Ron Jones | 1 Jan 01:21 2008
Picon

Re: Happy New Year

Family wrote:
> I wish you all a happy and prosperous 2008. I personally hope it
> turns out to be less stressful than 2007 turned out to be for me.
> Hope to meet as many friends as possible, old and new, in the coming
> year.
>

Happy new year, likewise, and it *is* now 2008.

Ron Jones
Process Safety & Development Specialist
Don't repeat history, unreported chemical lab/plant near misses at
http://www.crhf.org.uk Only two things are certain: The universe and
human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe. ~ Albert
Einstein 

 
Martin Phillips | 1 Jan 02:21 2008
Picon
Picon

Re: Happy New Year


WHITE RABBITS!

--

-- 
Martin E Phillips      http://www.g4cio.demon.co.uk
Homebrewing, black pudding, boats, morris dancing, ham radio and more!
The Gloucester-Sharpness canal web page http://www.glos-sharpness.org.uk

 
Will Chapman | 1 Jan 10:29 2008

Re: The real issues (was BW moorings)

Adrian Stott wrote:
> Will Chapman <nbquidditch@...>
> wrote:
> 
>> Adrian Stott wrote:
> 

>> That applies to mooring on any part of the waterway. Especially 
>> at busy moorings where boats breast up and where two boats going
>> in opposite directions cannot pass because of limited width.
> 
> I know some places where it is hard to a single craft to get through
> without touching craft inappropriately moored craft on both sides.

Exactly. And wide beam boats make that a more common circumstance
and so, IMO, a wide boat should pay for the inconvenience caused.

>> It is not only about locking. It is about getting through bridge
>> holes, passing in narrower stretches of waterway. Just like a 
>> wide-load on the road, special care needs to be taken passing
>> wider boats.
> 
> Since most of almost every waterway was built to allow two gauge-beam
> craft to pass, and since very few bridges were designed to craft to
> pass in them, I think it actually is, effectively, only about locking.
> 
It isn't about numbers. Otherwise you could just say there aren't
many wide-beamed boats, just ignore them. The point is that one 
wide beam boat effects the passage of every other boat on the 
same waterway.
(Continue reading)

Julian Tether | 1 Jan 10:48 2008

Re: The real issues (was BW moorings)

In message <flbsrd+ds3f@...>, Roger Millin 
<roger.millin@...> writes
>Julian wrote:
>> Sorry Roger Adrian is right here.
>> However the canals have to be got back to their original profile that
>> will cost more, but once they are there then there is no more cost
>> keeping them there than keeping them at any other arbitrary level.
>
>Well bless my soul. So how do they get them back to the wide-beam
>(correct) profile then? Magic them?
>So my point is made, it will cost more to 'restore' and maintain at
>wide beam standards. QED. I rest my case. It was the restoration aspect
>at present funding levels that I knew wasn't going to happen, not
>maintenance 'after' some mythical, magical, transformation of the
>system by persons unknown.

No Roger your point was to "maintain" as was Adrian's not "restore".
So as said, you are wrong and have moved the goal posts to "prove" your 
point.

Would you argue that the mainland canals should be left to get like the 
British canals unable to take boats of the design gauge, possibly you 
would.
It is getting on here much like the sailing/motorboat divide that exists 
on YBW, sad really as they are all boats

--

-- 

Julian Tether
Barge Parglena
(Continue reading)

Strudwick.Family | 1 Jan 11:42 2008

Re: Re: The real issues (was BW moorings)

Can I suggest one simple reason why BW have not started charging by 
area. It costs more to administer and the implementation charges would 
be very high.  Each new application would have to be checked to ensure 
the applicant had done the sums correctly otherwise the boat would be 
paying the wrong fee for the rest of its life. Enforcement officers 
instead of being able to check the correct fee had been paid by simply 
running a measure along the bank would have to climb on the boat to 
check the beam. That brings in all sorts of H&S issues.

EA can do area charging because the numbers involved are smaller and 
they have always done it. BW can't change because the numbers are large 
and they have never done it.

One final thought instead of charging by area how about length and draft 
then you only need a guaging stick and deeper boats that need the cut to 
be dredged deeper pay more and it should appeal to the traditionalists.

Paul

dave hearnden wrote:
>  
> Lets be honest, BW who we all will admit need money which ever way they can get it, why have they not charged on
area. If they were to bring in the  charge I for one would be very happy for it.  Not that Im against the wide beam
etc it is because the space they take up should be paid for. Oh by the way I agree with a longer boat paying more
than a shorter boat, again due to the space taken up.
>  
> Cheers
>  
> Moose
>  
(Continue reading)

Roger Millin | 1 Jan 12:01 2008
Picon

Re: The real issues (was BW moorings)

Julian said:
> No Roger your point was to "maintain" as was Adrian's not "restore".
> So as said, you are wrong and have moved the goal posts to "prove" 
your 
> point.
> 
> Would you argue that the mainland canals should be left to get like 
the 
> British canals unable to take boats of the design gauge, possibly 
you 
> would.
> It is getting on here much like the sailing/motorboat divide that 
exists 
> on YBW, sad really as they are all boats

I quote from an earlier post of mine:
Up to a point Sir Humphrey, but a wide beam craft will always require
dredging to a wider(better) standard than could be 'got away with'
for narrow beam craft. I'm not encouraging poor dredging standards,
only pointing out that more significant dredging will be required for
your type of craft at a time when waterway maintenance budgets are in
free-fall.

So, the last sentence indicates starting from 'now', the time 
when 'waterway maintenance budgets are in free-fall' and also clearly 
indicates clearly that I am 'not' advocating leaving the canals to 
drop below design standards if at all possible. I am, however, being 
realistic enough to realise that under present (and near future) BW 
funding projections we're not going to get dredging that will 
maintain 'existing' conditions, never mind 'restore' them to their 
(Continue reading)

Roger Millin | 1 Jan 12:11 2008
Picon

Re: The real issues (was BW moorings)

Paul said:
> Can I suggest one simple reason why BW have not started charging by 
> area. It costs more to administer and the implementation charges 
would 
> be very high.  Each new application would have to be checked to 
ensure 
> the applicant had done the sums correctly otherwise the boat would 
be 
> paying the wrong fee for the rest of its life. Enforcement officers 
> instead of being able to check the correct fee had been paid by 
simply 
> running a measure along the bank would have to climb on the boat to 
> check the beam. That brings in all sorts of H&S issues.

While you have a point, may I point out that one in fourteen boats 
currently on BW's system is unlicensed and so perhaps it would be 
better to get 'some' licence fee from 'all' rather than worrying 
about whether the calculations for each individual boat were correct 
to the second decimal place. Then, later on maybe, all boats could be 
double-checked for dimensions when we have achieved the nirvana of 
complete licence compliance ;-))

> One final thought instead of charging by area how about length and 
draft 
> then you only need a gauging stick and deeper boats that need the 
cut to 
> be dredged deeper pay more and it should appeal to the 
traditionalists.

It's a thought but surely, by this method, you would penalise older 
(Continue reading)

Adrian Stott | 1 Jan 13:23 2008
Picon

Re: The real issues (was BW moorings)

"Roger Millin" <roger.millin@...>
wrote:

>I quote from an earlier post of mine:
>Up to a point Sir Humphrey, but a wide beam craft will always require
>dredging to a wider(better) standard than could be 'got away with'
>for narrow beam craft. I'm not encouraging poor dredging standards,
>only pointing out that more significant dredging will be required for
>your type of craft at a time when waterway maintenance budgets are in
>free-fall.

Periodic dredging, carried out every few years whenever the siltation
has reduced the dimensions of the actual water cross-section below the
values required for the convenient passage of craft, to remove all the
silt that has accumulated since the last time such dredging took
place, is maintenance.  It is a "revenue" item, in
localauthorityspeak.

One-time dredging to recover a larger (best, the original) water
cross-section after a long time during which this cross-section had
not been recovered during dredging, is restoration.  It is not
maintenance.  It is a "capital" item.

The problem is that NT has let the Wey deteriorate to the point that
it now needs to do the latter.  Although it does that sort of thing
regularly for e.g. its stately homes (i.e. when it restores them), it
has persistently refused to consider it for the Wey.

However, the (periodic) cost of the former will be pretty much the
same to NT irrespective of whether the latter is done.  
(Continue reading)

Adrian Stott | 1 Jan 13:37 2008
Picon

Re: The real issues (was BW moorings)

Martin Phillips
<martin@...> wrote:

>In message <726in3dv472tg9b7nbdoqqn1pkjv4goais@...>, Adrian Stott 

>>why should navigation charges be related to ability to pay.

>There are a number of good reasons.

Er, replace "good reasons" with "possible justifications", I think. (I
would have said "questionable" instead of "possible", but it's the
season of good will after all).

>Firstly (and cheekily!), all (or at least most) other users pay for the 
>canals via their taxes which are to a large extent related to ability to 
>pay.

That is just an artifact of the way the waterways are funded now.  If,
for example, the annual grant that now forms the public contribution
were replaced with a capital endowment, in the form of a the long-term
loan of revenue-producing real estate assets already owned by the
government, then it goes away.

>Secondly, in a period of transition where a government organisation is 
>greatly increasing its prices from what might or might not be argued to 
>be too low a base, it is reasonable to help those who find themselves in 
>difficulties by tweaking the pricing policy where possible - not by 
>means testing or anything difficult like that, but if charging per metre 
>or metre^2 rather than per boat gives a help to those to whom the 
>increases are giving most difficulty it seems reasonable to act in that 
(Continue reading)

Julian Tether | 1 Jan 14:07 2008

Re: The real issues (was BW moorings)

In message <fld752+58t0@...>, Roger Millin 
<roger.millin@...> writes
>
>> One final thought instead of charging by area how about length and
>draft
>> then you only need a gauging stick and deeper boats that need the
>cut to
>> be dredged deeper pay more and it should appeal to the
>traditionalists.
>
>It's a thought but surely, by this method, you would penalise older
>deep-draughted (and long) historic working craft and these are the
>very boats that we should be struggling to keep on the system for
>heritage reasons?
Sounds like an excellent idea to me it would catch all those with these 
new boats with  plonky plonk engines that have to be deep drafted to get 
the right size prop :-)

Working on that theory Idleness would cost more than Parglena that I 
like ;-)
--

-- 

Julian Tether
Barge Parglena
e-mail: julian@...

 

Gmane