Jump to content

Petition for wide beam owners


peterboat

Featured Posts

1 hour ago, Sea Dog said:

Some will have filled in the questionnaire agreeing with this result, others will have other preferred options, but I doubt the decision was made by anyone in a Narrowboat.  

Did you put this point forward in the consultation phase?  It was one of the options considered and it was one of the options to tick on the questionnaire. 

I honestly can't remember what the form said, or what I ticked when I filled it in, if I did.

I vaguely remember a form filling exercise a while ago - supposedly only to take a few minutes (it said in the intro) - but dozens of boxes took me nearly 2 hours to tick (I like to do my research) (and get sidetracked into interesting things).

In my cynical view - it was a PR exercise to create the illusion of being a consensus process to help decision making.

Albeit, a pre-settled decision will have already been made - where favourable comments will be selected and used to 'support' it. 

"...there were numerous replies in support of charging extra for increased width...."

"...some suggested 'double'...."

"....but we set a fee a lot lower than that...."

  • Greenie 1
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joe Bourke said:

Let's be honest, narrowboaters are in the majority on the waterways. They have the loudest voices. Is it fair though that they can influence a consultation process so much,  where the result does not impact on them,  the majority ?  If this happens in the next "Consultation", what other minority group of boaters will be the target of their vitriol? Continuous cruisers ?

So you are tied up on a wide canal in your 60 wide boat say 10ft 6ins beam behind a 60ft narrow boat bothof you pay the same amount for a license but you are occupying half as much again area as him for the same money can't think of any other set up were this would be the way to workout a price

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the widebeam boys should not be complaining about an increase, but should rather rejoice that they have enjoyed a huge discount for so many decades! :giggles:

I want to know where the corresponding reduction for narrowboats is to balance out the "income neutral" promise of this exercise. :judge:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've said on Narrowboat Owners Group, we have a pair, 55 & 53 foot, we take up less area than a 60 foot widebeam, they share the same engine, we have to pay full price for the motor and 50% for our butty, so 20% sounds cheap!

In places where the navigation narrows, we can single them up, so we don't impede others. Still we have to pay one and a half licenses.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, X Alan W said:

So you are tied up on a wide canal in your 60 wide boat say 10ft 6ins beam behind a 60ft narrow boat bothof you pay the same amount for a license but you are occupying half as much again area as him for the same money can't think of any other set up were this would be the way to workout a price

I would agree if the  widebeam boat could then sail off and cover the same areas as the narrowboat, and share the same facilities. Bear in mind also that widebeams also share the cost of the narrow beam network that they themselves cannot access. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I agree with you Brian and its not just a question of Money , more and more People are now choosing these Widebeams in order that

they can simply replicate their life ashore with an effective " floating country cottage " , the GU South is simply awash with them .

Cruising last year I encountered one which was home to three separate cars , another a chap was making a living by purchasing

" sailaway shells " from Collingwood fitting them out on the water and as soon as one is complete he simply moves onto the next .

I don't believe the GU is where they belong and I think the CRT simply see them as another Revenue Stream .

What interests me most is that in the main Widebeams are purchased by those with a " Few Quid " I wonder if they will prove to

have a  Louder Voice than the rest of us , judging by this increase it would appear not . 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Joe Bourke said:

I would agree if the  widebeam boat could then sail off and cover the same areas as the narrowboat, and share the same facilities. Bear in mind also that widebeams also share the cost of the narrow beam network that they themselves cannot access. 

However as MtB pointed out further up the thread.  If a widebeam is used for the same amount of time as a narrowboat they will put get as much use of the canals as the narrowboat only in a restricted area.  So they are getting the same amount of cruising but taking up more of the canal.

They also knew how much of the system they could access when they chose a widebeam.  Narrowboat owners could equally complain that they are sharing the cost of the extra wear created by boats going up and down a restricted length of canal more often than if they could access all the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I have a NB, personally, I find charging a wide beam more for their licence unduly harsh.  Charging a wide beam more for a mooring in a marina I fully understand but not just for a licence.  They don’t use the full system but pay for it anyway and I suspect we’re quite happy to do so having made a conscious decision to go wide.

@jenevers took the words out of my mouth.  Divide and conquer.  In other words pit boater against boater leaving CRT to do as they wish.  I suspect the definition of consultation in this case was ‘what can we get away with on this occasion’!  It certainly won’t be the last ‘consultation’ and naturally there will be many more ‘victims’ of said ‘consultation’.

What was that line? ‘and then they came for me, but there was no one left’

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a shame that through this "Consultation" there is now even more distrust of C & RT, and increased animosity between boaters. What really has it achieved as regards the London situation? Which after all is the real nut they have to crack. Meaningful increases to licence fees could have been applied to new builds after a certain date if it was really trying to reduce the number of widebeams coming onto the system. That way a new boat owner would be aware of the costs/problems when planning their purchase. Like someone has already said, "It's a national solution to what is basically a regional problem".

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe Bourke said:

It's a shame that through this "Consultation" there is now even more distrust of C & RT, and increased animosity between boaters. What really has it achieved as regards the London situation? Which after all is the real nut they have to crack. Meaningful increases to licence fees could have been applied to new builds after a certain date if it was really trying to reduce the number of widebeams coming onto the system. That way a new boat owner would be aware of the costs/problems when planning their purchase. Like someone has already said, "It's a national solution to what is basically a regional problem".

 

 

Despite your rudeness I agree with what you say here. A substantial hike in widebeam licence fees for boats introduced to the system after say 1/1/2019 would have been far more equitable. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rebotco said:

I want to know where the corresponding reduction for narrowboats is to balance out the "income neutral" promise of this exercise. :judge:

I think you will find the 'income neutral' criteria will include all their loss making operations - so there will be no reduction for anybody - just a slightly less increase. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I am quite happy to pay an increased fee, it is my choice to have a 14 foot beam boat so I pay the penalty in both where I can cruise and what it costs me - just as it is my choice to have a 2 tonne dirty, diesel gulping, 4wd vehicle.

Everyone should just quit moaning and get on with life.

If you don't like it sell up and get a NB.

Or exercise your right to free speech and if you agree with it sign the petition. 

I'm on EA waters which aren't restricted in terms of where I can navigate so I already pay by the square metre, but if I were on CRT waters I'd only expect to pay an increased licence fee once long awaited proposals to widen the North - South link had been implemented. 

9 hours ago, Boater Sam said:

At one time the road fund licence was the same price for all cars, not any more. That's how things change, suck it up, you have had years of your fat boats bloating in the canals for free.

In fact canal congestion is mainly caused by too many narrowboats

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Joe Bourke said:

Let's be honest, narrowboaters are in the majority on the waterways. They have the loudest voices. Is it fair though that they can influence a consultation process so much,  where the result does not impact on them,  the majority ?  If this happens in the next "Consultation", what other minority group of boaters will be the target of their vitriol? Continuous cruisers ?

Yes widebeamers have long been a vulnerable minority, despised and castigated by the bitter petty jealousies and of insults of the majority who want a boating monoculture and don't wish to see diversity on our waterways. And now we're being socially cleansed by the authorities! :P

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jerra said:

However as MtB pointed out further up the thread.  If a widebeam is used for the same amount of time as a narrowboat they will put get as much use of the canals as the narrowboat only in a restricted area.  So they are getting the same amount of cruising but taking up more of the canal.

They also knew how much of the system they could access when they chose a widebeam.  Narrowboat owners could equally complain that they are sharing the cost of the extra wear created by boats going up and down a restricted length of canal more often than if they could access all the system.

What about all these narrowboats using double locks solo? It's completely inefficient.  I might start pestering CRT about that. Get them to put up your licence fees across the board to cover the cost or introduce a new rule to make you all wait for another boat to turn up so you can properly fill locks. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But on a serious point, I don't think those who support the increase realise that this additional 20% levy also serves as a benchmark for a general increase in licence fees across the board. By actively responding to this tactic of divide and rule in the way CRT want you to you're just shooting yourself in the foot. Just wait and see... 

Real boaters should be sticking together, not fighting amongst themselves

Edited by blackrose
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Parahandy said:

 

Cruising last year I encountered one which was home to three separate cars , another a chap was making a living by purchasing

" sailaway shells " from Collingwood fitting them out on the water and as soon as one is complete he simply moves onto the next .

Surely if he's selling them within 5 years he's breaking the law? You want increased licence fees for law abiding boaters on that basis? 

Did you report the guy? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, blackrose said:

I'm on EA waters which aren't restricted in terms of where I can navigate so I already pay by the square metre,

Are you back on the Thames? EA Anglia charge by length only ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, blackrose said:

 

In fact canal congestion is mainly caused by too many narrowboats

There are more widebeams being thrown out than narrow boats now from Collingwood, Aqualine, Tyler, etc

Here's another one for the GU, hope they have the wheel steering controls the right way round on this one.

20180410_080247.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, blackrose said:

Surely if he's selling them within 5 years he's breaking the law?

In what way? This is surely standard practice amongst those "boatbuilders" who are in fact boatfitters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, blackrose said:

Surely if he's selling them within 5 years he's breaking the law? 

Not if he is building them "RCD Compliant", otherwise all of the boat builders would be holding 5 years 'stock' and if you didn't want to buy a 'stock' boat and had to order a 'custom built' one it would be a 5 year + build waiting time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

This is a false argument. If these boats can only reach say, 25% of the system they must be using the bit they are trapped in 4 times as much.

And taken to extreme this line of reasoning says someone buying a truly vast boat i.e. too big to fit though any lock, should pay nothing as they can't go anywhere. Clearly not fair.

 

 

That certainly isn't true of the boats moored at Goole who will spend most of their time on waters not run by CRT.

11 hours ago, X Alan W said:

So you are tied up on a wide canal in your 60 wide boat say 10ft 6ins beam behind a 60ft narrow boat bothof you pay the same amount for a license but you are occupying half as much again area as him for the same money can't think of any other set up were this would be the way to workout a price

When tied up both boats are using the same amount of mooring facility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jerra said:

However as MtB pointed out further up the thread.  If a widebeam is used for the same amount of time as a narrowboat they will put get as much use of the canals as the narrowboat only in a restricted area.  So they are getting the same amount of cruising but taking up more of the canal.

They also knew how much of the system they could access when they chose a widebeam.  Narrowboat owners could equally complain that they are sharing the cost of the extra wear created by boats going up and down a restricted length of canal more often than if they could access all the system.

Not necessarily.

At what point will people realise that not all widebeam boats on CRT waters are fat narrowboats :banghead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

That certainly isn't true of the boats moored at Goole who will spend most of their time on waters not run by CRT.

When tied up both boats are using the same amount of mooring facility.

At a (slight) tangent.

One of BWMLs 'conditions' is that to have a mooring the boat must have a C&RT licence, BSS and Insurance - no problem - except when we applied to take the Cat into BWML Hull they wanted to see  all of the 'above'.

Having explained that it was a sea-going vessel (unable to use C&RT waters) they realised how foolish they looked, and said, just ignore that condition of the T&Cs.

Considering the number of 'sea-going' boats, (including the Border Force North Sea patrol boat), in the marina it makes me wonder if they have all got C&RT licences ?

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.