March of the Widebeams

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, kris88 said:

Any input into that increase of expenditure from boaters should be shouldered evenly by all boaters

 

 

Yep, agreed. 

 

Widebeams should be made to pay their fair share in future and all this freeloading off the narrowboats stopped dead in its tracks. 

 

 

 

 

 

They should all be made to have home moorings too, as so few ever move much.

 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

Or just calculate how much is needed to sort the network on an ongoing basis, divide it by the number of boat owners and charge everyone the same amount for their licence. 

 

Don't worry about boat size. That is a red herring. Equality is what is needed so everyone regardless of their situation should pay the same for their licence. Mooring costs can be on top of this. 

 

The money has got to come from somewhere so why not shoulder the burden equally? 

 

 

 

It would cut out a lot of nonsense if there was a licence fee of say £3000 per year for a boat to be on the cut. It doesn't matter what boat it is. 

 

Gentrification schmentrification. 

[kris88]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

 

Yep, agreed. 

 

Widebeams should be made to pay their fair share in future and all this freeloading off the narrowboats stopped dead in its tracks. 

 

 

 

 

 

They should all be made to have home moorings too, as so few ever move much.

 

 

 

 

How on earth can you claim “widebeams,” have been freeloading? Please back this up with fact. Rather than just unloading your personal bias upon us yet again. 
 

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Or just calculate how much is needed to sort the network on an ongoing basis, divide it by the number of boat owners and charge everyone the same amount for their licence. 

 

Don't worry about boat size. That is a red herring. Equality is what is needed so everyone regardless of their situation should pay the same for their licence. Mooring costs can be on top of this. 

 

The money has got to come from somewhere so why not shoulder the burden equally? 

 

 

 

It would cut out a lot of nonsense if there was a licence fee of say £3000 per year for a boat to be on the cut. It doesn't matter what boat it is. 

 

Gentrification schmentrification. 

 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

The money has got to come from somewhere so why not shoulder the burden equally? 

 

I've been waiting for that term to come out.

 

Because "Those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest burden".

 

I.E. those with the most expensive boats. 

[kris88]

I’d agree to £3000 a year if it was getting spent on maintaining the waterways. But I’d need to be able to check it was getting spent on maintenance. 

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

I've been waiting for that term to come out.

 

Because "Those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest burden".

 

I.E. those with the most expensive boats. 

Nah. 

 

People with smaller boats have saved loads of money because the boats were so cheap in the first place !

[MtB]

1 minute ago, kris88 said:

I’d agree to £3000 a year if it was getting spent on maintaining the waterways. But I’d need to be able to check it was getting spent on maintenance. 

 

For a boat the size of yours, £3k would still be a raving bargain! 

[kris88]

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

For a boat the size of yours, £3k would still be a raving bargain! 

Not when you can’t navigate the L&L except for was it six weeks last year. Or if your trapped in at goole, how long was that? Two years was it? Or 18months? 
so as I say I’d agree to an even charge of £3000 if their is more oversight of how the money is spent. 

Edited April 14, 2023 by kris88

[peterboat]

6 hours ago, MartynG said:

The majority of boats on C&RT water are narrowboats so the results can only be in their favour .

The results of the consultation that led to the already implemented extra charges for wide-beams  speak for themselves.

The one that when I gave them my license no there was no spare places? So Carolyn my neighbour rang up and got me a ticket 

[Mike Todd]

On 13/04/2023 at 10:30, 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? 

 

 

Any scheme that charges on the basis of which parts of the system you actually use has to address the inevitable high costs of collection. A big attraction of the present system is that it is about the cheapest you could get - and relies on the boater telling the truth about dimensions!

 

It is no use suggesting a scheme that depends on those dimensions for reductions based in in accessibility as there will then be a demand from other boaters who choose not to access eg northern canals rather than cannot access them.

 

In any event, wider boats have the issue of transporting between the northern and southern wide networks. There would be inevitable pressure to charge separately for each. As a result it has an obligation to set charges based on maximising its net income (fees less costs) but does not have any specific duty to address fairness (something that affects all non-public-sector economy). Fairness is almost always something that costs the non beneficiaries which is why there has to be a measure of consent to spend public money in that way.

 

Incidentally, I don't believe that all wb owners accept that they an only access canals which were designed for their dimensions. Most of the GU north of Berko  was not designed for  wb barges - which is the fundamental source of many of the current difficulties. This is not just a matter of measuring locks and bridge heels as the stretches in between also have to be suitable, including sight lines, passing room etc. Length and width together are important as well as separately. There would be quite a reaction of wb's were restricted to those canals where vessels of their dimensions used them from the outset.

 

[David Mack]

17 hours ago, kris88 said:

But I also think it should come with closer scrutiny and greater input by boaters as to what crt spends the money on. 

So how do you propose such scrutiny and greater input by boaters should happen? Who should scrutinise what? What information which is not currently available should be published? What feedback processes should be put in place so that there is some improvement in outcomes for the money CRT spends? How would that improvement be demonstrated How? How do you involve all boaters if this is not to became another means by which small groups of boaters push their particular interests against the interests of the silent majority? How much should CRT spend on this- it will require additional staff (office based, not boots-on-the-ground) to collect the information from internal sources, reformat it for wider consumption, publish it, promote boater involvement, collect feedback, attempt to resolve the inevitably varying and contradictory boater responses, etc. etc.

[magnetman]

17 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Any scheme that charges on the basis of which parts of the system you actually use has to address the inevitable high costs of collection. A big attraction of the present system is that it is about the cheapest you could get - and relies on the boater telling the truth about dimensions!

 

It is no use suggesting a scheme that depends on those dimensions for reductions based in in accessibility as there will then be a demand from other boaters who choose not to access eg northern canals rather than cannot access them.

 

In any event, wider boats have the issue of transporting between the northern and southern wide networks. There would be inevitable pressure to charge separately for each. As a result it has an obligation to set charges based on maximising its net income (fees less costs) but does not have any specific duty to address fairness (something that affects all non-public-sector economy). Fairness is almost always something that costs the non beneficiaries which is why there has to be a measure of consent to spend public money in that way.

 

Incidentally, I don't believe that all wb owners accept that they an only access canals which were designed for their dimensions. Most of the GU north of Berko  was not designed for  wb barges - which is the fundamental source of many of the current difficulties. This is not just a matter of measuring locks and bridge heels as the stretches in between also have to be suitable, including sight lines, passing room etc. Length and width together are important as well as separately. There would be quite a reaction of wb's were restricted to those canals where vessels of their dimensions used them from the outset.

 

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. 

 

Edited April 15, 2023 by magnetman

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, magnetman said:

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. 

 

Shouldn't there just! 

 

But CRT have already let the genie out of the bottle by allowing construction of a widebeam marina up by the prison despite local objections.

 

I can't imagine the marina company taking that lying down. 

[Captain Pegg]

30 minutes ago, 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. 

 

 

That would most defintely not be allowed since the legal requirement on CRT is to maintain the Grand Union from Berkhamsted to Camp Hill at a width of not less than 12' 6". The reason for that being that craft of that dimension were using that section of the canal when those requirements were brought into law.

 

I think you'll find there has never been a time in the history of the Grand Junction/Grand Union when broad beam craft did not navigate between Berkhamsted and Braunston.

 

Of course Braunston did have a 7' narrows until the GU widened the line to Birmingham. There is a logic that when that occurred the narrows should have been moved to the north side of Braunston Turn.

 

 

Edited April 15, 2023 by Captain Pegg

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

Of course Braunston did have a 7' narrows until the GU widened the line to Birmingham. There is a logic that when that occurred the narrows should have been moved to the north side of Braunston Turn.

Perhaps at the time the Oxford Canal Company was interested in the prospect of wide boats from the GU trading up the North Oxford as far as Hillmorton?

[Captain Pegg]

23 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Perhaps at the time the Oxford Canal Company was interested in the prospect of wide boats from the GU trading up the North Oxford as far as Hillmorton?

That’s possible. As is the desire of the Grand Union to gain ownership of the north Oxford and Coventry and extend the broad beam network which I think was a genuine aspiration given that a lot of the trade on the ex-GJC originated from Coventry and north Warwickshire.

Edited April 15, 2023 by Captain Pegg

[ditchcrawler]

6 hours ago, David Mack said:

Perhaps at the time the Oxford Canal Company was interested in the prospect of wide boats from the GU trading up the North Oxford as far as Hillmorton?

I would say so it you look at the width of many of the bridges

[magnetman]

It would have been quite clever to have had pairs of narrow boats one with an engine and one without an engine. You could tow one behind and not have to slow down for bridgeholes because you can fit two boats coming in opposite directions through anyway. 

 

Works on the Grand Union. No need to give way to other narrow boats just get on with it. This does need the other narrow steerer to understand the situation. I've only managed it once. It was quite good actually. 

 

Usually people just give way but I don't understand why given that the bridgehole is specifically designed to let two boats through being double width + a bit. 

Edited April 15, 2023 by magnetman

[IanD]

Just now, magnetman said:

It would be have been quite clever to have had pairs of narrow boats one with an engine and one without an engine. You could tow one behind and not have to slow down for bridgeholes because you can fit two boats through anyway. 

 

Works on the Grand Union. No need to give way to other narrow boats just get on with it. This does need the other narrow steerer to understand the situation. I've only managed it once. It was quite good actually. 

 

It is however amusing when the boat coming the other way tries going between the motor and the butty, not having realised that they're attached by a towrope... 😉

[Captain Pegg]

13 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I would say so it you look at the width of many of the bridges

The bridges on the straightened sections are generous in comparison to those on the original line.

 

I think that may have been more about advances in construction technology as expansion plans since many of those bridges are much wider than even 14’.

Many narrow canals have bridge holes capable of accommodating broad beam craft.

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2023 by Captain Pegg

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

The bridges on the straightened sections are generous in comparison to those on the original line.

 

I think that may have been more about advances in construction technology as expansion plans since many of those bridges are much wider than even 14’.

Many narrow canals have bridge holes capable of accommodating broad beam craft.

 

 

 

As I said earlier, it is not just about the width of bridge holes (and locks). Safe operation demands sightlines etc, passing width and other aspects of a highway design. all to be compatible with the dimensions of the craft.#

 

But as someone who has taken a 60ft nb through Salterhebble on more than one occasion, I must be careful not to be too sanctimonious!

Edited April 16, 2023 by Mike Todd

[cuthound]

19 hours ago, magnetman said:

It would have been quite clever to have had pairs of narrow boats one with an engine and one without an engine. You could tow one behind and not have to slow down for bridgeholes because you can fit two boats coming in opposite directions through anyway. 

 

Works on the Grand Union. No need to give way to other narrow boats just get on with it. This does need the other narrow steerer to understand the situation. I've only managed it once. It was quite good actually. 

 

Usually people just give way but I don't understand why given that the bridgehole is specifically designed to let two boats through being double width + a bit. 

 

I tried that at the Newbold Tunnel once (it was built as a prototype for the Netherton Tunnel and is over 14 foot wide). Whilst it easily accommodated two narrowboats, the other steerer was not impressed!

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

I tried that at the Newbold Tunnel once (it was built as a prototype for the Netherton Tunnel and is over 14 foot wide). Whilst it easily accommodated two narrowboats, the other steerer was not impressed!

Funny I once had the opposite, I held back because I wanted a photo and when he came out he asked me what I was waiting for as there is loads of room for two.

 

[Captain Pegg]

2 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

I tried that at the Newbold Tunnel once (it was built as a prototype for the Netherton Tunnel and is over 14 foot wide). Whilst it easily accommodated two narrowboats, the other steerer was not impressed!

They probably knew the north Oxford was a narrow canal.

 

I’d be happy to pass in Newbold and I don’t think I’d wait but in general I’ll bet you don’t try and pass in the bridge holes.

 

Mind you i did under the M45 bridge the other day but that’s a bit different.

[kris88]

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.