Henley?

TrueBlue

TrueBlue

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 Apr 2004
Messages
4,476
Location
Sussex
Visit site
Being stopped at home by choice and doing a quick loog at the Web - I noticed that HRR have provide complete coverage of the Regatta event on Youtube - so methought I'd see what was on offer.

Amazing - total coverage of every race from start to finish with aerial and views from the water.
Very professional production with knowledgeable commentary.
It's all on YT now plus 'back issues' retained.

Now I'm not a rower and like most boaters - avoid Henley-Ya for the rowing week - but it was fascinating to watch and listen.

Well worth a look - if only for the production quality...
 
TrueBlue said:
Being stopped at home by choice and doing a quick loog at the Web - I noticed that HRR have provide complete coverage of the Regatta event on Youtube - so methought I'd see what was on offer.

Amazing - total coverage of every race from start to finish with aerial and views from the water.
Very professional production with knowledgeable commentary.
It's all on YT now plus 'back issues' retained.

Now I'm not a rower and like most boaters - avoid Henley-Ya for the rowing week - but it was fascinating to watch and listen.

Well worth a look - if only for the production quality...
Click to expand...
Excellent videos - but the tiny amount of pleasure craft traffic makes you wonder why EA fielded 6 patrol boats and Angel Guard whilst leaving locks unmanned on this sunny August weekend! Its what our registrations pay for!
 
Not quite right - read the preamble to their Charges Consultation :

'Boat registration charges income is currently 52% of our overall navigation budget, which is forecast to be approximately £14.9m in 2021. A review of activities concluded that boat charges should be contributing 58%. These proposals mean that the boat charges contribution will increase to approximately 55% by 2024 charge year.'

So we might only be paying 52% of the navigation budget but only 58% has been identified as boating related costs - and some of these are dodgy - eg Toilets and rubbish disposal 100% boater? Safety management of events - statutory duty 100% boater - and HRR contribute just a few pence for licencing their piling for a couple of weeks and nothing more.

I was surprised to see how EA's own figures show how close the boater's contribution was to the real costs and even more surprised that they expect us to cough up even more - 6% next year.

Doubtless boatone will be along shortly to advise on the best way to respond to the EA 'Consultation' to ensure that we are not fleeced by EA! Do wait to read his wise words before responding.
 
I thought @oldgit was humorously suggesting that 50% of our registration fees go to dealing with the regatta week.

It is apparently true that Hambleden lock was enlarged specifically in order to disperse vessels out of the reach more quickly during regatta. I assume this was funded by the navigation authority although it's quite possible HRR did contribute.

I wonder if they (HRR) pay for the patrol boats to be at the site for regatta.

If they don't then it would seem to me go be more appropriate to use contractors for that job and let the patrol boats do their real job elsewhere on the River like dealing with idiots racing about at high speed and unregistered craft.


Having done a few ups and downs of the reach on wed, Thur,Fri and yesterday on my toy trawler I can see why they need the patrol boats although to be fair it was very quiet during the week. The bridge control is sensible for pleasure steamers. Not sure why they name it after the pub but never mind. It's actually quite handy knowing who is coming up or down but I doubt many people had VHF sets switched on.

Hambleden lock is an interesting one though. That must have cost a few quid to enlarge it. One would sincerely hope that if it had been done for the regatta itself, which I believe is true, that it would have been funded at least in part by HRR otherwise they start to look a bit like a parasite.
 
Last edited:
Gibeltarik said:
Not quite right - read the preamble to their Charges Consultation :

'Boat registration charges income is currently 52% of our overall navigation budget, which is forecast to be approximately £14.9m in 2021. A review of activities concluded that boat charges should be contributing 58%. These proposals mean that the boat charges contribution will increase to approximately 55% by 2024 charge year.'

So we might only be paying 52% of the navigation budget but only 58% has been identified as boating related costs - and some of these are dodgy - eg Toilets and rubbish disposal 100% boater? Safety management of events - statutory duty 100% boater - and HRR contribute just a few pence for licencing their piling for a couple of weeks and nothing more.

I was surprised to see how EA's own figures show how close the boater's contribution was to the real costs and even more surprised that they expect us to cough up even more - 6% next year.

Doubtless boatone will be along shortly to advise on the best way to respond to the EA 'Consultation' to ensure that we are not fleeced by EA! Do wait to read his wise words before responding.
Click to expand...
Interesting data - can you give a link or whatever to the source of your expenditure data breakdown please?
 
Outinthedinghy said:
It is apparently true that Hambleden lock was enlarged specifically in order to disperse vessels out of the reach more quickly during regatta. I assume this was funded by the navigation authority although it's quite possible HRR did contribute.
Click to expand...
Some twenty years ago there was a MASSIVE hike in boat registration fees which was targeted, specifically, to enlarge both Hambleden and Bray Locks. Hambleden happened, then the capital spend was conveniently forgotten, to be replaced by a promise to have two staff on at Bray at all times, in order to alleviate congestion.

The EA are hoping that the two broken promises at Bray will have been forgotten by the boating fraternity, either as a result of owners passing on, or simple rotation of those using the river. The few bods that recall these two promises are not, surprisingly, EA employees. The current consultation will, doubtless, by pass this issue again, in the hope that the Bray extension never happens - but we have already paid for it.

Instead another pointless flood channel will be dug, whose sole purpose to to prevent Wraysbury and district flooding, which only happens because the Jubilee Channel delivers water to that part of the river too fast. In short, we don't need a fees consultation, we need a root and branch reset of the EA's Navigation division.

PS - I have no evidence as to whether HRR assisted the funding, but I would doubt it very, very much.
 
Pump-Out said:
Instead another pointless flood channel will be dug, whose sole purpose to to prevent Wraysbury and district flooding, which only happens because the Jubilee Channel delivers water to that part of the river too fast.
Click to expand...

RTS Channel 1 (Black Potts to Bell Weir) is currently shelved as RBWM have reneged on their funding share commitment
 
Pump-Out said:
Some twenty years ago there was a MASSIVE hike in boat registration fees which was targeted, specifically, to enlarge both Hambleden and Bray Locks. Hambleden happened, then the capital spend was conveniently forgotten, to be replaced by a promise to have two staff on at Bray at all times, in order to alleviate congestion.

The EA are hoping that the two broken promises at Bray will have been forgotten by the boating fraternity, either as a result of owners passing on, or simple rotation of those using the river. The few bods that recall these two promises are not, surprisingly, EA employees. The current consultation will, doubtless, by pass this issue again, in the hope that the Bray extension never happens - but we have already paid for it.

Instead another pointless flood channel will be dug, whose sole purpose to to prevent Wraysbury and district flooding, which only happens because the Jubilee Channel delivers water to that part of the river too fast. In short, we don't need a fees consultation, we need a root and branch reset of the EA's Navigation division.

PS - I have no evidence as to whether HRR assisted the funding, but I would doubt it very, very much.
Click to expand...
There was a plan to enlarge the size of Boveney lock by extending the tail area down river and creating an other set of lock gates. Licence fees were increased to cover proposed work with the understanding the increase would be short term and then revert back. The extension never took place and the licence fee never went down.
 
It was three locks, Bray Boveney & Hambleden but only the last got done (£4m?). The Government said the EA had the money in their coffers & reduced the funding. Never, ever, believe anything along the lines of paying more upfront now to get some gain the EA promise in the future. The queues at the old lock were pretty good though!
 
ianc1200 said:
It was three locks, Bray Boveney & Hambleden but only the last got done (£4m?). The Government said the EA had the money in their coffers & reduced the funding. Never, ever, believe anything along the lines of paying more upfront now to get some gain the EA promise in the future. The queues at the old lock were pretty good though!
Click to expand...
I hate to be pedantic but the original plan was to enlarge FOUR locks, Hambleden, Bray, Boveney and Shepperton.
After enlarging Hambleden, the numbers had dropped considerably with the loss of some hire fleets.
 
ianc1200 said:
Strange, I can't remember Shepperton being on the list.
Click to expand...
It was the first one dropped. A few years later there was a charity attempt at lottery funding for extending Bray snd Boveney, but up against stiff competition from ballet schools, operatic groups etc the funding went to more needy causes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top