Cost offsets between wide and narrow

[Matt&Jo]

4 hours ago, Victor Vectis said:

I hope so.

And the sooner the better.

Perhaps not.

But it might stop new ones being spawned.

As long as they are on the appropriate waterways i dont understand you dislike of wide beams???

They are just as a narrow boat.....a boat and can travel the network and allow those on them the same sense of freedom as you enjoy or share the same views and you enjoy...

They may cause others to slow down or cause others to wait perhaps in tunnels but they too need to wait as they need to book slots for example, they pay higher fees to visit marinas..perhaps a narrow boat can not support the size of the familly but should we denigh those famillys who want a chance the oppertunity to live on or enjoy the waterways purely because they dont fit a narrowboat....

As long as they are sensible and cause minimal impact to others then i see not the problem? Lorries and tractors are slow and cause frustration but they have the right to be there....caravans on cars are slow but they afford those towing a holiday in a way they choose or can afford.....

I just dont think its a simple as "they shouldnt be there so charge them off the network" 

[Victor Vectis]

OK.

To put it simply, they are fugly.

Or politely, the proportions of a wide beam narrow (sic) boat are displeasing to the eye.

[Iain_S]

2 hours ago, Victor Vectis said:

OK.

To put it simply, they are fugly.

Or politely, the proportions of a wide beam narrow (sic) boat are displeasing to the eye.

Not necessarily, and it depends to some extent what you consider "normal".

My first reaction on first seeing a narrowboat (1970s on the River Nene, where I was on holiday on a plastic cruiser) was "REALLY odd looking, doesn't even look like a proper boat"  

[Robbo]

8 hours ago, Victor Vectis said:

OK.

To put it simply, they are fugly.

I agree, but then so are most narrowboats.  

[Phil Ambrose]

On 30/12/2017 at 15:50, Matt&Jo said:

Thing is as this going to be our home im of the mind set we need to be as comfortable and we can be and a luxury of space is one we think is a worthwhile financial burden in order to make this transition as positive and perminant as possible.

We understand many do it but few stick past a few seasons so i hope for us its something we can make work.....

I think you are very wrong in your last para, there are many many full time live aboards of many years standing, myself for one at 72 years old have been living aboard with my wife and 2 dogs for close to 20 years our boat is 60' semi trad NB . Our motto has always been " we may live on a boat but we ain't camping

We have all the things that make life easy like washing machine, tumble dryer, full size 12v fridge full size 12v freezer etc etc 

Phil

[Dr Bob]

10 hours ago, Matt&Jo said:

As long as they are on the appropriate waterways ............

As long as they are sensible and cause minimal impact to others then i see not the problem? Lorries and tractors are slow and cause frustration ........

.....but I do see a problem. People are coming onto the canals and buying widebeams with no experience of how they 'fit' (figuratively). We bought our first nb 9 months ago and went for a nb rather than widebeam as they are designed for the canals. We came from a background of living aboard a 14' wide boat for 3 years. We know the extra width is great but not when it becomes a frustration to others. If you plan to cruise rivers then great. If you sail 2 or 3 days a week, you will not cause minimal impact to others. It will be very frustrating to many.

I think your analagy is wrong. Yes, if a tractor was driven by someone instead of a car. Can you imagine what other road users would think if you traded your car for a tractor and used it to do the weekly shop, parked in the road outside your house, trundled down the A road at 20mph. Would that frustrate them? Think wide beam. On a river, no problem.

[MtB]

12 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Once it too big to share a lock I don't see it makes much difference whether that is wide or over 37 feet long. Really its just like the old window tax, its basis is pretty meaningless, just a way of collecting money. 

 

Given the need to collect money from boaters in the first place though, natural justice suggests the bigger the boat, the more the owner should pay.  

[Tuscan]

2 hours ago, Phil Ambrose said:

Thing is as this going to be our home im of the mind set we need to be as comfortable and we can be and a luxury of space is one we think is a worthwhile financial burden in order to make this transition as positive and perminant as possible.

It’s a lifestyle choice first in my view , otherwise might be easier to buy a flat or mobile home

[Bricksh]

The Money side of things - A widebeam will cost more to run. It will likely have a bigger engine and use more fuel per hour. Not an issue really if you consider this up front and if cruising on canals only, then a relatively small increase. If you start cruising rivers such as the Thames I would think about a 50%ish increase.

The licence will almost certainly go up. The farcical consultation seemed to have this almost predetermined so I would expect it to happen, maybe over a number of years, but if you're looking to budget, budget 50% more and if less you will have cash in your pocket.

Depreciation - What will be the impact of the licence fee increase. If I were looking for a widebeam, I'd probably wait as there may be some coming cheaper as the licence fee issue plays out.

Heating - You will be heating a bigger space so it will cost more and yes a lot does come down to how well insulated a boat is, but with equal insulation the bigger boat will cost more.

Maintenance - Costs for blacking, painting will be greater as will in all likelyhood, lift out for those services. General maintenance should be around the same dependent on the complexity of onboard systems.

Comfort Side of things - A widebeam will be more comfortable generally to live on. A simple case of more space. However with that can come poor design. A well designed narrowboat can be surprisingly spacious. With all small spaces, narrowboats, widebeams, caravans, campers its a compromise. The compromises just get smaller the more space you have available.

Cruising - Having the right boat for a particular waterway greatly adds to the satisfaction when cruising. I steered a 55' x 12' 6" barge down the K&A and although it fit (just) it was hard work and very slow. On the Thames the same boat is fabulous. On the Thames estuary a little flighty as it could do with a foot or more beam. 

Your own competence in boat handling. The bigger and heavier the boat the more this becomes an issue. Clattering into something on a small dayboat is not the same as barging into things on a boat of 30 plus tonnes, you need to know what you're doing.

Our Experience - We used to own a 60' narrowboat that we cruised extensively on the K&A and Thames. It also took us to Liverpool and Leeds and eventually made its way down to Rugby. We loved every minute, although we only lived aboard for 5 months during our 5 years of ownership.

We now have a 60' x 14' barge that we live on, which we have cruised the Thames,Thames Estuary and Medway. This year will be taking her to Belgium. Its a heavy boat to manoeuvre in tight spaces ie marinas with lots of plastic around. In Europe it will be perfect because its designed for the European waterways.

Our plan is to cruise Europe for around 10 years and then return to UK waterways and buy another narrowboat to live aboard and travel to the places we haven't seen yet. 

Advice - Buy what you think is right and best designed for you're intended cruising area and do so with you're eyes wide open. Don't repeat that head in the sand moment from your youth, your making a significant investment.

[Phil Ambrose]

2 hours ago, Tuscan said:

It’s a lifestyle choice first in my view , otherwise might be easier to buy a flat or mobile home

Er you have quoted the op and somehow attributed it to me. 

Phil 

[Steilsteven]

On 31/12/2017 at 23:08, Victor Vectis said:

OK.

To put it simply, they are fugly.

Or politely, the proportions of a wide beam narrow (sic) boat are displeasing to the eye.

Perhaps ugly people or those whose proportions are displeasing to the eye should be charged more?

Keith

[Steilsteven]

On 01/01/2018 at 09:42, Dr Bob said:

.....but I do see a problem. People are coming onto the canals and buying widebeams with no experience of how they 'fit' (figuratively). We bought our first nb 9 months ago and went for a nb rather than widebeam as they are designed for the canals. We came from a background of living aboard a 14' wide boat for 3 years. We know the extra width is great but not when it becomes a frustration to others. If you plan to cruise rivers then great. If you sail 2 or 3 days a week, you will not cause minimal impact to others. It will be very frustrating to many.

I think your analagy is wrong. Yes, if a tractor was driven by someone instead of a car. Can you imagine what other road users would think if you traded your car for a tractor and used it to do the weekly shop, parked in the road outside your house, trundled down the A road at 20mph. Would that frustrate them? Think wide beam. On a river, no problem.

This subject certainly brings out some odd and strangulated points of view!

Narrow boats are designed for narrow canals and visa versa. Some narrow boat owners are known to cause ''frustration to others'' even with some of the smallest boats on the system.

If a boat fits the canal it's on then the canal was designed to accept that boat, canal engineers designed canals to enable maximum cargo to be carried by a single vessel so if a 72' x 14' boat is able to pass along that canal then it is designed for that canal. Likewise, if a 72' x 7' boat is able to pass along a narrow canal then it was designed to fit that  canal.

There are places on broad canals where two broad beam craft are unable or struggle to pass each other, it's true but the same applies to narrow boats on narrow canals in plenty of instances.

It seems to me that the true crux of the matter is there are too many boats on a system that was designed for boats that rarely stop.

Canals are restricted in width by boaters wishing to moor along them rather than travelling from wharf to wharf, so it has to be recognised that canal boating will always be a compromise unless all linear mooring is banned.

The analogy is fine because a person buys what suits their needs and purposes, not what others force upon them.

Keith

[MtB]

3 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

Perhaps ugly people or those whose proportions are displeasing to the eye should be charged more?

Keith

 

Excellent. So you are finally coming round to the view that wide boats should pay more than thin ones!

Odd though, given you own a wide one.

[magpie patrick]

I can't comment on costs but ignore the people who say they are ugly or too big. Any boat clumsily built looks wrong, there are narrow boats with slab sides and all sorts of other aesthetic impediments that just don't look right. As for being in the way, any other boat in the wrong place at the wrong time is in the way.

I've encountered a number of them on the K&A especially west of Hungerford, they have been a mix of old and new, private and hire, and without exception they have been well-handled and the steerers have shown courtesy in holding back when width is restricted so I can come through - if only some narrow boat steerers were as competent and courteous (most are, but not all) 

[Steilsteven]

14 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Excellent. So you are finally coming round to the view that wide boats should pay more than thin ones!

Odd though, given you own a wide one.

Well I think that I actually demonstrated the absurdity of such views.

[Steilsteven]

13 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

I can't comment on costs but ignore the people who say they are ugly or too big. Any boat clumsily built looks wrong, there are narrow boats with slab sides and all sorts of other aesthetic impediments that just don't look right. As for being in the way, any other boat in the wrong place at the wrong time is in the way.

I've encountered a number of them on the K&A especially west of Hungerford, they have been a mix of old and new, private and hire, and without exception they have been well-handled and the steerers have shown courtesy in holding back when width is restricted so I can come through - if only some narrow boat steerers were as competent and courteous (most are, but not all) 

Exactly.

Keith

[Dr Bob]

15 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

 if only some narrow boat steerers were as competent and courteous (most are, but not all) 

You say "if only some nb steerers were as competent...." but then say 'most are'??? If most are, then  that is more than some???

Are you trying to say that proportionately, wide beam owners are more competent? I would strongly disagree as there are many many newbies who buy widebeams and park them up - never to move out of the marina again......and this thread was about another person new to the canals will similarly will not be competent when he sets out.

The problem of meeting a wide beam coming the other way is very short lived. At a bridge hole on a bend - a rapid switch to reverse, a couple of minutes waiting in the wind for the wide beam to traverse the bridge hole and then on the way. Not  a great drama. The frustration is the 10 boats in a queue behind having to wait that 2 or 3 minutes every bridge hole when said widebeam doesnt let them pass or more likely cant let them pass 'cause it is not wide enough. Its the people the widebeam holds up - who the helm cant see - that are getting frustrated.

[peterboat]

On 12/31/2017 at 17:53, Victor Vectis said:

I hope so.

And the sooner the better.

Perhaps not.

But it might stop new ones being spawned.

What happens if it goes wrong? you might find that an area based system is introduced with a two thirds discount because of the massive reduced cruising range!! Thats what a lot of people have asked for it could happen  please oh please

[peterboat]

On 1/1/2018 at 10:31, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Given the need to collect money from boaters in the first place though, natural justice suggests the bigger the boat, the more the owner should pay.  

I am hoping that the consultation decides that the greater the cruising range the more you pay!! thats as fair as your argument Mike

On 12/31/2017 at 23:08, Victor Vectis said:

OK.

To put it simply, they are fugly.

Or politely, the proportions of a wide beam narrow (sic) boat are displeasing to the eye.

I have seen some very very ugly narrowboats! the only thing to make them look better would have been to sink them

[peterboat]

On 1/1/2018 at 09:42, Dr Bob said:

.....but I do see a problem. People are coming onto the canals and buying widebeams with no experience of how they 'fit' (figuratively). We bought our first nb 9 months ago and went for a nb rather than widebeam as they are designed for the canals. We came from a background of living aboard a 14' wide boat for 3 years. We know the extra width is great but not when it becomes a frustration to others. If you plan to cruise rivers then great. If you sail 2 or 3 days a week, you will not cause minimal impact to others. It will be very frustrating to many.

I think your analagy is wrong. Yes, if a tractor was driven by someone instead of a car. Can you imagine what other road users would think if you traded your car for a tractor and used it to do the weekly shop, parked in the road outside your house, trundled down the A road at 20mph. Would that frustrate them? Think wide beam. On a river, no problem.

No Bob for me if the canal/river was built for a proper boat then they are ok there its stupid mooring and lack of maintenance that is the issue

[Matt&Jo]

6 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

You say "if only some nb steerers were as competent...." but then say 'most are'??? If most are, then  that is more than some???

Are you trying to say that proportionately, wide beam owners are more competent? I would strongly disagree as there are many many newbies who buy widebeams and park them up - never to move out of the marina again......and this thread was about another person new to the canals will similarly will not be competent when he sets out.

The problem of meeting a wide beam coming the other way is very short lived. At a bridge hole on a bend - a rapid switch to reverse, a couple of minutes waiting in the wind for the wide beam to traverse the bridge hole and then on the way. Not  a great drama. The frustration is the 10 boats in a queue behind having to wait that 2 or 3 minutes every bridge hole when said widebeam doesnt let them pass or more likely cant let them pass 'cause it is not wide enough. Its the people the widebeam holds up - who the helm cant see - that are getting frustrated.

I understand your point about me not being competent when i set out but i have owned ocean going boats and currently own a tiller steer F-Rib which acheives 30knots so i do know how to control a boat in general and am very much at home with a tiller....i know this is not directly transferable to narrow boats but its still experience of how a vesel reacts on water....alot to learn tho and ill make sure im proficient before i head out as far as i can.

[MtB]

6 hours ago, peterboat said:

What happens if it goes wrong? you might find that an area based system is introduced with a two thirds discount because of the massive reduced cruising range!! Thats what a lot of people have asked for it could happen  please oh please

 

There is no logic to this argument. 

Reductio absurdum, a boat 90ft x 16ft craned into the canal should pay no licence at all, as it can't go anywhere. Clearly unfair.

[peterboat]

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

There is no logic to this argument. 

Reductio absurdum, a boat 90ft x 16ft craned into the canal should pay no licence at all, as it can't go anywhere. Clearly unfair.

They can on proper waterways, the ones that are designed for for boats not toys.....................................

[magpie patrick]

22 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

Exactly.

Keith

For the avoidance of doubt, mhy view that larger boats are not a problem does not mean I support a flat rate licence: boat size does affect capacity of the waterway the boat is using and is also a proxy (albeit an imperfect one) for value, a cheap 20 foot grp cruiser will always be a lot cheaper to buy than a cheap 60 foot by 12 foot steel boat. We need to maintain an entry level market into boating and a flat rate, which would be considerably more than the cheapest licence now, would work against this

 

20 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

You say "if only some nb steerers were as competent...." but then say 'most are'??? If most are, then  that is more than some???

Are you trying to say that proportionately, wide beam owners are more competent? I would strongly disagree as there are many many newbies who buy widebeams and park them up - never to move out of the marina again......and this thread was about another person new to the canals will similarly will not be competent when he sets out.

The problem of meeting a wide beam coming the other way is very short lived. At a bridge hole on a bend - a rapid switch to reverse, a couple of minutes waiting in the wind for the wide beam to traverse the bridge hole and then on the way. Not  a great drama. The frustration is the 10 boats in a queue behind having to wait that 2 or 3 minutes every bridge hole when said widebeam doesnt let them pass or more likely cant let them pass 'cause it is not wide enough. Its the people the widebeam holds up - who the helm cant see - that are getting frustrated.

 The bit in bold is exactly what I'm saying, qualifying the statement with "in my experience on the Kennet and Avon west of Hungerford" as I haven't really encountered them anywhere else

[Steilsteven]

12 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

For the avoidance of doubt, mhy view that larger boats are not a problem does not mean I support a flat rate licence: boat size does affect capacity of the waterway the boat is using and is also a proxy (albeit an imperfect one) for value, a cheap 20 foot grp cruiser will always be a lot cheaper to buy than a cheap 60 foot by 12 foot steel boat. We need to maintain an entry level market into boating and a flat rate, which would be considerably more than the cheapest licence now, would work against this

 

 The bit in bold is exactly what I'm saying, qualifying the statement with "in my experience on the Kennet and Avon west of Hungerford" as I haven't really encountered them anywhere else

An expensive 20' cruiser can cost a lot more than a cheap 60' narrow boat. This ''entry level'' theory is something of a myth, especially these days when a great many people buy boats to live on.

I don't know how much a flat rate licence would cost, the figures to work it out don't seem to be available but if it worked out to be mid range in the current scale of charges the change wouldn't be enough to deter someone from buying an ''entry level'' boat. The costs of owning such a boat is quite minimal anyway.

As for boat size affecting the capacity of a waterway, increasing the cost of a licence will have zero affect on that, the boat will still affect the capacity of the waterway even if it costs twice as much to license it. As I've hinted already in this thread if licences are increased for wide beams then wide beam owners will be looking to ''get their money's worth'' and going places that they'd previously had no intention of going. For me that would mean the entire length of the GU.

I can also see boat builders getting a little upset by CRT endangering what has been a lucrative customer base. 

Keith