Leaderboard

Any care charity has the option of not providing the care if it can't achieve the standard - CRT don't have that option - they don't just have to meet statutory requirements, they have statutory duties. There is a difference between holding CRT to account and "being on their case" - one frequent FOI user was found to be vexatious and CRT no longer have to comply with their requests. Those who want CRT to improve (and that's probably most of us) should pick their battles, not just try and make CRT's life difficult.

That's not really a useful thing to say. The fuel itself is carbon neutral. It's a wholly unreasonable standard to state that the entirety of the energy grid and transportation needs to be carbon neutral before any of the products it touch can be carbon neutral. I consider all biofuels to be effectively carbon neutral, because they are part of a closed loop carbon cycle. Grow plants - absorb carbon - burn plants - release carbon. The truth is a little more complicated than that, but that's the basic principle. Possibly there was biomass growing before the biofuel plants, and possibly that was slightly higher in carbon content (e.g. rainforests). Possibly the biofuel was created with energy derived from fossil sources. Possibly it was transported with fossil fuels. But all of those things serve to muddy the waters. The problem with your objection is that it equates HVO and mineral diesel as "both not carbon neutral", but the difference is that while both diesel and biofuel takes energy to produce and transport, burning the diesel itself is the primary source of carbon in the one, and burning the HVO does not itself contribute carbon. This is exactly the type of obfuscation that is employed by the oil companies and others with a vested interest in fossil fuels, which is why I must protest. THIS IS DONE DELIBERATELY in order to try to distract people from the basics, which is that growing and consuming biomass is ultimately carbon neutral. There's only one major contributor to carbon, and that's the mining of fossil fuels and other carbon-containing minerals (for example limestone for cement). If we ceased the mining of carbon containing minerals, carbon neutrality would naturally follow, because all other carbon is part of the carbon cycle. It's really as simple as that, so whenever I find someone talking about farming or burning wood or anything else being "bad for the environment", I try to point out that these issues are trivial in comparison to the biggest problem - that humans are increasing atmospheric carbon concentration to prehistoric levels through the release of prehistoric carbon.

As did ours. I would absolutely say that a sacrificial link (cable tie) saved us from a potentially serious incident.

Plenty of water in the Huddersfield narrow 💦😁

My perspective, and that's all it is. We are leisure boaters with a home mooring. We boat within the rules, so that defines a range, particularly since a lot of our boating is limited to a weekend at a time.We have had our mooring for nearly three years. In that time, I have become aware of three boats operating outside the rules. I have spoken to the owners of two of them (not about the rules, just a general conversation). One has not moved in the time we have had our mooring. It has holes in the hull and is on the edge of complete collapse. I do not know specifically whether it is licenced or insured, but it looks likely that it is not. The owner has no particular means of financial support, and upgraded to this from living under a tarpaulin in the woods. If you were to pass the boat, you would identify its condition, but there are no other signs of how long it may have been there. The boat is in an isolated spot, well away from amenities and is in no way causing an obstruction or adversely affecting other users. There is nothing on the towpath and the area is neat and tidy. The owner is likely to be seen outside the boat and give you a cheerful wave. In a purely commercial sense there is non-payment of a fee due but practically speaking the fee would be derived from the government (ie taxpayer) and there is no use of resources or observable negative impact on either other users or the surrounding environment, so I feel that pragmatically there is no advantage to be gained in changing the status quo. The second is a grp cabin cruiser. It would not particularly catch anyone's attention on passing - a bit patched up on the plastic windows and it must be very cold. It moves (the outboard is fitted) but definitely not far enough to 'satisfy the board' although it does not overstay at any particular location. Again, the choice of moorings is rural locations, mainly near bridges, because the owner has a child at primary school (who does not live with them) and stays close enough to regularly see them. They are not compliant, but they are doing the best they can and again are not having a negative impact on other users or the surrounding environment, and I cannot see another reasonable option so again, pragmatically I see no advantage in changing the status quo. I have not met the owner of the third boat. This is moored much closer to amenities and is occupying a location where visiting boats moor adjacent to it or a regular basis, although the area is not so heavily occupied that a visiting boat could not find a mooring. The boat is newer and in better condition. The owner has begun to fill the towpath adjacent to their boat with sacks of coal, a large cargo bike etc. This boat is just beginning to annoy me because its owner appears to have a sense of entitlement to behave in this way. Another boat in the area creates a similar general impression but is on a residential mooring on the offside bank where they have permission from the owner to store coal etc. and I compare what these two boats are contributing/taking. The first two boats do not create the same impression as the third. I don't think this is because I have had conversations with their owners, I think it is because the first two owners have taken a conscious choice to minimise the impact on others of the situation which has been imposed on them and the latter has not. I have had no personal dealings with NBTA, but the press content they issue has this similar sense of entitlement which is what grates with me. Alec

The term "CMers" is applied to rather more than the relatively small band of boaters who have no intention of moving in accordance with their licence. I've also never known anybody on CWDF - even in the days when it had a far larger and more diverse representation of boaters than it now does - support blatant overstaying. The vast majority of liveaboard boaters without a home mooring operate in a manner that CRT deem sufficient to fulfil licensing requirements. If you are spotted in the same location on two consecutive occasions more than 14 days apart you will receive a reminder of your obligation to keep moving. The entry level of the enforcement regime does work and it serves to keep boaters moving, because ultimately the majority want to renew their licence. A lot of folk would do well to leave CRT to go about their business and work on the assumption that if boats are on the water they are licensed and compliant. The lack of an up to date licence displayed on a boat is not an indicator that a boat isn't licensed. Nor does a boat that gives the the appearance of looking well settled in, or with a rear deck from which it might look impossible to steer - mean the boat never moves. As someone that cruises long distances on a near weekly basis and uses visitor moorings as my preferred option for mooring I can say I rarely find it difficult to moor and if I do it will be because boats have occupied the site, not any particular sort of boat or boater. In any case how do you know which boats on a visitor mooring have a home mooring and which ones don't? My experience of boating in the Home Counties is that liveaboard boaters tend to avoid visitor moorings. Something I see another boater has also mentioned. Of course it's perfectly acceptable to argue that the rules - or the enforcement - should require more movement than they do, but that does not make it OK to apply a derogatory term to those who would be impacted by such. It's a complex subject that involves outside influence and agencies and any serious debate should treat the affected persons with respect - a mark of tolerance in itself - and that means using the correct terminology. I don't like the term "CCers", it has no legal basis and misleads folk as to what they think is required of others. Unfortunately CRT use it themsleves. The use of the term "CMer" belies prejudice and undermines the point of view of the person using it.

Not at all. Someone (allegedly) offered CRT £2m for something. CRT sold something else to somebody else for £1m. The £2m person did not bid on what was actually for sale because they didn't want it. If that doesn't demonstrate CRTs incompetence, nothing will.

Let me help you here - I'm one of the folks who works on the grant funding - in the case of two canals (Cotswold & Droitwich) I was the guy handling the money for HLF, and two more (Rochdale and Huddersfield) I had a responsibility for seeing that the restoration was in accordance with the grant terms, which in turn depended on who had given the grant - I was part of a team monitoring for English Partnerships and had to scratch my head very hard when upon abolition of EP the scheme was handed to NWRDA but without enough budget to finish the job. That's one of the reasons the shallows through Miles Platting (?) was only partially excavated - me (and others) deciding that so long as a navigable corridor was created that "would do" for fulfilling the grant purposes. Grants ALWAYS have a term limitation, as in, the grant contract has a stipulation that the grant purpose must be maintained for a given period once the works are complete. If land purchase is involved in the project, it's usually 80 years. The only way to wriggle out of this would be to argue that, say, navigation wasn't the purpose of the grant but arose as a result of the grant works that are otherwise being maintained - such an approach is unlikely to succeed. The alternative is to pay the grant back - this is on a sliding scale but may also be index linked, so closing a canal 25 years into a grant funded term of 80 years might mean paying 55/80ths back but that would be adjusted for inflation... inflation since 2000 is approx 80%, so closing a canal restored with a grant, before the grant term expires, can be pretty expensive. BW tried to stop running trips into Standedge Tunnel as they were losing money, but the boats etc were grant funded (this time 30 years) and repaying the grant would cost more than they were losing.

It seems a meaningless question to me (as a continuous cruiser myself). If people consistently move just once every 14 days, to my mind they'd have to move many miles each time to be in the spirit of things. If you're travelling hundreds of miles overall and feel like moving a few yards around the corner one time, who cares? It would matter if CRT tried to rigidly police every movement in isolation, but they don't. Taken over months it's obvious who's really moving and who's shuffling.

My personal view of the NBTA is that I'm pretty sure they have a fair proportion of members who genuinely need their help and are trying to boat within the law. No doubt there are plenty of the alternatives, but that's true of any association. All the grief to do with non moving CCers, and most of the arguments, are due to the fact that CRT and the NBTA are trying to deal with symptoms, not causes, which are out of their control. And so there simply are no solutions, because nobody is looking at the root cause of the problems, nor does anyone have any intention of doing so. People need somewhere to live, and want to do it where they have work, family or friends. Until someone decides to sort that out, our little waterways problems aren't going to get solved. A few quid in CRTs coffers is possibly the best they can hope for.

Hi Canalworld! I have been hire boating many years, but now that I'm retired I'm ready to sell up and build my dream liveaboard, so I thought I would join this forum and get some advice. I have thought about it very carefully over the years and I've come up with the following requirements. The first thing that will make my boat unusual is that on fine days i want to be able to handle estuaries / coastal / inshore waters without worry. In particular being that I'm near Runcorn I want to be able to cross the Mersey as well as go down the Severn. According to the RCD, Category C - Designed for voyages in coastal waters, large bays, estuaries, lakes, and rivers where conditions up to and including wind force 6 and significant wave heights up to and including 2 meters may be experienced. 2 metres would be terrifying if not fatal in most narrowboats! So, I want to look into what it would take to construct a boat to go-anywhere narrowboat dimensions (say, 57' by 7', 2' draught with a flat bottom) but still be able to meet the requirements of a Cat C boat. (maybe even a Cat B so I can cross the channel or go to the med). I am thinking the main thing would be to ensure watertightness below the roof line with ventillation supplied by openings high up under the roof with snorkels. Another thing would be plenty of ballast to keep it upright. The second thing I want is an electric drive. I would want it well overspecced in power so that I can do 10 knots in open water. Probably dual motor for safety. For such powerful propulsion I would want lithium batteries under the whole floor which would double as ballast. And then both sides and roof I would want virtually covered in solar panels. In fact I'm thinking of using the solar panels almost structurally, in that the boat would be a frame with solar panels fitting into the frame. Of course a cocooned diesel generator is a must as well for a diesel-electric drive. I'm not very set on what it should look like but I am interested in a cruiser deck that has a rigid lid that folds down over the superstructure, which is another unusual feature I know but I think would help keep the boat watertight. I don't know what questions I should be asking but here's some for a start. Hull Design: What hull design would be best suited for Category C conditions? Should I go for a traditional narrowboat hull, or are there other designs that would offer better stability and performance? Something unusal like those fold down side keels like you get on some dutch barges? Length and Beam: Is it feasible that such a small boat (say, 57' by 7', 2' draught with a flat bottom) can manage Cat C? Safety Features: What safety features should I prioritise when building my narrowboat for Category C conditions? Are there specific requirements for navigation and safety equipment I need to consider? A radio is a must, and maybe one of those emergency inflatable lifeboats. Construction Materials: What materials would be best suited for building a narrowboat intended for Category C voyages? Should I consider steel or aluminum, considering both durability and weight? Interior Layout: Any tips for the interior layout of a Category C narrowboat? How can I optimise space while ensuring comfort and functionality? Any other fit out good ideas you can think of would be very welcome. I realise this is a big dream. I know it will take a long time, both to find a building willing to do it and to wait for a slot. and I know it will take a lot of money. But when you have time and money then dreams can come true, right?!??!?!????

Mine attached itself to a bolt sticking out so I don’t think it could have rolled out of the way.

When you're paying £4k for your CRT home mooring and one boat after another spends months on end moored opposite you paying nothing, one begins to feel a bit of an idiot for paying the £4k. Hope that helps explain...

Yes I read it - non-story the Daily Mail of the canal world. I'm also fed up with the CRT baiters in this forum. We're soon going to have a fight for the survival of the canal system and all some people want to do is pick holes whilst the whole edifice (the canals,not those running them) collapses. There you go, battle line drawn.