March of the Widebeams

[kris88]

6 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Its also not unkown for heavy flat bottomed boats to stay stuck to the mud when the tide rises.

They tended to be loaded boats but yes it does happen . Which is why you have a rowing boat. 

[magnetman]

One would want to know how much random rubbish there may be around..

 

Other than the wide beans obviously !

1 minute ago, kris88 said:

They tended to be loaded boats but yes it does happen . Which is why you have a rowing boat. 

 

I thought rowing boats were for when the lady wishes to have a heated argument. Is this some other type of rowing you are referring to or did you mean a pulling dinghy?

[magpie patrick]

6 hours ago, kris88 said:

 Because I’m only able to access a third of the network. That sounds fair doesn’t it? 

 A 45 foot narrow boat on the Grand Western Canal pays around £350 for access to an 11 mile canal. Applying the same ratio to CRT national network a 45 foot narrow boat would pay an annual licence fee of £64,000, so the amount of canal you have access to really doesn't cut it as an argument,  everyone on the CRT network is getting a massive bargain compared to other smaller canals. 

[kris88]

6 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Agreed, and it seems extreme.

..but some folk are. 
 

 

I suppose more will be at it, as it gets more expensive on the cut. 

[magnetman]

Mind you I bet a lot of people would be happy to pay £350 a yar for use of an 11 mile stretch of canal

 

 

[kris88]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

One would want to know how much random rubbish there may be around..

 

Other than the wide beans obviously !

 

I thought rowing boats were for when the lady wishes to have a heated argument. Is this some other type of rowing you are referring to or did you mean a pulling dinghy?

I would have called it a tender, but I’d already used a similar word. Pulling dinghy will do. 

14 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 A 45 foot narrow boat on the Grand Western Canal pays around £350 for access to an 11 mile canal. Applying the same ratio to CRT national network a 45 foot narrow boat would pay an annual licence fee of £64,000, so the amount of canal you have access to really doesn't cut it as an argument,  everyone on the CRT network is getting a massive bargain compared to other smaller canals. 

Yes please I’ll pay £350 a year for 11miles thanks. 

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

@NigelMoore had a few stories about this. 

 

One of them was a narrow boat which went down on the mud on a mud berth and it sucked the bottom so much if looked like it was going to sink. At the last minute it moved out of the mud. 

 

Quite a nail biting time where one may need more beer or a wee dram.

 

The other story, which was really quite alarming, was of a narrow boat at Brentford gas works (watermans park as it is now called) going down on the tide and a rectangular water tank getting wedged under it and causing the boat to keel over significantly. 

 

Flat bottom boat seems good but it can be quite nasty if things go wrong..

 

 

I have seen a narrowboat on the trent get stuck in the mud, tide Came in and it went under! It was when I went on the trent for the first time, no cutting corners for me ever!

[MtB]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

I've seen narrow boats in Newhaven and Ramsgate. 

 

There's one in the sea near Portsmouth, visible from the M27 as you drive past Hayling Island. 

 

 

[Ronaldo47]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

@NigelMoore had a few stories about this. 

 

One of them was a narrow boat which went down on the mud on a mud berth and it sucked the bottom so much if looked like it was going to sink. At the last minute it moved out of the mud. 

 

 

A few years ago there was an article by an old bargee  in "Waterways World" in which he recounted some of the things he had experienced when periodically  taking a narrowboat and butty to the London Docks. When occasionally stuck in the mud on a rising tide, they would drop a loop of rope over the bows and, with a man on each side pulling alternately, work the rope back underneath the boat to release the suction. It usually worked, but was often a close thing!

[IanD]

5 hours ago, M_JG said:

 

Can you cut the patronising tone please. Its not about me being 'happy' as you put it, your use of the word 'fiddling' betrayed an underlying prejudice which clealy underpins your opinions which is why I raised it.

 

The reference to non dom tax status is equally as irrelavent as your earlier mortgage reference.

 

There is currently no way for a widebeam owner to pay more licence fee than they are required, even if they wished to.

 

So talk of them 'fiddling' anything is pure nonsense.

 

You started with the patronising tone, not me. I probably shouldn't have used the word "fiddling" since there's no illegality involved, just widebeams taking advantage of a financially favourable historical license fee anomaly. Agreed?

 

Non-dom tax status and offshore trusts are perfectly legal ways to pay less tax than "fairness" dictates -- which is why some people do it. Many people consider this to be "tax fiddling" even though it's legal.

 

With the current license fee structure, having a widebeam is a perfectly legal way to pay a smaller license fee than "fairness" dictates -- which is why some boaters do it. Some other boaters think this is unfair, though you don't...

 

If you can't see the equivalence between the two cases, there's no point continuing any debate with you. Night night...

Edited April 12, 2023 by IanD

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

You started with the patronising tone, not me. I probably shouldn't have used the word "fiddling" since there's no illegality involved, just widebeams taking advantage of a financially favourable historical license fee anomaly.

 

Non-dom tax status and offshore trusts are perfectly legal ways to pay less tax than "fairness" dictates -- which is why some people do it. Many people consider this to be "tax fiddling" even though it's legal.

 

With the current license fee structure, having a widebeam is a perfectly legal way to pay a smaller license fee than "fairness" dictates -- which is why some boaters do it. Some other boaters think this is unfair, though you don't...

 

If you can't see the equivalence between the two cases, there's no point continuing any debate with you. Night night...

 

Clutching at straws to bolster your point does you no favours.

 

No 'probably shouldn't have mentioned fiddling' you simply shouldnt have referenced the word.

 

It simply isnt fiddling anything.

 

Nice try at nearly admitting you were wrong.

 

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by M_JG

[Ianws]

The original thread wasn't mostly around licence costs, although they did crop up. More about whether widebeams were appropriate in some places they were appearing, and/or pug ugly or functional living spaces.

 

The licence debate "discussed" extensively is a bit pointless. CRT will make a decision and boaters will either have to pay what's asked, move off CRT waters (if that's practical and makes sense), or sell up. A different debate is if the final decision is fair but it won't change what CRT decide. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Ianws said:

The original thread wasn't mostly around licence costs, although they did crop up. More about whether widebeams were appropriate in some places they were appearing, and/or pug ugly or functional living spaces.

 

The licence debate "discussed" extensively is a bit pointless. CRT will make a decision and boaters will either have to pay what's asked, move off CRT waters (if that's practical and makes sense), or sell up. A different debate is if the final decision is fair but it won't change what CRT decide. 

 

I think its called 'thread drift'.....

 

It happens,

 

do you think proposals around increased boat licensing costs on a waterways forum should go without discussion, and CRT should just do it?

 

Really?

[Ianws]

2 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

I think its called 'thread drift'.....

 

It happens,

 

do you think proposals around increased boat licensing costs on a waterways forum should go without discussion, and CRT should just do it?

 

Really?

There are separate threads on the licensing consultation. Also, the discussion has mostly moved on from discussion to voluminous posts from entrenched positions. Just pointing out the discussions here won't make an iota of difference on what CRT decide and people will then have to get on with it. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Ianws said:

There are separate threads on the licensing consultation. Also, the discussion has mostly moved on from discussion to voluminous posts from entrenched positions. Just pointing out the discussions here won't make an iota of difference on what CRT decide and people will then have to get on with it. 

 

I didnt suggest posts here will change CRT's position but thankyou for for stating the bleedin obvious.

 

 

[Ianws]

7 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

I didnt suggest posts here will change CRT's position but thankyou for for stating the bleedin obvious.

 

 

Well, that's me well and truly put in my place (twice). I'd better shuttle off and get back under my rock unless my posts continue to bother folk. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Ianws said:

Well, that's me well and truly put in my place (twice). I'd better shuttle off and get back under my rock unless my posts continue to bother folk. 

 

Feel free to disagree. But if you dont wish to have a discussion on a discussion forum yes, good night.

[Ianws]

Before I shuffle off and stop derailing this thread even more, a couple of points before I go.

 

1. Yes threads drift but that's not necessary here when other more relevant threads are available. 

2 . The last 7 pages in this thread couldn't really be described as a discussion. They have involved a small number of members who are, for whatever reason, repeating the same arguments over and over again from entrenched positions  That has definitely taken the thread off its original topic.

3. You talk about discussion yet your tone and language towards me could be described as confrontational, at best. 

 

 

[Peanut]

Gaming is the word.

[Alan de Enfield]

7 hours ago, Peanut said:

Gaming is the word.

 

I thought it was "Grease" !

 

[___]

10 hours ago, IanD said:

You started with the patronising tone, not me. I probably shouldn't have used the word "fiddling" since there's no illegality involved, just widebeams taking advantage of a financially favourable historical license fee anomaly. Agreed?

 

Non-dom tax status and offshore trusts are perfectly legal ways to pay less tax than "fairness" dictates -- which is why some people do it. Many people consider this to be "tax fiddling" even though it's legal.

 

With the current license fee structure, having a widebeam is a perfectly legal way to pay a smaller license fee than "fairness" dictates -- which is why some boaters do it. Some other boaters think this is unfair, though you don't...

 

If you can't see the equivalence between the two cases, there's no point continuing any debate with you. Night night...

 

Have you not considered that the reason for charging solely by length rather than a combination of length and width is because broad beam craft have quite limited access to the network?

 

It's not that unfair at all and as a potential narrow beam owner with a home mooring can't you just have the good grace to realise you're going to be favoured by what is currently happening.

 

Also be aware that when you own a boat and in the event you cruise it to some difficult places and find yourself in need of assistance it likely won't be *your* type of boater that comes to your aid 😉

 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by Captain Pegg

[IanD]

48 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

Have you not considered that the reason for charging solely by length rather than a combination of length and width is because broad beam craft have quite limited access to the network?

 

It's not that unfair at all and as a potential narrow beam owner with a home mooring can't you just have the good grace to realise you're going to be favoured by what is currently happening.

 

Also be aware that when you own a boat and in the event you cruise it to some difficult places and find yourself in need of assistance it likely won't be *your* type of boater that comes to your aid 😉

 

 

If you want to bring in things like access to the network, you also need to look at *why* people buy narrow or wide boats.

 

People buy wide boats/"fatties" because they have a *lot* more space inside -- almost treble per foot of length (14' vs 7' width) when you include gunwales, tumblehome and access passageways -- and in return accept that they are restricted as to where they can go (about a third of the network).

 

People buy narrowboats/"sewer tubes" because they want to to be able to travel over the whole cnal network, and in return accept that their living space will be *much* more restricted than a wideboat.

 

You can't have both, this tradeoff is part of the basic decision as to which you buy -- wideboat owners can no more expect a discount for restricted canal access than narrowboat owners can for restricted living space, it's a simple decision about whether you prioritise living space (wideboats) or cruising the canal system (narrowboats). Neither is "wrong" or "right", it's a personal lifestyle choice.

 

(and by coincidence, the ratio between useful living space and available canal length is very similar between the two...)

 

The CART license fee exists to bring in some revenue to CART, with some kind of weighting to reflect the "load" the boat puts on the network -- for which size is a big factor, hence the current weighting mainly by length. So let's compare two boats : a 72'x7' narrowboat and a 36'x14' wideboat (sizes chosen to allow direct comparison), on a wide canal to avoid any debate about suitability and inconsiderate mooring.

 

The two main "loads" on the network which matter are lock use and mooring space, especially in "honeypot" areas. Two of these wide/narrow boats occupy the same 72'x 14' space either in a broad lock or in moorings -- assuming the narrowboats are breasted up and share locks, which they usually are in popular areas.

 

So logically they should pay the same W*L-based license fee, as do boats almost everywhere outside CART waters -- and houses/flats in most countries, and indirectly in the UK. I expect any jury in the land if asked would come to the same decision (and I expect the CART survey will do the same) -- but currently the narrowboat owner pays a license fee almost 70% higher.

 

Why is this "fair"?

Edited April 13, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

Following this argument boats over a about 63ft long should pay less because they can't access some of the northern network. 

 

Also assuming a boat is remaining on the water and being used for continuously cruising it is taking up the same space wherever it is and using the same facilities, lockage etc.

 

It may only be able to use a third of the network but all other things being equal it will be doing so three times more than the equivalent narrow boat which is accessing more of the system. 

 

The one third argument pushes the discussion towards regional licensing, which I think makes quite a lot of sense. Why should I pay for the wide northern waterways if I have no intention of ever going there even if my boat could technically get there? 

 

 

[Rambling Boater]

Wide beam = any boat which won't fit through a narrow canal lock due to width?

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Following this argument boats over a about 63ft long should pay less because they can't access some of the northern network. 

 

Also assuming a boat is remaining on the water and being used for continuously cruising it is taking up the same space wherever it is and using the same facilities, lockage etc.

 

It may only be able to use a third of the network but all other things being equal it will be doing so three times more than the equivalent narrow boat which is accessing more of the system. 

 

The one third argument pushes the discussion towards regional licensing, which I think makes quite a lot of sense. Why should I pay for the wide northern waterways if I have no intention of ever going there even if my boat could technically get there? 

 

 

And boats drawing more than 3 feet should pay less because they can't use some of the shallower bits, and boats with immovable wheelhouse should pay *much* less because they are blocked in to small areas by low bridges/tunnels...

 

The problem with countrywide regional licensing is the same (but not quite as bad) as the idea of "pay-per-lock" or "pay-per-mile" in that it either needs more CART boots on the ground to check that boats are staying "at home", or automated location-based boat tracking, the very idea of which is anathema to many boaters.

 

It might work if only applied as a surcharge to a few small "honeypot areas" like around London and Bath because only a few miles of the canals need to be patrolled, not the entire system -- but would still need more effective CART checking/enforcement in these areas, meaning more people, meaning more cost.

 

Unless the need for checking online outside these areas was removed, in other words remove the 14-day restriction for boats "out in the sticks" and concentrate enforcement on popular areas.

 

But to stop CART losing a lot of revenue from boats mooring "free" online instead of on home moorings, they'd have to raise the license fee, perhaps to double what it is today... 😞

Edited April 13, 2023 by IanD