Captain Pegg

That’s a bit of a confessional, Ian. I’m not sure why you dedicate three long paragraphs to the surcharge for boaters with no home mooring; other than perhaps to force your own agenda. In principle I have no objection to it. What I do observe though is that CRT - along with some folk on this forum - fall into a trap of stereotyping those boaters. The point I do have issue with is the conflict between what CRT have previously described as a home mooring in their licensing guidance and what they define as a home mooring for the purposes of the surcharge. Ultimately I’m not sure why people in the fortunate position of being able to go boating in the manner of their own choosing would be so publically antagonistic toward what is largely a less fortunate group and who I observe have very little, if any, direct impact on the chief protagonists on this thread. For sure there are piss-takers on the canals but where in life aren’t there? Mostly though it’s people trying to make the best of their situation within their own broadly reasonable interpretation of the rules. They really don’t deserve the language that is directed at them by some other boaters. NB - I had considered myself to be a wealthy leisure boater but given I own what is possibly the oldest purpose built welded steel leisure boat on CRT waters I may have to rethink that.

The NBTA is the opposite extreme of many here, it’s not the “association of boaters without a home mooring”. It would likely be one that didn’t lead to people seeking to live on boats when they’d really prefer to live on land. Forcing such people to pay more to live on boats is a solution that doesn’t seem to achieve much other than increasing the self satisfaction of wealthy leisure boaters. For sure there would still be some hardcore that really do subscribe to the off-grid kind of lifestyle but their pioneer is one Mr Rolt.

Which you do because you want security, don’t wish to move every 14 days and can afford the fee. The kind of boater folks get upset about has little security, has to move (and the majority do), and is probably on a boat because they can’t afford to live on land. And for their trouble they get vilified. There are a whole load of issues here that I think we’d all like to see some better solutions to, but the way in which the chief protagonists here argue it should be done is pretty unsavoury.

But why do some boaters get so worked up about how far and how often other boaters move? A boat can only exist in one place and it makes no fundamental difference as a boater where you encounter it. Hence I’d suggest these arguments are not principally about boating. The 14 day business should perhaps matter more to local residents who potentially have non-contributing members of their community using local amenities. My solution to this is overstay in the same area where I pay Council Tax.

This one was in Alvechurch so I guess not the same one.

Another thread where folk talk a lot of Bow Locks. (Today I passed the marvellously named The Dogs, Bow Locks). As I boater without a home mooring I have so far this calendar year spent 60 days on a paid mooring (which is apparently emphatically NOT a home mooring). A further 45 days not moving on the same mooring at no fee and two days moored on the towpath at different locations. I couldn’t give a stuff what the NBTA say. They don’t represent me, but their position is no less appealing than the petty arguments I read here; some which appear to be little more than envy because folk some get cheaper moorings than others. I suspect I pay for moorings for the very same reason that other people pay for permanent moorings; principally security and also because I don’t want to move every 14 days.

Yes, that’s a beast. Similar to, but not as aesthetically pleasing as the ‘White Bridge’ at Carmarthen. That is also fixed. The style is often referred to as a “rolling bridge”.

Quite a smart bit of kit. Much more economical to be able to hire a small tracked excavator with full fitter and operator support than have one of your own permanently attached to a boat. As for the tugs and hoppers I saw, they were entering and exiting the closed section transporting vegetation that was being processed at Newbold. It’s possible it wasn’t from Easenhall but I think it’s highly likely it was. I imagine those craft are left at Newbold overnight and at weekends because that’s where the operatives can get easy access to them.

I think although that bridge still appears to be extant it no longer slides. The mechanism is likely fixed. Hence that statement is probably correct although quite why Network Rail are so confident about the arrangements of the nation’s canal bridges I know not. It’s pretty common for what were once moveable railway bridge spans to now be fixed. The metal spans of the Barmouth Bridge have recently been renewed to the same pattern as the original swing bridge spans albeit without any capacity - latent or actual - to swing. That’s because of its listed status.

They seemed to be still actively involved in vegetation removal ten days ago, using hoppers and tugs to transport it away from site to suitable road access points. I suspect as much spoil as possible will be removed from the top using long reach excavators that may also be able to construct suitable ramps down the slope for other plant if necessary. Not surprised they weren’t working on a bank holiday. That’s very costly in terms of plant and labour.

So you were. I’ve misread those posts totally. Sorry

It’s possibly moored on land that is associated with the lease for UCC (assuming the site is on a long term lease to which CRT own the freehold) and therefore the mooring fee is essentially included. The Anchor at High Offley is probably similar. It’s one reason you will observe the same boat moored on the towpath at such sites. The old Boat Inn near Brinklow always has the same boat moored outside, there are many others. I dare say many local marina dwellers curse the ‘overstayers’ every time they pass.

I’d have thought the obvious canal destination in that sort of timescale would be Worsley, and perhaps a trip across and back over the Barton swing aqueduct. Or is that too far? Obviously it would also need the Bridgewater licence sorting. Plank Lane swing bridge is ‘fun’. Otherwise the canal is interesting, a bit odd rather than scenic though, until you get to Worsley.

Yep. Despite all the rain I’ve encountered low pounds at Buckby this year.

Absolutely, although as others have said this not generally a problem on the GU Birmingham line because it has big paddles. I do though recall that a month or so ago I had to open the offside paddle of Shop Lock to fill the lock. Elsewhere on the GU I reckon I’ve lost a day of my life waiting for folk struggling to open a gate on the Braunston and Buckby flights thinking it will make a level on a single ground paddle.