Dave123

Lower Heyford will be fine, it's fed by the Cherwell and several other small streams before the Heyfords...so long as the people of Banbury and surrounding area continue using their taps etc the Cherwell will have enough water for the canal I am puzzled as to why CRT chose Cropredy lock as the start of the closure, the pound below that lock regularly gets too low due to the height difference between slat mill and Cropredy locks. If no one is using Cropredy lock but still using slat mill this will be exacerbated. I can see major issues with low water from Banbury northwards to be honest. Banbury lock pound is fed by a stream so should be ok if the closure had been as far as Hardwick lock...

This would make sense but one problem I can forsee is that boats would hog prime visitor moorings and make things harder for those boats that are still moving. This happened to some extent during lock down except that less boats were out and about. CRT might have to say that this doesn't apply to short stay moorings perhaps?

It's fine, plenty of room despite the private mooring in the winding hole. Best to wait for the water point to be empty and watch out for boats whizzing under the bridge and T boning you😅. It's the only one on the summit so not much choice really. Going down the locks either end to turn is a waste of water

The Kennet is tricky, it is complicated as some stretches do not really change in height (eg Newbury) with extra rain, as they have sufficient weir capacity to simply allow the flow to get faster and faster. I think CRTs automatic system for specific reaches relies on a flow gauge (which are scarce) or a height board (which is sometimes uninformative on the K&A, as I said above). CRT have a few locations on the K&A on their new strong stream website (click on the canal to see the sub sections, Newbury, Woolhampton and County lock if I recall) but other sections are not covered, eg Widmead lock to Bulls, Ham lock to Greenham, these sections can have a very strong flow even when Newbury or Woolhampton are only yellow. CRT email updates if you subscribe to their system but again only for those three locations or the whole Kennet navigation from Kintbury (actually from above Newbury lock the river gets much more manageable). Using various maps to work out which bits are river will help!

If they don't reopen it, it makes a mockery of all the millions being spent restoring currently derelict canals around the country!? How can a major route/navigable canal be allowed to shut whilst money is spent trying to open routes that may never even open?

It is a constant source of frustration to me that all the different types of users of canals (both the various boating subcategories and users like anglers) can't realise they all need each other's money to help contribute, and keep canals viable! Instead of clamouring to essentially be the only type of user allowed

And a very good thing too, this only ends up with some sort of regional licensing. Cost based on supposed popularity... The simpler and cheaper the solution CRT find the better. To my mind this is all a bit of a distraction from what they should focus on; just getting enough money to keep the canals navigable as a connected network, nevermind how long you can moor for etc.

That's basically what I was saying, they can't introduce a sudden change. And prices increases plus proper enforcement of the existing rules should make the situation sustainable.

A lot of the general public and tourists, from my observations, actually enjoy looking at moored boats, and enjoy the vibrancy and uniqueness of canal boats. I've frequently seen them stop their stroll along the towpath and turn back when they reached the end of a line of moored boats because it was just boring water and concrete after that! Not excusing the minority of antisocial mess, created by some, which will hopefully be better dealt with by any new powers CRT get, and hopefully this will quieten the minority of vocal locals that don't like boats.

Not going to happen. There aren't enough home moorings available for that to work. I know it's what many on here wish for but I think that is without thinking the logistics through. This all boils down to the K&A and London, so home moorings up north aren't an option (i.e. telling someone in London they have to moor their boat in Staffordshire is the same as telling them to sell up, lovely as Staffordshire is😅) . CRT can't create marinas, and if private companies could in these areas, they would have, as they would fill up immediately, forced home moorings or not. Creating miles of towpath moorings in these two areas would 1) remove moorings for visiting boats and 2) simply legitimise what's already the case and what is seen as the "problem" with miles of towpath permanently occupied by boats that never move! And this annoys the sort of boaters that can't stand to be in tickover for any length of time😅 So that would leave selling up as the only option if home moorings were forcedon everyone? which would not be pretty.... A mass eviction of hundreds of people and scrapping of hundreds of old boats, and hundreds of decent boats suddenly on the market can't be an outcome anyone really thinks is a good one? As much as they might not like "alternative lifestyles". It would get national media attention, the amount of ill feeling on the cut (and likely actual boater vandalism) would be unpleasant, the effect on the boat market would impact all boat owners... If CRT do actually want to get rid of continuous cruising (I don't think they do) they'll do it slowly, by gradual increasing the cost of it, which won't cause any sudden shock and gets far less sympathy from the general public.

Yes, "solving" this fact that the term "continously cruising " irks so many boaters from all walks, because to them it means 200+ miles a year, would be a start. Calling it a liveaboard licence maybe? Then people can get over the terminology. The reality is these boats exist and forcing them to all sell (which would happen if massive changes were introduced) isn't a win in my opinion. The day places like Bradford on Avon or King's Cross are empty of boats outside the summer holiday seasons is a sad day for the canals. Better to just get enough more money off them that they can (mostly) afford it and get better powers to deal with those that are completely breaking the rules or being a nuisance with rubbish/anti social behaviour etc. Then there will be visitor moorings free for holiday boats and maybe even extra money for maintenance and services. Clarity of cruising requirements for those with no home mooring would be a good thing of course.

Ah thanks, I had missed the link to that. So it does seems to be mostly about enforcement. If it is enforcement of the current rules (with presumably a specific minimum cruising range defined) then I would hope everyone is in agreement. If they seek to significantly increase the expected cruising range I can see a lot of objections, mostly on the Western K&A, as opposed to London. In London it's easy to go significantly further than the current ~20 miles that is bandied about as what CRT expect, and still be within the city or suburbs. On the K&A, a significant increase will mean many more boats going up Caen hill, as currently I believeit is just about possible to satisfy CRTs requirements by moving between Bristol and the bottom of Caen hill (Foxhangers). I'm not actually sure this is in anyone's interest. As an occasional summer visitor every 2 or 3 years, my observations of the Western K&A are: 1) this extra movement would be mostly in the summer, as the flight shuts most winters, and most summer there is barely enough water in the summit and long pound with the few boats that do use the flight. 2) the "long pound" also has limited moorings so can't really take a big influx of extra boats, it can already be pretty hard to get mooring here (the banks are generally too shallow for easy 'wild mooring'). Enforcement of 14 days or the shorter time limits achieves the same effect of making boats circulate and giving visiting boats a fair chance at prime moorings. Hopefully something they consider, (ie I hope CRT are thinking about the specifics of any changes they bring in...doubling or tripling the range in the midlands doesn't particularly change anything for anyone, or present any challenges, to be honest Birmingham needs a liveaboard community like London, to make the canals outside Gas street feel safe and look interesting 🤣) But I believe it is partly due to the specific geography and infrastructure of the Western K&A, ie the popularity of Bath/Bristol combined with the "natural barrier" of Caen hill, that has caused the density of boats there. It's still easy enough getting moorings there provided you aren't expecting to arrive at 8pm outside the pub. More money for facilities is the main thing required, making all those boats go further along the K&A doesn't particularly solve anything (in my opinion as an unbiased outsider/visitor🤣)

An interesting thread, and it will be very interesting to see what CRT want out of this commission. I was surprised to hear of it, I thought CRTs main (only?) problem was lack of money...but presumably it is not as simple as more money, as they can and have put up licence fees already (unless they are currently limited in how much they can do this? Or need boat usage better defined by law for the purpose of increasing licence fees?). Do they want better enforcement powers, eg being able to issue actual fines (not overstay "charges" of £25)? Someone mentioned technology to monitor boats (I actually think the spotting process is pretty good) I doubt they want to get rid of continuous cruising either, I can't see what benefit that brings if it was even feasible, which I think it is not. Creating more marinas obviously is out of their power and resource and couldn't be done in the parts of the country that need it anyway (there are enough partially empty marinas in Staffordshire already🤣). Creating more towpath permanent moorings would mean the loss of visitor moorings, and likely at popular spots in towns, and so would be at the detriment of cruising boats, (unless they actually improve bank currently too shallow for mooring), which will affect holiday boats as much as liveaboards. Its fairly clear Ccing will be a focus of the commision though? Something growing in popularity, like Ccing, does need managing properly, i.e. charging enough and making rules that work and are enforced. But the waterways are changing, how they are used and who uses them is changing and CRT can't try to fight that but need to work with it. I doubt they will try to increase how far boats have to travel, as again that brings no benefit and just increases wear and tear on the system. A big challenge will be what to do with increasing numbers of elderly boaters who want to stay put or not really cruise far for health reasons (and so have CRT permission to do this). Enforcement or fines isn't a solution here and, my observations at least, is that a fair few boats hogging prime visitor spots and annoying holiday boats fall into this category..... At least there is a boating rep on the commission! Fingers crossed it works.

It is pretty rare for the canal to flood this badly, could be years, and even if it did its too dangerous to be walking around the boat trying to move it in fast flowing water? Hopefully someone like RCR can attach big floats to the side and just pull it off, in the hope the floats stop it capsizing? They should be able to get 4x4s on the opposite bank where the golf course is, there is a track there.

Saw this on Facebook, below pigeons lock on the South Oxford. Water must have been crazy high! CRT have a stoppage out for it, difficult location to get the boat floating again.