March of the Widebeams

[Tacet]

1 minute ago, kris88 said:

Not quite true. I knew what the deal was when I bought it. But crt keep moving the goal posts, well I didn’t even know about crt when I bought it. 
People, ( well narrowboat owners.) keep telling me that it’s not fair that I don’t pay twice what they do. So as I’ve pointed out in the name of fairness I’m quite prepared to pay double the narrowboat licence if it’s then divided by three. What’s not fair about that? 

My boat only occupies a fraction of the network at any one time so I shouldn't be required to pay as though I am using it all.

 

The maths is a bit complicated, but it's something to do with 60ft divided by 2,000 miles.  Maybe there should be a further adjustment as mostly it does not occupy the full width either.

[magnetman]

People with gin palaces would probably argue that it is nice to have the luxury of a large boat with a " they look up at me" flybridge and not worry about the limited cruising range.

 

 

Wide beam canal boats are similar. It is a choice to own one and they categorically are more comfortable than narrow boats. You sacrifice being able to do the coffin locks and have a more comfortable boat. This is a choice not something which is forced on people. 

 

Seems sensible for someone who has no intention of cruising the system to have a wide boat as it is more comfy. 

 

Obviously if the licence is by length only there could be an unnatural bias which -may- cause unforeseen problems. 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by magnetman

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, kris88 said:

So as I’ve pointed out in the name of fairness I’m quite prepared to pay double the narrowboat licence if it’s then divided by three. What’s not fair about that? 

 

 

Extending your argument ad absurdum, if someone bought a 100ft x 20ft boat and put it in the GU between two locks, they should only pay 1/2,000th of the licence fee as they can only access the one mile pound they are in. Yes? 

[magnetman]

The CRT do have it in the t&c that the boat must be able to navigate the waterways. 

 

i'm not sure how it is worded but if it says must be capable of navigating the canal network perhaps all boats over 7ft1.293in wide are in fact illegal. 

 

 

[kris88]

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Extending your argument ad absurdum, if someone bought a 100ft x 20ft boat and put it in the GU between two locks, they should only pay 1/2,000th of the licence fee as they can only access the one mile pound they are in. Yes? 

No because as Andrew has pointed out, they are not abiding by the T&C’s  To do as you say would obviously be a ploy to avoid moving. 
plus the obvious that moving a boat that large by road is nearly impossible let alone the cranage. 

Edited April 12, 2023 by kris88

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

The CRT do have it in the t&c that the boat must be able to navigate the waterways. 

 

i'm not sure how it is worded but if it says must be capable of navigating the canal network perhaps all boats over 7ft1.293in wide are in fact illegal. 

 

 

 

It basically says they must not become a hazard to navigation

[magnetman]

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, kris88 said:

No because as Andrew has pointed out, they are not abiding by the T&C’s  To do as you say would obviously be a ploy to avoid moving. 

 

The alternative would be to use "I'm waiting for an engine parts", I'm sure you could make that last many months - maybe even years, C&RT being so helpfull (gullible) may even let you.

[magnetman]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It basically says they must not become a hazard to navigation

Other requirements too. It must fit through or under or over all structures You will use. 

 

Edit to correct the wording. 

 

I wonder what happens if you say you will never use any structures. 

Edited April 12, 2023 by magnetman

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

Other requirements too. It must fit through or under all structures on the waterway where it is to be used. 

 

I know - I mentioned it several pages ago and said I would'nt cut and paste it because the hoi polloi don't like it.

[magnetman]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The alternative would be to use "I'm waiting for an engine parts", 

What is an engine parts?

[kris88]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The alternative would be to use "I'm waiting for an engine parts", I'm sure you could make that last many months - maybe even years, C&RT being so helpfull (gullible) may even let you.

Another one dangerously close to a personal attack. 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

What is an engine parts?

 

No idea - but maybe thats why it took so long to source them!

It may have been "Advanced Nucleoids"

Edited April 12, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[kris88]

I’m quite glad that the network has the skinny bit in the middle really. It stops most of this new crowd of inconsiderate widebeam owners from moving north. So they are all stuck in the congested SE. 

Lets face it most of the people who buy these modern “floating apartments.” don’t really want a boat.

[IanD]

34 minutes ago, kris88 said:

I thought you weren’t supposed to play the man on here? That seems pretty close to a personal attack? 
you know what they say about assumptions? 

So go on then, prove my assumption wrong.

 

What fraction of the wide canals available to you do you travel on each year?

[kris88]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

So go on then, prove my assumption wrong.

 

No!

Edited April 12, 2023 by kris88

[IanD]

Just now, kris88 said:

No!

 

So you're a CMer, and your "wideboats should get a discount" argument is completely spurious, and by your own admission you should pay double the license fee of a narrowboat. Glad we've cleared that up then... 😉

[kris88]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

So you're a CMer, and your "wideboats should get a discount" argument is completely spurious, and by your own admission you should pay double the license fee of a narrowboat. Glad we've cleared that up then... 😉

That’s what your assuming. 

[Momac]

28 minutes ago, magnetman said:

People with gin palaces would probably argue that it is nice to have the luxury of a large boat with a " they look up at me" flybridge and not worry about the limited cruising range.

That correct 

Except the perception that a flybridge boat is large. Some can be large but most flybridge boats are shorter than most narrowboats.

I also  don't get the gin palace terminology as a narrowboat is just as likely to have some drink on board .

 

On the river the only constraint in practice  is length of the boat when at moorings and in locks  . The locks are plenty wide enough to take wide beams two abreast . So river boaters in my locality really don't get idea that widebeams should pay more.

[kris88]

1 hour ago, kris88 said:

I’m quite happy in the name of fairness to pay x2 what a narrow boat does. If you then in the name of fairness divide that by three. Because I’m only able to access a third of the network. That sounds fair doesn’t it? 
Nobody has yet Stated why this isn’t fair, just expressed their own personal bias against it. 

 

[magnetman]

Nothing is fair. My mother was always clear about this when we were kids. 

 

It is a pointless exercise to think that anything can ever be fair because it won't happen under any circumstances.

 

Logically boats should be licensed according to the amount of space they occupy on the water. A 'footprint' so to speak. After this the person considering buying a boat can make their own choices.

 

Obviously changing the fee structure later is a bit dodgy in a way but I think there are probably reasons for this and it probably isn't just because some narrow boat owners are moaning.  

 

 

[David Mack]

Because that isn't the way it works. Holders of Rivers Only licences pay 60% of the cost of a full canals and rivers licence, yet have access to much less than 60% of the CRT network. And whereas a wide boat has use of 2 separated sections of the CRT network, the waters available to Rivers Only licence holders are much more divided.

[magnetman]

Just for technical correctness a 'Rivers only licence' does not exist other than in words. The correct term is Pleasure Boat Certificate which is a registration rather than a licence to use canals. 

 

There is a difference. Rivers only licence has become a generic term but it is always worth pointing out that it is not in the power of the navigation authority to license use of the scheduled rivers like they can on canals. It is a registration certificate. 

 

 

 

 

[kris88]

Just now, magnetman said:

Nothing is fair. My mother was always clear about this when we were kids. 

 

It is a pointless exercise to think that anything can ever be fair because it won't happen under any circumstances.

 

Logically boats should be licensed according to the amount of space they occupy on the water. A 'footprint' so to speak. After this the person considering buying a boat can make their own choices.

 

Obviously changing the fee structure later is a bit dodgy in a way but I think there are probably reasons for this and it probably isn't just because some narrow boat owners are moaning.  

 

 

I’m quite aware life isn’t fair. But the fairness argument is the one used by narrowboaters time and time again to justify changing the licence structure. Well to be honest crt use the fairness argument as well. So this is maybe where boaters get it from. I’m just using the same argument. 
ps charging by area is only logical in your mind. Personally I don’t think logos has got us far as a culture. 

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

Just for technical correctness a 'Rivers only licence' does not exist other than in words. The correct term is Pleasure Boat Certificate which is a registration rather than a licence to use canals. 

 

There is a difference. Rivers only licence has become a generic term but it is always worth pointing out that it is not in the power of the navigation authority to license use of the scheduled rivers like they can on canals. It is a registration certificate. 

 

 

 

 

I’m glad you’ve been paying attention to what Tony’s be telling you. 

[David Mack]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Just for technical correctness a 'Rivers only licence' does not exist other than in words. The correct term is Pleasure Boat Certificate which is a registration rather than a licence to use canals. 

 

There is a difference. Rivers only licence has become a generic term but it is always worth pointing out that it is not in the power of the navigation authority to license use of the scheduled rivers like they can on canals. It is a registration certificate. 

None of which negates my point about the cost.