March of the Widebeams

[Lily Rose]

The trouble with Newbold (and other places) is that you can never be sure what the response from the other boater will be. I normally wait if the other boat looks to be more than halfway through. If they look like they've only just entered I go for it on the basis that if I wait for them to traverse the full length I'll probably then, and only then, spot that some other bugger has nipped in behind them.

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, kris88 said:

So we’ve agreed then a flat fee of say £3000 for every boat regardless of size. Is the fairest way to go. Obviously I think it should come with more oversight and input into how the maintenance budget should be spent. I would also expect to see investment from crt into boaters services. Rather than closing them as at present. 

 

 

Hardly. 

 

The bigger the boat, the bigger the fee is what most boaters think. 

 

£3,000 for a canoe seems a reasonable starting point though, rising from there as the size of the boat to be licenced increases. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lady M]

Currently, per foot, shorter boats pay more than longer boats.  Changing to charging by area should resolve this anomaly.

[MtB]

48 minutes ago, Lady C said:

Currently, per foot, shorter boats pay more than longer boats.  Changing to charging by area should resolve this anomaly.

 

 

Kriss88 opposes this because I suspect, he has a very wide, short boat. 

 

Occam's Razor tells us he has, anyway! 

 

 

[Lady M]

Yes, well, mine are narrow and shorter.  

[peterboat]

I think the greater the are you can travel the more you should pay that's fair by al your rules you propose

[LadyG]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

 

Hardly. 

 

The bigger the boat, the bigger the fee is what most boaters think. 

 

£3,000 for a canoe seems a reasonable starting point though, rising from there as the size of the boat to be licenced increases. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The older the boater the smaller the fee, so, for example a person over 76 gets a 76% discount.  Obviously no one of working age, ie 66 gets any such discount.

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by LadyG

[MtB]

1 minute ago, LadyG said:

The older the boater the smaller the fee, so, for example a person over 76 gets a 76% discount.  Obviously no one of working age, ie 67 gets any such discount.

 

 

Boaters don't need licences at all. 

 

Only their boats.

 

 

There is quite a strong case for older boats paying less than newer. 

 

(Says me, owning a VERY old boat!)

 

 

[magnetman]

Yearly licence to be 10 percent of boat value. 

 

Lets encourage some starter boats. Boats valued yearly by a professional. £100 fee. Not the end of the world. 

So if your boat is a grand you pay £100. A hundred grand and you pay £10k. Seems quite sensible to me. 

 

 

[MtB]

Just now, magnetman said:

Yearly licence to be 10 percent of boat value. 

 

Lets encourage some starter boats. Boats valued yearly by a professional. £100 fee. Not the end of the world. 

 

 

Or we could just look it up on a chart of notional valuations for length x width x age. 

 

If you disagree with the chart, then pay £100 for an individual valulation.

 

Works fine for council tax, dunnit! 

 

[LadyG]

31 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Or we could just look it up on a chart of notional valuations for length x width x age. 

 

If you disagree with the chart, then pay £100 for an individual valulation.

 

Works fine for council tax, dunnit! 

 

I could do with a wee job to supplement the pension, I can provide a valuation certificate on demand

[MtB]

30 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I could do with a wee job to supplement the pension, I can provide a valuation certificate on demand

 

I'll undercut you and do them for £99.

 

Just send a photo of boat and I'll provide a valuation....  

 

 

[dmr]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

Yearly licence to be 10 percent of boat value. 

 

Lets encourage some starter boats. Boats valued yearly by a professional. £100 fee. Not the end of the world. 

So if your boat is a grand you pay £100. A hundred grand and you pay £10k. Seems quite sensible to me. 

 

 

 

I saw what I assumed to be a new liveaboard on the K&A who aspired to be part of the "community". It was quite a nice traditional type boat with smart paintwork. Boater was painting rough red oxide patches all over it to make it look more like a liveaboard boat.

If boat licence is base on value maybe then many boaters will devalue there boats and we will have even more linear slums.  There could be a new market in selling "unpolish" to take the shine of shiney boats 😀

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, kris88 said:

Obviously I think it should come with more oversight and input into how the maintenance budget should be spent.

You have repeated this, but you haven't responded to my previous question as to how you think that should be done!

[kris88]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

Yearly licence to be 10 percent of boat value. 

 

Lets encourage some starter boats. Boats valued yearly by a professional. £100 fee. Not the end of the world. 

So if your boat is a grand you pay £100. A hundred grand and you pay £10k. Seems quite sensible to me. 

 

 

That’s getting more realistic. 

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

You have repeated this, but you haven't responded to my previous question as to how you think that should be done!

Sorry. Didn’t see your question before.I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but it’s not beyond the wit of man to come up with a method. 

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

Yearly licence to be 10 percent of boat value. 

 

Lets encourage some starter boats. Boats valued yearly by a professional. £100 fee. Not the end of the world. 

So if your boat is a grand you pay £100. A hundred grand and you pay £10k. Seems quite sensible to me. 

 

 

Not sure that you know what definition of value you intend should be used. I assume you mean (since you appear to make the comparison with house selling) the estimated price someone will pay for it. This, of course, means that the licence will rise each year (usually) and, that in recent times anyway, at a rate much faster than the licences have risen. Also, were there to be a decrease in typical prices, CaRT income would fall and maintenance would be even less. Is that what you want?

[magnetman]

It was not a particularly serious suggestion. 

 

I don't really care either way as my days on canals are over but it appears that more money is needed by the navigation authority.

If the licence fee were to be ten percent of the boat value this would be a massive increase IF people paid it. 

 

I don't understand how boat values can go up. There is something wrong with this principle. 

edit freudian slip. 

Edited April 17, 2023 by magnetman

[kris88]

16 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It was not a particularly serious suggestion. 

 

I don't really care either way as my days on canals are over but it appears that more money is needed by the navigation authority.

If the licence fee were to be ten percent of the boat value this would be a massive increase IF people paid it. 

 

I don't understand how boat values can go up. There is something wrong with this principle. 

edit freudian slip. 

It could work. I’m not really bothered either. I already have a mooring off crt’s water. I’m just trying to get a bit of cruising in before the network collapse’s completely. Any massive increase is going to cause massive evasion. So they probably won’t end up collecting anymore money in the end. 

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, kris88 said:

Sorry. Didn’t see your question before.I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but it’s not beyond the wit of man to come up with a method. 

That's just a cop out! You are the one saying something should be done differently, so if we are to take the suggestion seriously we need to know what it is you are actually suggesting.

[archie57]

On 15/04/2023 at 11:41, magnetman said:

Physical restrictions should be in place where wide beam craft can currently fit but where the canal was not made for wide craft. For example Berkhamsted. That road bridge which slopes slightly. You could easily build a concrete structure under there limiting the channel to 7ft6. Whether this would be allowed I don't know. 

 

The first one to do would be the A45 bridge out of Braunston turn on the way to Rugby. There should obviously be a width restriction there. 

 

Give boat owners 6 months notice of works then sort it out. 

 

Quite possibly not allowed by law. I don't know but it would deal with some problems. 

 

Not a good idea to alter the A45 bridge leaving Braunston - being a blind bridge you need to be able to pass an oncoming boat there - which I've done many times.

[Lily Rose]

27 minutes ago, archie57 said:

Not a good idea to alter the A45 bridge leaving Braunston - being a blind bridge you need to be able to pass an oncoming boat there - which I've done many times.

 

The next one along would do nicely though. Reasonable visibility from either  direction if I recall correctly.

[Momac]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

IF people paid it. 

That's a big IF

[TheBiscuits]

6 hours ago, MtB said:

Kriss88 opposes this because I suspect, he has a very wide, short boat. 

 

Nah, it's normal width for a Short Boat ... 14 feet.

[peterboat]

7 hours ago, magnetman said:

Yearly licence to be 10 percent of boat value. 

 

Lets encourage some starter boats. Boats valued yearly by a professional. £100 fee. Not the end of the world. 

So if your boat is a grand you pay £100. A hundred grand and you pay £10k. Seems quite sensible to me. 

 

 

What would you do do when it all closed down because 99% couldn't afford it?

[TheBiscuits]

7 hours ago, magnetman said:

So if your boat is a grand you pay £100.

 

I think my boat is grand.  Suits me anyway ...