Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
bigcol

Email from cart

Featured Posts

15 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

You are right in that quite often, narrow boats don't share wide locks especially at quiet times. But sometimes they do. Whereas wide beams can never do so. Thus, as I said, a wide beam will probably use more water resource than the equivalent narrowboat undergoing the same journey, but probably not twice as much.

Your other arguments equally apply to using length as a criteria, and yet you don't seem to be against that or are not proposing one fixed licence cost regardless of length. Why is that?

Well actually I am and you should have been able to gather that from what I've been saying.

Keith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dave Payne said:

I dont understand why CRT want non boaty people to visit the waterways, i dont really see what it brings, they dont spend any money!

They are really pushing this on social media at the minute.

Are the fisher folk non-boaters? They pay for their privilege!
What about all the people who walk the tow paths?
Even what about the cyclists?
What about the non-boat owning volunteers who help maintain and restore canals?

Don't be so introverted.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think CRT have already decided. Those with widebeams will have to pay a little more, those without home moorings will have to pay significantly more. They know that most folk don't have widebeams, and have a home mooring. They also know that people tend to express views on questionnaires that suit themselves, primarily. So, when the changes are made they can say "look, this is what boaters themselves wanted".

And then we'll have hundreds or thousands of people no longer able to afford their chosen lifestyle, exacerbating the existing housing crisis. We'll also have miles of canals without interesting boats and people for others to enjoy. Welcome to the gentrification of the canals.  

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Surely the corner belongs to multiple pedants, so should be pedants' corner.

I guess it could be a pedantic corner if it wished to differentiate itself from say an alcove, or a simple bend in the wall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bigcol said:

Lol. Can you really think they would do that?

may be ring fenced for expenses lol.

seriously I don’t believe CRT could ring fence any money!

what they need is like the National health, make the money they do have go further

at the moment it’s making large profits for ltd and Plc companies.

CRT are already trying to make their money go further. That is why they have reduced their directly employed staff and contracted out more. Whether they police their contractors properly is another matter.

CRT simply do not get enough income to even hold the system in its current state, let alone address the backlog of maintenance.

They can ask the government for more, but won't get any unless wide public opinion wants it.

They can seek other income from property, friends, fishing rights and permission to bury cables under the towpath. Oh but they are already doing that.

They can increase licences from boaters.

I think CRT are between a rock and a hard place at the moment. If they get this "consultation" wrong income from boaters will decrease and the boaters left will suffer.

I hope they can attract lots of "free" uses, walkers, cyclists etc, who when the government funding comes to an end, can kick up enough fuss to persuade the politicians to keep or even increase government funding. I believe increased public funding is the only long viable term solution for the canals.

What is sure is that doing nothing will only result in the condition of the canals  deteriorating even more quickly.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

If I can come back to the every so slightly wider beam GRP cruiser senario again, then several of these boats can share one lock, usually more then the two narrowboats in your scenario. Yet under the new proposals these boats will be charged an extra 25% or 50% of their current fee. Using your argument surely their fees should be less as they can fit more boats in per lock thus using less water per boat?

Boats such as yours are quite short, one can as you say get several into one lock (depends on the lock!) but on the other hand, the base licence price is quite a bit less because of the length. Seems fair to me, although I grant you that I am thinking primarily of canals, where water resource can be an issue. On rivers it is not an issue, and locks tend to be less uniform in size butngenerally bigger. So if you wanted to say that a canal licence should have beam taken in account to some extent, but a rivers-only "licence" shouldn't, I could go along with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Are the fisher folk non-boaters? They pay for their privilege!
What about all the people who walk the tow paths?
Even what about the cyclists?
What about the non-boat owning volunteers who help maintain and restore canals?

Don't be so introverted.

How does that make an introvert?

I quite like sitting in the pub with other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mac of Cygnet said:

Yes, you obviously know more about it than I (a nod to the parallel pedants' discussion going on here).  So if I completed the form using that link, is there any way of telling whether it has been accepted? (I've already completed my personal survey.)

The only validation errors I could see where in the "About Yourself" but that was only asking for gender etc. That's not to say there weren't any. I'm surprised there wasn't an error message when the form was loaded from the 'test' link "Sorry you can't use this form without a valid ID" or similar (like when the OP's link was clicked)  or when the form was submitted "Your form submission can't be accepted because..." (or just "Bugger off").  I just got the regular "Thank you for your ....." As I said if it's a flaw the data collected will be next to useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, bigcol said:

 

Like wise

weve been counted as filling in the survey lol

That's because you posted your personal link to the survey on a public internet forum and someone else has filled it in for you.

They did warn about this in the email:  "This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address. Please do not forward this message."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Alway Swilby said:

That's because you posted your personal link to the survey on a public internet forum and someone else has filled it in for you.

They did warn about this in the email:  "This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address. Please do not forward this message."

Yes undoubtedly the case but then even more concerning that a form submission after using the link without an ID parameter doesn't cause an error message. Having said that, it's easy to solve as the ID will no doubt link the data to a CaRT account. Data without an account/ID field would presumably be ignored

Edited by Midnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BruceinSanity said:

I've accidentally found another coding flaw. Last night, after reading the front page, I clicked the Save and Continue Later button, instead of Next (I was half way through a Ferret at the time). The next page said that I would be sent a new link to continue, but it didn't show up so I clicked the original email link again and got back to the beginning.

Filled in the survey and, guess what, this morning another link arrived so I've just done a second survey on behalf of SWMBO who joint owns the boat anyway. I agree, proper validation will pick up that two surveys have been done from the same email address but we'll probably never know.

Hmmmm this isn't looking looking good. I just used the 'test' link to access the form clicked the save and continue link and hey-presto an email arrives with a new link and different parameter UID (unique id). I haven't filled out in (Athy please note) the new form but it's tempting just to see what happens. I think I should alert CaRT, but presumably they read this forum.

Edited by Midnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Midnight said:

Does that mean it's 'very fair' our 15 year old tatty paintwork should attract a 50% discount?

Do you class it historic?  :captain:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/10/2017 at 11:09, nicknorman said:

And it works both ways - our visit to Bristol floating harbour was great - but expensive. And when the harbourmaster asked for my opinion on our visit, I told him as much. He said that people who visit from lumpy water think it's cheap, people who visit from the ditches think it's expensive (those weren't his exact words!). With hindsight I wish I had said that this is probably because a 59' narrowboat is a fairly normal and mid-priced boat. A 59' yacht is huge, much more expensive and thus if one considers the cost of the mooring fee as a proportion of the approximate cost of the boat, narrowboaters get a raw deal.

 

There is a big difference in the cost of mooring a lumpy water boat. When we did our Scotland - Med trip (3 years liveaboard) EVERY mooring cost an overnight fee ranging between £20-£120 per night with very few below £30 - and that was 8 years ago for a 40ft sailing yacht. It is no surprise that Bristol harbour charge high rates as that is the market price for lumpy water mooring. If I was on a sailing yacht I would not baulk at £30 for a night there. We probably spent best part of £4-5K per year on mooring fees.

Someone commented after Nick's post that the CRT charges have nothing to do with mooring fees. I think there is a link - as EVERYWHERE we park on the cut is free. A lumpy water boat has no license fee but pays the private organisations that provide mooring (not anchoring) facilities. That is the cost of using a lumpy water boat. On the cut, we pay our £1000 per year and dont get charged every time we turn up at a visitor mooring (thank goodness). The CRT could use the lumpy water boat model and not charge a license fee but charge £30 per night for parking on the VMs. I am very glad they dont as it would really penalise an active boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

There is a big difference in the cost of mooring a lumpy water boat. When we did our Scotland - Med trip (3 years liveaboard) EVERY mooring cost an overnight fee ranging between £20-£120 per night with very few below £30 - and that was 8 years ago for a 40ft sailing yacht. It is no surprise that Bristol harbour charge high rates as that is the market price for lumpy water mooring. If I was on a sailing yacht I would not baulk at £30 for a night there. We probably spent best part of £4-5K per year on mooring fees.

Someone commented after Nick's post that the CRT charges have nothing to do with mooring fees. I think there is a link - as EVERYWHERE we park on the cut is free. A lumpy water boat has no license fee but pays the private organisations that provide mooring (not anchoring) facilities. That is the cost of using a lumpy water boat. On the cut, we pay our £1000 per year and dont get charged every time we turn up at a visitor mooring (thank goodness). The CRT could use the lumpy water boat model and not charge a license fee but charge £30 per night for parking on the VMs. I am very glad they dont as it would really penalise an active boat.

On that basis no one should have to pay for a long term mooring on top of their licence fee, trouble is they do.

Keith 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/10/2017 at 12:08, BruceinSanity said:

I've accidentally found another coding flaw. Last night, after reading the front page, I clicked the Save and Continue Later button, instead of Next (I was half way through a Ferret at the time). The next page said that I would be sent a new link to continue, but it didn't show up so I clicked the original email link again and got back to the beginning.

Filled in the survey and, guess what, this morning another link arrived so I've just done a second survey on behalf of SWMBO who joint owns the boat anyway. I agree, proper validation will pick up that two surveys have been done from the same email address but we'll probably never know.

And now there's more, the Continue link arrived this morning, 48 hours after I accidentally asked for it. CRT claim this has been contracted  out to an online survey specialist...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/10/2017 at 11:53, rusty69 said:

Perhaps lock/miles per year would be a fairer system :)

Or PAYG, insert a fiver at each lock. 

That would discourage people from cruising at all - very welcome to the continuous moorers though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×