March of the Widebeams

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, magnetman said:

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? 

 

 

Extending this logic, if I agree to cruise on say, only the Coventry I should be able to buy a license for just the Cov costing say, 10% of a national license. 

 

 

[Athy]

56 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?

 

 

 

 

 

Have you not considered that the reason may be historical? I don't know when BW introduced licence fees, but it was probably at a time when the vast majority of boats on the canals were narrow ones, so it never occurred to them to create a different pricing structure for the very few big 'uns which were aroiund?

[IanD]

Just now, MtB said:

 

Extending this logic, if I agree to cruise on say, only the Coventry I should be able to buy a license for just the Cov costing say, 10% of a national license. 

 

And you have to either prove that you stay on there (an invitation to fiddling the system) or CART have to verify that you do (much higher monitoring/enforcement costs)... 😞

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Athy said:

Have you not considered that the reason may be historical? I don't know when BW introduced licence fees, but it was probably at a time when the vast majority of boats on the canals were narrow ones, so it never occurred to them to create a different pricing structure for the very few big 'uns which were aroiund?

 

Nail on the head. 

 

This originally insignificant anomaly has ballooned into a major pricing headache for CRT.

 

 

[Ray T]

Not quite wide vs narrow but it would not surprise me if CRT didn't hand over some canals to private companies who would then charge a toll for the use of that canal. CRT would still get its income but divest itself of maintaining that waterway.

 

The private canal Co. could then charge for wide or narrow boats. Depends on the width of the canal of course.

 

ETA. a little like the M6 toll. The toll road owners get their fee and the government still gets the road tax.

A portion of road tax is not refundable because you use the toll road and therefore are not using the public highway.

 

Not sure if the M6 toll is run at a profit or loss.

 

2013 article: M6 Toll: Is it a complete failure? - BBC News

 

Also: M6 Toll is sold to investment group IFM - BBC News

 

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by Ray T

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Athy said:

Have you not considered that the reason may be historical? I don't know when BW introduced licence fees, but it was probably at a time when the vast majority of boats on the canals were narrow ones, so it never occurred to them to create a different pricing structure for the very few big 'uns which were aroiund?

That is exactly why the system is the way it is, there simply didn't used to be lots of widebeams used as floating flats -- it's a historical anomaly, not shared by the vast majority of other boat licensing/fee systems around the world, including most of the lumpy water ones in the UK.

[Athy]

22 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

more space inside -- almost treble per foot of length (14' vs 7' width)

It is some years since I passed my maths O level, but I do recall that 14 is two times seven, not three times seven,

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Ray T said:

Not quite wide vs narrow but it would not surprise me if CRT didn't hand over some canals to private companies who would then charge a toll for the use of that canal. CRT would still get its income but divest itself of maintaining that waterway.

 

The private canal Co. could then charge for wide or narrow boats. Depends on the width of the canal of course.

 

Which needs tollkeepers, who have to be paid, and the company has to make a profit, so the overall fees would go up just like with most privatisations... 😞

 

 

[magnetman]

2 minutes ago, Ray T said:

Not quite wide vs narrow but it would not surprise me if CRT didn't hand over some canals to private companies who would then charge a toll for the use of that canal. CRT would still get its income but divest itself of maintaining that waterway.

 

The private canal Co. could then charge for wide or narrow boats. Depends on the width of the canal of course.

 

K&A would be a good one for that as it has a manned lock to the Thames. 

 

Could be run like the river Wey. £100 a week or something and only get a yearly licence if you have a mooring there. 

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Athy said:

It is some years since I passed my maths O level, but I do recall that 14 is two times seven, not three times seven,

I did say the space was "almost treble per foot of length, when comparing 14' and 7' beam boats"... 😉

 

A 7' narrowboat is about 6' wide internally if you average above and below the gunwale, and by the time you take off the passageway needed to walk along the boat you have about 4' of usable width to live in -- for furniture, fittings, units, beds, wardrobes and so on. So you lose about 3' off the external boat width as far as useful living space is concerned, which is why narrowboats are cramped and pigs to fit out... 😞

 

By the same measure, a 14' wideboat has about 11' of usable width, which my calculator says is 2.75x4, which is "almost treble" isn't it? 😉

Edited April 13, 2023 by IanD

[___]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

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 -- much more than double per foot of length when you include access passageways -- and in return accept that they are restricted as to where they can go.

 

People buy narrowboats/"sewer tubes" because they want to to be able to travel over the whole 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).

 

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, which they invariably 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"?

 

You have a very polarised view of boaters. Most people do not buy a narrowboat so they can cruise the system. They buy one because it is what fits on the canals near them or is otherwise readily available and affordable. Comparatively few boats - including narrowboats - ever cruise more than a limited proportion of the system.

 

There will never be an entirely fair way of pricing and as much as anything the approach since the abolition of tolls is likely largely based on the fact that until recently broad beam craft have been comparatively few in number.

 

So it's not unreasonable to change that approach and as is the nature of NGOs CRT are a little slow in responding. But why get so worked up about it? You seem desperate to prove a point to the extent that you forward some poor arguments, such as broad craft taking up twice as much mooring space when London liveaboards aside narrow boaters generally hate breasting up and are as likely as anyone to leave git gaps. Pay your way and enjoy your boating and don't make enemies of other boaters. Hopefully you'll soon start to understand the human side of canals that isn't generally evident to gongoozlers and hire boaters, and is clearly not a consideration in the way you have previously described "proper boaters" on this forum.

 

 

[Athy]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

I did say the space was "almost treble per foot of length, when comparing 14' and 7' beam boats"... 😉

 

A 7' narrowboat is about 6' wide internally if you average above and below the gunwale, and by the time you take off the passageway needed to walk along the boat you have about 4' of usable width to live in -- for furniture, fittings, units, beds, wardrobes and so on. So you lose about 3' off the external boat width as far as useful living space is concerned, which is why narrowboats are cramped and pigs to fit out... 😞

 

By the same measure, a 14' wideboat has about 11' of usable width, which my calculator says is 2.75x4, which is "almost treble" isn't it? 😉

Have have rather moved the goal[posts (you did not previously mention that passageways did not constitute space) but yes, you have a point.

[___]

15 minutes ago, Athy said:

Have you not considered that the reason may be historical? I don't know when BW introduced licence fees, but it was probably at a time when the vast majority of boats on the canals were narrow ones, so it never occurred to them to create a different pricing structure for the very few big 'uns which were aroiund?

 

Yes. I've already made that point. We don't actually know the absolutely logic (although there are perhaps forum members who do know) but most folk simply aren't going to get overly bothered by it.

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

You have a very polarised view of boaters. Most people do not buy a narrowboat so they can cruise the system. They buy one because it is what fits on the canals near them or is otherwise readily available and affordable. Comparatively few boats - including narrowboats - ever cruise more than a limited proportion of the system.

 

There will never be an entirely fair way of pricing and as much as anything the approach since the abolition of tolls is likely largely based on the fact that until recently broad beam craft have been comparatively few in number.

 

So it's not unreasonable to change that approach and as is the nature of NGOs CRT are a little slow in responding. But why get so worked up about it? You seem desperate to prove a point to the extent that you forward some poor arguments, such as broad craft taking up twice as much mooring space when London liveaboards aside narrow boaters generally hate breasting up and are as likely as anyone to leave git gaps. Pay your way and enjoy your boating and don't make enemies of other boaters. Hopefully you'll soon start to understand the human side of canals that isn't generally evident to gongoozlers and hire boaters, and is clearly not a consideration in the way you have previously described "proper boaters" on this forum.

 

 

You really didn't read what I wrote, did you?

 

I said the argument I put forward was about locks and moorings in popular areas (your "London liveaboards), because this is where all the space pressure and congestion is, and that's one of CARTs biggest problems, and one reason for them wanting to change to license fee structure.

 

I've also said umpteen times that how people use the canals -- mooring or not, wide or narrow, CCing or not -- doesn't matter so long as they pay their way and follow the rules. If people want to stay in one place/area -- on a mooring or not -- then that's their choice, so long as they don't inconvenience others by ignoring the rules, blocking VMs, CMing, towpath squatting and so on.

 

I've used the term "proper boaters" to mean "people who are enthusiastic and care about the canals and behave considerately and would be sad to see them go" as opposed to "people who just want a cheap place to live, will ignore/bend all the rules, and behave/moor selfishly" -- what would you call these two categories of boater? Considerate and selfish?

 

As far as I'm concerned this is the only real division worth mentioning, and a distinction I feel needs to be made -- because it's the selfish boaters who are spoiling things for other boaters, as in so many walks of life... 😞

Edited April 13, 2023 by IanD

[___]

Just now, IanD said:

 

You really didn't read what I wrote, did you?

 

I said the argument I put forward was about locks and moorings in popular areas (your "London liveaboards), because this is where all the space pressure and congestion is, and that's one of CARTs biggest problems, and one reason for them wanting to change to license fee structure.

 

I've also said umpteen times that how people use the canals -- mooring or not, wide or narrow, CCing or not -- doesn't matter so long as they pay their way and follow the rules. If people want to stay in one place/area -- on a mooring or not -- then that's their choice, so long as they don't inconvenience others by ignoring the rules, blocking VMs, CMing, towpath squatting and so on.

 

I've used the term "proper boaters" to mean "people who are enthusiastic and care about the canals and behave considerately and would be sad to see them go" as opposed to "people who just want a cheap place to live, will ignore/bend all the rules, and behave/moor selfishly" -- what would you call these two categories of boater? Considerate and selfish?

 

There are no categories of boaters.

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

There are no categories of boaters.

There are two, considerate and selfish... 😉

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Ianws said:

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.

 

Probably because people feel strongly about a subject??

 

The thread is 114 pages long now, the licencing costs associated with widebeams is inevitably  going to come into a discussion about how widebeams have proliferated on the system (the subject of the thread).

 

Thread drift happens on lots of threads and often it does in a way that is completely unrelated to the point of the original post, at least (vociferous) disagreements about widebeam licence costs are closely related to the subject of the thread.

 

At the risk of you accusing me of being 'confrontational' again I would just suggest that if certain posts from certain posters bother you just don't read them.

[___]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

There are two, considerate and selfish... 😉

 

Well I mooored a boat on a lock landing for nearly 48 hours earlier this week so put me in the latter.

[David Mack]

6 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

the approach since the abolition of tolls is likely largely based on the fact that until recently broad beam craft have been comparatively few in number.

Not sure that is entirely true. My recollection of the 60s and 70s is that on the wide canals there were many wooden and fibreglass cruisers between 7 and about 10 feet beam, whereas today such craft have largely been replaced by longer but narrower narrowboats. 

The difference with today is that back then wideboats caused less of a problem since being shorter they took up less mooring space and could still share wide locks, although wider than 7ft they weren't as wide as some of today's behemoths, they were almost all holiday boats which returned to their regular moorings when not in use, and the 'them and us' distinctions between boaters were less obvious (although the cruiser brigade did tend to have more of the peaked hat/gold braid/naval language types).

[___]

1 minute ago, M_JG said:

 

Probably because people feel strongly about a subject??

 

The thread is 114 pages long now, the licencing costs associated with widebeams is inevitably  going to come into a discussion about how widebeams have proliferated on the system (the subject of the thread).

 

Thread drift happens on lots of threads and often it does in a way that is completely unrelated to the point of the original post, at least (vociferous) disagreements about widebeam licence costs are closely related to the subject of the thread.

 

At the risk of you accusing me of being 'confrontational' again I would just suggest that if certain posts from certain posters bother you just don't read them.

 

I understood @ditchcrawler and @Ianws posts. The level of debate on this subject is usually pretty poor - being entrenched in personal circumstances - and ultimately divisive.

 

[IanD]

Just now, Captain Pegg said:

 

Well I mooored a boat on a lock landing for nearly 48 hours earlier this week so put me in the latter.

 

And I assume you did it from necessity, there were no passing boats to inconvenience, and moved on as soon as you could?

 

I think you're well aware of the distinction I'm trying to make, and I'd have said from you posting history that you're a "proper boater" -- or a considerate one, if you prefer the term... 😉

[___]

Just now, David Mack said:

Not sure that is entirely true. My recollection of the 60s and 70s is that on the wide canals there were many wooden and fibreglass cruisers between 7 and about 10 feet beam, whereas today such craft have largely been replaced by longer but narrower narrowboats. 

The difference with today is that back then wideboats caused less of a problem since being shorter they took up less mooring space and could still share wide locks, although wider than 7ft they weren't as wide as some of today's behemoths, they were almost all holiday boats which returned to their regular moorings when not in use, and the 'them and us' distinctions between boaters were less obvious (although the cruiser brigade did tend to have more of the peaked hat/gold braid/naval language types).

 

As I said we don't know the absolute reasons but back then folk probably didn't have attitudes toward other boaters as you say, without being naive enough to think it was all rosy.

 

I just don't see how divisive arguments about who pays what are in any way helpful, and I know from meeting a broad cross section of boaters - something I contend owning a boat better enables or even enforces - that it's very dangeorus to make assumptions about types of boaters.

 

[MtB]

32 minutes ago, IanD said:

And you have to either prove that you stay on there (an invitation to fiddling the system) or CART have to verify that you do (much higher monitoring/enforcement costs)... 😞

 

I was parodying the logic, not putting it forward as a serious proposal! 

 

(Poe's Law strikes again.)

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Not sure that is entirely true. My recollection of the 60s and 70s is that on the wide canals there were many wooden and fibreglass cruisers between 7 and about 10 feet beam, whereas today such craft have largely been replaced by longer but narrower narrowboats. 

The difference with today is that back then wideboats caused less of a problem since being shorter they took up less mooring space and could still share wide locks, although wider than 7ft they weren't as wide as some of today's behemoths, they were almost all holiday boats which returned to their regular moorings when not in use, and the 'them and us' distinctions between boaters were less obvious (although the cruiser brigade did tend to have more of the peaked hat/gold braid/naval language types).

 

I don't think the problem is between to 60s/70s and today, it's what has happened this century and especially in the last ten years or so, as more and more people have spotted that living on the canal is cheap, and more and more of them realised that a wideboat is a much more comfortable place to live than a narrowboat -- and with a lower license fee for the same space. So unsurprisingly the number of new steel wideboats ("fatties") has risen rapidly, and many of their new owners know and care little about the canals or what is acceptable/considerate behaviour.

 

Slagging off wideboats "because they're ugly" makes no more sense than slagging off narrowboats "because they're sewer tubes", or "boats with fake rivets", or any other distinction -- and this *is* divisive.

 

But there's no reason that "considerate boaters" should show comradely solidarity with "selfish boaters" (in whatever type of boat), because they're the ones causing problems which affect everybody... 😞

 

And that's nothing to do with personal circumstances, it's a worsening problem in many areas of society, the canals are just one tiny example of the "me me me" mentality -- so excuse me if I don't find this acceptable... 😉

Edited April 13, 2023 by IanD

[___]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

And I assume you did it from necessity, there were no passing boats to inconvenience, and moved on as soon as you could?

 

I think you're well aware of the distinction I'm trying to make, and I'd have said from you posting history that you're a "proper boater" -- or a considerate one, if you prefer the term... 😉

 

It was a consequence of an emergency stoppage that ultimately was a significant inconvenience to me but I could have gone back up the lock I moored below in reverse and then reversed around a junction and past a long line of moored boats to find a place to moor. I also chose to go home and return after the stoppage was cleared and as it turned out that ended up being 21 hours after the canal reopened. Doubtless to anyone passing during that time that hadn't been caught up in the stoppage it simply appeared that I was being inconsiderate. I did get one adverse comment from such a boater and I ultimately was inconveniencing them and could have done more to not be. Whether it would have been reasonable for me to do so is a matter for debate. And that's kind of my point. Things are not what they seem when you apply labels to people.

 

My real point is that if you wish to categorise boaters then despite the fact that I almost certainly fit your decription of a "proper boater" (which I recall from the original post as being somewhat more than simply being considerate) I don't want to be put into any such group. Folk go boating - by which I mean simply the act of floating on a boat - for as many different reasons as there are people on boats.