On-line mooring consultation

[Matt&Jo]

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Another factor is the way the price of a basic CRT on line mooring has ballooned. Unless my memory fails me one could rent a 70ft mooring for less tha a grand a year, fifteen years ago, so the decision to pretend CC was not that financially advantageous. Nowadays pretty much anything 70ft costs £3k a year or a good deal more, so the decision to pretend CC becomes a no-brainer if money is tight.

Yes that is basicly bang on.....im new to this whole scene and am looking at temp short term moorings for a 57 x 11 ft wide beam and it is sooooooooo expensive...i am considering ccing for a few months to see how i feel doing it and going from there.....

Im a safety consultant/trainer so can always work mobile if need be....also do pat testing etc so ways of making monies when aboard. I could not afford the more relaxed lifestyle i hope this will bring in a marina as the fees are more than a reasonable mortgage.....and that pays off your house the marina fees just dissapear.....

Edited December 31, 2017 by Matt&Jo

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Matt&Jo said:

Yes that is basicly bang on.....im new to this whole scene and am looking at temp short term moorings for a 57 x 11 ft wide beam and it is sooooooooo expensive...i am considering ccing for a few months to see how i feel doing it and going from there.....

Im a safety consultant/trainer so can always work mobile if need be....also do pat testing etc so ways of making monies when aboard. I could not afford the more relaxed lifestyle i hope this will bring in a marina as the fees are more than a reasonable mortgage.....and that pays off your house the marina fees just dissapear.....

Most people who would consider this hypothetical move to the water wouldn't be be able to get a mortgage anyway - they'd be renting - which just disappears same as marina fees do, as do council taxes on land.

You'd get a lot of old cruisers being lived on, I suspect, rather than narrowboats or barges. Wouldn't suit your average young executive, but would certainly suit a lot of people currently having problems.

[Matt&Jo]

6 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Most people who would consider this hypothetical move to the water wouldn't be be able to get a mortgage anyway - they'd be renting - which just disappears same as marina fees do, as do council taxes on land.

You'd get a lot of old cruisers being lived on, I suspect, rather than narrowboats or barges. Wouldn't suit your average young executive, but would certainly suit a lot of people currently having problems.

But that depends on your motivation for moving onto the water.......

Mine does not stem from economical reasons and perhaps some in london as the same as me are doing it for a change of pace outside of there working lifes.....

Im not sure...

[Horace42]

Genuine CC's out all the time and not needing a home mooring, get a bit of stick because they are lumped in with those calling themselves CC's just to avoid mooring fees,  but nevertheless are moored somewhere.

Home moorings or not, except maybe, for those who cruise non-stop - aren't we are all moored for 365 nights at least - somewhere!

It's either off-line in a marina or on-line at a designated CRT mooring - where both are charged on a pay-as-you-stay time basis - but everywhere else  will be on-line free-of-charge. 

Who pays for the the provision and upkeep of these mooring sites ? CRT yes!  But where does the money come from ?

Me! ... as a tax-payer via Govt. grants, or my license fee for cruising,  and particularly a home mooring. The latter an EOG that costs CRT absolutely nothing, because I pay for the provision and upkeep.

Yet I am being charged a fee to continuously moor my boat on my own land - so that CC's can moor 365 days a year somewhere for nothing at sites provided at someone else's expense. 

I think an increase in license fee would accommodate the cost of providing free moorings whilst cruising - linked to a discount for those who have paid for a home mooring. 

The money would pay for more moorings (casual and CC's) so we are all catered for. 

Then the permanent live-aboard question could be addressed.

 

 

[Chewbacka]

28 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

Genuine CC's out all the time and not needing a home mooring, get a bit of stick because they are lumped in with those calling themselves CC's just to avoid mooring fees,  but nevertheless are moored somewhere.

Home moorings or not, except maybe, for those who cruise non-stop - aren't we are all moored for 365 nights at least - somewhere!

It's either off-line in a marina or on-line at a designated CRT mooring - where both are charged on a pay-as-you-stay time basis - but everywhere else  will be on-line free-of-charge. 

Who pays for the the provision and upkeep of these mooring sites ? CRT yes!  But where does the money come from ?

Me! ... as a tax-payer via Govt. grants, or my license fee for cruising,  and particularly a home mooring. The latter an EOG that costs CRT absolutely nothing, because I pay for the provision and upkeep.

Yet I am being charged a fee to continuously moor my boat on my own land - so that CC's can moor 365 days a year somewhere for nothing at sites provided at someone else's expense. 

I think an increase in license fee would accommodate the cost of providing free moorings whilst cruising - linked to a discount for those who have paid for a home mooring. 

The money would pay for more moorings (casual and CC's) so we are all catered for. 

Then the permanent live-aboard question could be addressed.

 

 

This will of course increase the number of ghost moorings, maybe the answer is to increase the licence fee but reduce the mooring fees.  This can be done by CRT stopping the access charge marinas must pay to CRT, reducing/eliminating the EOG mooring fee that goes to CRT and reducing CRT moorings charges.  Basic visitor moorings should be plentiful and free, but if you want shore power on a visitor mooring then you should obviously pay the electricity cost, but also a contribution to providing the facility.  

[Jim Batty]

I think the unwillingness of low-mileage continual cruisers to pay for proper online moorings is somewhat exaggerated.

In our experience (mostly K&A, a bit of the Oxford and previously the GUC north of Rickmansworth) about 95% of people CCing on boats are self-supporting -- they either work for a living or are retired and live on pensions and savings. I'd say most of those CCrs who would prefer to stay in one place for reasons of work or schooling (but presently shuffle about) would be happy to pay 'rent' to stay on a good online mooring for a reasonable fee.

The suggestion above was that if these new, good online moorings (with good depth, rings, hi-tech fendering, inset into towpath, etc.) were partially subsidised by CRT partners, such as local councils, then they could be reasonably affordable. 

 

BTW, it is also our experience that about 50% of boats tied up on 14-day moorings are not lived on but used recreationally (very generally speaking and in the above areas). I have no problem with this at all. But I think it only fair that the above 'good online moorings' are open to genuine liveaboards, and not used as alternatives to marina moorings.

Edited January 1, 2018 by Jim Batty

[cuthound]

5 hours ago, Chewbacka said:

This will of course increase the number of ghost moorings, maybe the answer is to increase the licence fee but reduce the mooring fees.  This can be done by CRT stopping the access charge marinas must pay to CRT, reducing/eliminating the EOG mooring fee that goes to CRT and reducing CRT moorings charges.  Basic visitor moorings should be plentiful and free, but if you want shore power on a visitor mooring then you should obviously pay the electricity cost, but also a contribution to providing and maintaining the facility.  

Corrected that for you in bold text. 

[ditchcrawler]

On 23/12/2017 at 21:39, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

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

So how fast would you say the average boat goes at tickover and how fast the average boat goes past moored boats?

[cuthound]

What is the average boat?

Depends on prop size, pitch and prop speed in rpm.

For example my 60 foot boat and my friends 58 foot boat are both fitted with Beta 43 engines and PRM150 gearboxes with a 2:1 reduction ratio.

Accotding to the soeedometer app on my phone, at 1000rpm, my boat is doing 2mph and his is doing 3mph.

This is because his prop is an inch bigger in both diameter and pitch.

[MtB]

2 hours ago, cuthound said:

What is the average boat?

Depends on prop size, pitch and prop speed in rpm.

For example my 60 foot boat and my friends 58 foot boat are both fitted with Beta 43 engines and PRM150 gearboxes with a 2:1 reduction ratio.

Accotding to the soeedometer app on my phone, at 1000rpm, my boat is doing 2mph and his is doing 3mph.

This is because his prop is an inch bigger in both diameter and pitch.

 

Are you saying your engine ticks over at 1000rpm?!

Mine ticks over at 170 and the boat scarcely moves. Probably less than 0.5mph at tickover. At 400rpm I'm doing 2.5mph according to my phone speedo, typically. But the resolution of these phone speedos is very coarse at low speeds and cannot be trusted.

[cuthound]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Are you saying your engine ticks over at 1000rpm?!

Mine ticks over at 170 and the boat scarcely moves. Probably less than 0.5mph at tickover. At 400rpm I'm doing 2.5mph according to my phone speedo, typically. But the resolution of these phone speedos is very coarse at low speeds and cannot be trusted.

No, my engine ticks over at 800rpm, 1.6mph, but I didn't measure thst on my friends boat, so compared results I actually had rather than extrapolate.

What speedometer app do you use? I use Ullysse, which has a walking option which gives greater resolution than the car setting, for example it shows the boat slowing by 0.1-0.3mph when going through bridge holes or shallow bits.

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

No, my engine ticks over at 800rpm, 1.6mph, but I didn't measure thst on my friends boat, so compared results I actually had rather than extrapolate.

What speedometer app do you use? I use Ullysse, which has a walking option which gives greater resolution than the car setting, for example it shows the boat slowing by 0.1-0.3mph when going through bridge holes or shallow bits.

Resolution is not the same as Accuracy!

[cuthound]

4 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Resolution is not the same as Accuracy!

I fully understand the difference, having been involved in measuring things for most of my career.

The point I was trying to make is that some speedometer apps have greater resolution than others, (and are possibly more accurate as well if used in walking mode).

Anyway, great accuracy isn't required to measure speed on the canals, good observation and judgement is, so that you can slow down more for badly moored boats, those pinned into a soft bank and those moored on shallower sections of the cut.

[Naughty Cal]

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Are you saying your engine ticks over at 1000rpm?!

Mine ticks over at 170 and the boat scarcely moves. Probably less than 0.5mph at tickover. At 400rpm I'm doing 2.5mph according to my phone speedo, typically. But the resolution of these phone speedos is very coarse at low speeds and cannot be trusted.

Our VP ticks over at 800rpm and at that will be doing about 3.5mph based on both the chartplotter GPS and the through the water speed sensor.

[Mike Todd]

4 hours ago, cuthound said:

I fully understand the difference, having been involved in measuring things for most of my career.

The point I was trying to make is that some speedometer apps have greater resolution than others, (and are possibly more accurate as well if used in walking mode).

Anyway, great accuracy isn't required to measure speed on the canals, good observation and judgement is, so that you can slow down more for badly moored boats, those pinned into a soft bank and those moored on shallower sections of the cut.

I am unclear how an app can be more accurate at lower speeds assuming it is dependent on GPS which has a fixed accuracy whatever. At low speeds the problem is that the location which the GPS returns dithers around - not a problem at higher speeds but disproportionately so at low speed. Whilst one can smooth out the location in a time series, it does not do much for the speed accuracy. Some GPS units do give speed themselves in the data stream - those I have looked at have very unstable values at low speeds. Just because something says 2.35 mph rather than 69 mph does not mean that it is anywhere near as accurate as the resolution implies.