion. And the logic of good mooring development being much less costly than housing development, plus the fact that one of the partners (CRT) would be bringing inland waterways resources, guidance and expertise to the table, suggests that low-impact, live aboard sites could financially be made to work. And, of course, there is good incentive to at least investigate it, in the social benefits it would incur. 

Really, I think the crucial aspect of such a plan lies in CRT's attitude to implementing something like this. They would have to be the drivers behind it, be the ones who really believe in it and go out and positively sell it to potential partners. The rewards though -- for the inland waterways, all boaters and families who want to live a simple and ecologically low-impact lifestyle -- could be great. 

Of course, we are some way off this attitude with the present status quo of removing online moorings when a local marina is built. 

[MtB]

3 hours ago, Jim Batty said:

The rewards though -- for the inland waterways, all boaters and families who want to live a simple and ecologically low-impact lifestyle -- could be great. 

 

I'm struggling with this bit. How is living on a boat 'ecologically low impact'? My perception is it is substantiually more wasteful of natural resources than living in a modern, well insulated, or studio flat or house of similar floor area.

[Jerra]

On 26/12/2017 at 21:10, Jim Batty said:

-- indeed subsidise them; 

Please will somebody subsidise my cost of living!

 

Joking aside I can accept a council doing something "at cost" but subsidise implies (to me at least) more money going out than coming in.

[Horace42]

An admirable thought    -  in reply Specifically to #41 - Jim Batty.

I think it is an ethical/moral/social/commercial problem. The label of 'gypsies' will soon be attached to these boat communities.

The council/CRT providing fully equipped long term moorings free-of-charge with the actual cost automatically added to the rates/license fee the rest of us pay.

I doubt it will take off....!

 

[Mike Todd]

13 hours ago, Jerra said:

Please will somebody subsidise my cost of living!

 

Joking aside I can accept a council doing something "at cost" but subsidise implies (to me at least) more money going out than coming in.

Depends somewhat on how you treat capital.

[Sea Dog]

15 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I'm struggling with this bit. How is living on a boat 'ecologically low impact'? My perception is it is substantiually more wasteful of natural resources than living in a modern, well insulated, or studio flat or house of similar floor area.

Go back to sleep Mike - this isn't your dream and dreams don't have to stand any kind of reality check.

[Jim Batty]

14 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I'm struggling with this bit. How is living on a boat 'ecologically low impact'? My perception is it is substantiually more wasteful of natural resources than living in a modern, well insulated, or studio flat or house of similar floor area.

Hi Mike

Boaters who live or spend a lot of time on boats don't squander resources, like water, fuel, electricity because they're a pain in the butt to replenish. We (and many others) sometimes forgo a full-blown shower if we're tied up in a really nice place, simply so that we can put off a journey to a water point and stay there longer. So use less water. Turn the tap off between tooth brushings. So use less water. Our cabins are usually much smaller than even a small flat, so use less heat/fuel. We're not extravagant consumerists ... because there's precious little space to store stuff. Many of us use solar panels (far more than the house holders) and store that energy for use. We replace all our halogen bulbs with LEDs and save a bit more. Because we often linger in the countryside, we come to know it more intimately and 'look after it'. Sort of become greener than if we are disconnected from nature at the heart of a city. And so on ...

I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't know Mike!  OK, not all boaters are heroic angels, but over the long haul, I believe the impact of boaters (on boats) on our environment is reasonably 'low impact'.

12 hours ago, Jerra said:

Please will somebody subsidise my cost of living!

 

Joking aside I can accept a council doing something "at cost" but subsidise implies (to me at least) more money going out than coming in.

Hi Jerra

By 'subsidise' I mean contribute -- to pay part of the cost -- in the building and servicing of first-rate live aboard moorings (as described above). So that we get something of benefit for a wide range of people, including: the local council (who get to home people at a reasonable rate -- and BTW not just anybody, but those who already show an interest in these type of moorings, for example by already owning a boat); CRT (development and servicing savings, that can be poured back into dredging, etc., etc., ...), boaters (liveaboards who can stay in one place for a reasonable 'rent'; cruisers who can now pass said moorings at 3.5 mph because they've been built properly using modern techniques and materials). 

26 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

An admirable thought    -  in reply Specifically to #41 - Jim Batty.

I think it is an ethical/moral/social/commercial problem. The label of 'gypsies' will soon be attached to these boat communities.

The council/CRT providing fully equipped long term moorings free-of-charge with the actual cost automatically added to the rates/license fee the rest of us pay.

I doubt it will take off....!

 

Hi Horace

Unfortunately, given past examples and such, it is too easy for many of us to conflate 'live aboard moorings' with 'gypsy encampments'. 

The moorings I described above are technically advanced (but not rocket science!), low-impact, good looking, sparsely scattered live aboard moorings. And they are NOT free! 

Whilst I haven't nailed down every detail of habitation at these moorings (that would be for CRT to establish, country-wide, in consultation with councils and other possible partners), I would imagine that part of residing at such moorings would entail looking after them, not building 8'x8' structures or piling junk on the tow path, not sub-letting them, and a host of other stuff in a basic contract. Sort of like renting a flat. 

I think most of us know of people, even communities of people, living on online CRT leisure moorings. And a lot of these moorings are sort of rubbish, with caving in banks, undredged, with non-existant or very distant water points. Despite this, most of them look good. Their inhabitants take pride in keeping them that way in as simple a fashion as possible.