Huddersfield Narrow Sinking

[cotswoldsman]

 

http://waterwaynews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/photograph-of-latest-huddersfield.html

[mayalld]

 

http://waterwaynews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/photograph-of-latest-huddersfield.html

 

As martin says in his article, this isn't the first time this has happened, although this case should have been recoverable as the bow grounded coming out of the lock, and a good burst of reverse should have rectified it. In the previous case here the boat was entering the lock, when its Skeg grounded in a falling pound.

[Guest]

As martin says in his article, this isn't the first time this has happened, although this case should have been recoverable as the bow grounded coming out of the lock, and a good burst of reverse should have rectified it. In the previous case here the boat was entering the lock, when its Skeg grounded in a falling pound.

I suppose it depends on just how quickly it all happened. Once the buoyancy was lost at the front end it would stick pretty firm. It also looks as if it is caught fairly well past the bow.

[Dave_P]

 

As martin says in his article, this isn't the first time this has happened, although this case should have been recoverable as the bow grounded coming out of the lock, and a good burst of reverse should have rectified it. In the previous case here the boat was entering the lock, when its Skeg grounded in a falling pound.

Whilst I take your point Dave, with the best will in the world, people don't always make the right choices at the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but if the boater was new to the HNC and perhaps didn't realise the levels were low, he/she may have thought that he was caught on a slight obstruction and tried to push over it, only grounding himself more. Also the levels were dropping. This surely means that the boat could have been well over the cill when it became grounded, leaving the boater with no way of getting free.

 

As the article says, this incident wasn't caused by carelessness or stupidity and for that reason it's really worrying. In short, it could have happened to anyone. As a boater who used to moor on the HNC, it's somewhat off-putting when it comes to going back. That's a bad thing as the HNC is a seriously underused canal already.

 

My sympathies go out to the boat owner.

I suppose it depends on just how quickly it all happened. Once the buoyancy was lost at the front end it would stick pretty firm. It also looks as if it is caught fairly well past the bow.

Seems Martin and me were posting at the same time with fairly similar thoughts.

[Paul C]

I guess we should check that when we're going uphill in a lock, check on the water level behind you and see if its more or less at the right level, or the next pound (and lock you're currently in) isn't quite full. If it looks low, then proceed with extreme caution or go ahead and let some water down. Easy to say in hindsight though. I hope the boater isn't too affected and it can all be sorted out etc.

[magpie patrick]

 

As martin says in his article, this isn't the first time this has happened, although this case should have been recoverable as the bow grounded coming out of the lock, and a good burst of reverse should have rectified it. In the previous case here the boat was entering the lock, when its Skeg grounded in a falling pound.

 

There but for the grace of god Dave, the front end of Ripple went aground leaving lock 4E I think, in 2007: she wouldn't budge. In five minutes her angle was precarious and I could retrieve the situation by running water down, but the wedging fast was instantaneous, if the lock had been leaking really badly, I'd have had it.

 

If this is the same lock as last time, I think CRT have some questions to answer...

[nb Innisfree]

If level looks a bit low we take a depth reading of the top cill, bottom cill is trickier to do. We did get caught out entering the botton of a Wigan flight lock, entered very slowly but still got stuck despire a fistful of reverse. Easily done.

 

ETA: It's a toss up between going fast to clear the cill before the level drops and going slowly to minimise wedging.

Edited August 8, 2013 by nb Innisfree

[mayalld]

Whilst I take your point Dave, with the best will in the world, people don't always make the right choices at the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but if the boater was new to the HNC and perhaps didn't realise the levels were low, he/she may have thought that he was caught on a slight obstruction and tried to push over it, only grounding himself more. Also the levels were dropping. This surely means that the boat could have been well over the cill when it became grounded, leaving the boater with no way of getting free.

 

As the article says, this incident wasn't caused by carelessness or stupidity and for that reason it's really worrying. In short, it could have happened to anyone. As a boater who used to moor on the HNC, it's somewhat off-putting when it comes to going back. That's a bad thing as the HNC is a seriously underused canal already.

 

My sympathies go out to the boat owner.

Seems Martin and me were posting at the same time with fairly similar thoughts.

 

I suspect that my post appeared unduly critical of the boater, and that wasn't my intention.

 

It is very true that when faced with an unusual situation, it can take any of us precious seconds before we analyse what the issue is, and rectify it.

 

Neither of these sinkings fall into the category of "sheer stupidity" on the part of the steerer (unlike a classic Cilling), but the fact that they have happened should inform us all of a potential issue to be aware of.

 

Attempting to pass over an upper cill with insufficient depth and a falling water level can and does sink boats.

 

In the first case, two years ago, the point of grounding suggests that there was about 2 feet of water (and falling) over the cill, so the pound would have been low, but not perhaps alarmingly low, and as soon as grounded the boat was dropping by the head. That case was near impossible to predict, the steerer may not have had reason to expect a grounding, and the time available to recover from it was close to zero.

 

In this case, the boat grounded close to the bow, so we are looking at around only a foot of water over the cill. The pound would have been seriously low, and it was probably unrealistic to imagine that the boat would clear the cill.

 

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that people don't appreciate the possible consequences of "going for it", and that should be improved.

[mayalld]

 

There but for the grace of god Dave, the front end of Ripple went aground leaving lock 4E I think, in 2007: she wouldn't budge. In five minutes her angle was precarious and I could retrieve the situation by running water down, but the wedging fast was instantaneous, if the lock had been leaking really badly, I'd have had it.

 

If this is the same lock as last time, I think CRT have some questions to answer...

 

I would agree on both points.

 

If badly leaking bottom gates were implicated in a sinking and have not been fixed, then CRT are certainly culpable.

 

Also, I really don't want to suggest that the boater was in any way negligent or lacking for failing to appreciate the risks here, because most boaters are similarly unaware.

 

I do want to suggest that we can't simply shrug our shoulders at such incidents, and decide that there is nothing that the boater can do.

 

Boating is (notwithstanding what others will tell you) a dangerous occupation, and we need to manage that risk. Managing that risk means understanding that risk, and at the moment too few boaters understand the risk of grounding whilst passing over a cill, and when faced with a low pound may well try to "go for it"

[billh]

 

I would agree on both points.

 

If badly leaking bottom gates were implicated in a sinking and have not been fixed, then CRT are certainly culpable.

 

 

I assisted a boat to Uppermill yesterday. The sinking was at Lock 9 , same lock as "Dizzy" sinking a couple of years ago and several other scary incidents . We arrived from Stalybridge just as Guy Holding with rescue tow boat and the now re-floated boat needed to come down. To cut a long story short, the bottom gates could not be closed due to a cill obstruction , which was eventually cleared by Dennis ( the dredgerman) from Land & Water Services, who was bringing a tug and mud pan down the canal. It was the basket bit of a Tesco trolley holding the gate off. It looks as though that had caused the original sinking . Once that was clear the lock was ok, just the normal HNC leaking gates! There was no CRT presence while all this was going on, it was sorted by the various (nonCRT) experts who just happened to be there.

Later on , we got up to Royal George lock 19W . There was a boat going up ahead of us, single handing- she had been stuck there for a couple of hours as the lock would not quite make a level and she couldn't get the top gate open by herself. Only one ground paddle was working and that would not keep up with the leakage through the bottom gates. I know for a fact that there has been a broken paddle here for about 3 years- it can't be rocket science to get that fixed. Meanwhile, water is wasted waiting for a level that will never come , people get frustrated, delayed and vow to never return to this canal. Is it any wonder there are so few boats using it? The cynic in me says that's deliberate CRT policy to make it difficult to use- think of the money that saves.

Bill

[PeterF]

I believe that there was a similar sinking at least 5 years ago with a hire boat. This was related to me by the boat yard we moored at up until early 2009 before we journeyed along the Huddersfield in 2009.

[Pete & Helen]

I think this is a very interesting topic and the moderators should give this one big flashing lights so that as many people as possible read it.

On the face of it it sounds like something we should all know but I have to admit that its something that has never been at the forefront of my mind when going up locks. I went up Marple the other week when this situation could have easily have happened to me. Luck maybe was on my side as I grounded in the pond and had to let in water from above. What surprised me was how long it took to to re-float me again.

Maybe we should have a topic specificity for this sort of "It sounds like common sense, but who knows?" but without all the ping pong comments that spoils so many posts.

 

P&H

[RLWP]

{snip}

 

the bottom gates could not be closed due to a cill obstruction , which was eventually cleared by Dennis ( the dredgerman) from Land & Water Services, who was bringing a tug and mud pan down the canal. It was the basket bit of a Tesco trolley holding the gate off. It looks as though that had caused the original sinking

 

{snip}

 

 

Bill

 

I don't want to try and read more into this than is there. Does this mean that the boat that sank used the lock even though the bottom gates didn't close properly?

 

Richard

[WJM]

Scary incident - not caused by incompetence, it could easily befall any good boater.

 

It wont totally solve the problem, but putting your boat pole into the mitre of the gate can make a big difference if the water is escaping from there. It would buy a lot of time while you run uphill to let more water down. In case it is not clear, you drop your boat pole vertically into the water in front of the gate mitre (join) and the flow will suck it in and form a seal.

Edited August 8, 2013 by WJM

[Tacet]

In this case, the boat grounded close to the bow, so we are looking at around only a foot of water over the cill. The pound would have been seriously low, and it was probably unrealistic to imagine that the boat would clear the cill.

 

 

Are you sure? It seems probable that the boat had the majority of its weight overhanging the initial grounding point, but it could well have slipped backwards once the level decreased, possibly depending on the length of the boat.

 

This type of incident has happened elsewhere and it is probable that in some cases it has been brought on by a partially raised bottom paddle, but two at the same lock seems a lot. When ascending the HNC you would be running a lot of water down from the summit if you are only willing to proceed into "full" pounds.

 

These things happen fast and few would claim to be sure they would respond quickly and correctly - but the remedy post-grounding would be to run up the flight drawing every paddle you can find, hoping you did not meet someone being precious about their lock.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Tacet

[luctor et emergo]

Scary incident - not caused by incompetence, it could easily befall any good boater.

 

It wont totally solve the problem, but putting your boat pole into the mitre of the gate can make a big difference if the water is escaping from there. It would buy a lot of time while you run uphill to let more water down. In case it is not clear, you drop your boat pole vertically into the water in front of the gate mitre (join) and the flow will suck it in and form a seal.

Good idea, I hadn't thought of that.

[RichardH]

The cynic in me says that's deliberate CRT policy to make it difficult to use- think of the money that saves.

Bill

 

I would disagree. We have done the HNC on the East 4 times, the most recent being to bring a boat back last year.

 

The quality of locks on the East has changed beyond recognition. They are virtually all new gates. When we first did the canal in 2002 I described it as 'an experience for enthusiasts', the same cannot be said today, certainly not on the East.

 

The West may be a different story and I have very little experience of that, having only done it once in 2005.

[MartinClark]

Boating is (notwithstanding what others will tell you) a dangerous occupation, and we need to manage that risk. Managing that risk means understanding that risk, and at the moment too few boaters understand the risk of grounding whilst passing over a cill, and when faced with a low pound may well try to "go for it"

 

I am sure that you are right that too few boaters understand the risk of grounding whilst passing over a cill, as is shown by the frequent instances of locks being made inoperable after the cill has been damaged or taken out by a boat.

 

I don't want to try and read more into this than is there. Does this mean that the boat that sank used the lock even though the bottom gates didn't close properly?

 

Richard

 

The bottom gates closed well enough for the lock to fill sufficiently for the boater (reportly a lady single-handing) to open the top gate.

 

in my experience you don't realise just how much water may be escaping from bottom gates until you walk back to them and hear the sound of the torrent escaping.

[Laurie Booth]

Very scary and has been a real help to me in the future.

[Guest]

Strikes me that an easy alteration that could be made to this lock and some others would be a depth marker at the top of the lock.

 

Boaters could then quickly asses the available depth against their known draft and not attempt to leave the lock if its insufficient.

 

Other wise assessing it all seems a bit hit and miss to me.

[billS]

I have a mark on my boathook pole corresponding to my boat draught - very useful for assessing potential mooring depths on the K&A. After seeing this, I think I will use it to check water depth over the cill on locks with low pounds.

[magpie patrick]

Strikes me that an easy alteration that could be made to this lock and some others would be a depth marker at the top of the lock.

 

Boaters could then quickly asses the available depth against their known draft and not attempt to leave the lock if its insufficient.

 

Other wise assessing it all seems a bit hit and miss to me.

 

TBH, it does seem to be an HNC thing, unlike cillings, this is hardly commonplace around the network, even in the notoriously leaky Marple Locks.

 

When it nearly happened to me, a piece of timber got wedged under the boat as I left the lock, knocking a good 9 inches off the apparent depth. I was waiting for BW to turn up when I got sufficiently concerned to take matters into my own hands

[Guest]

I have a mark on my boathook pole corresponding to my boat draught - very useful for assessing potential mooring depths on the K&A. After seeing this, I think I will use it to check water depth over the cill on locks with low pounds.

 

Sounds like a good idea.

 

TBH, it does seem to be an HNC thing, unlike cillings, this is hardly commonplace around the network, even in the notoriously leaky Marple Locks.

 

When it nearly happened to me, a piece of timber got wedged under the boat as I left the lock, knocking a good 9 inches off the apparent depth. I was waiting for BW to turn up when I got sufficiently concerned to take matters into my own hands

 

Just to be clear I wasn't suggesting it was common place, I was thinking about references to it being a HNC issue, but if they fixed the gates and added a gauge with a board with instructions it could avoid a fatality.

Edited August 8, 2013 by The Dog House

[MartinClark]

 

TBH, it does seem to be an HNC thing, unlike cillings, this is hardly commonplace around the network, even in the notoriously leaky Marple Locks.

 

Lock 9w seems to be particularly vulnerable to this kind of incident as the pound above it is short and and not particularly wide. Coming uphill, filling the lock will make a big difference to the level of water in the pound. (The locks each have a rise of around 10 feet, so that's a lot of water from a short pound!) I have seen boats going downhill end up aground in the pound after the lock has been filled.

 

On one occasion, descending in Lock 10w, I was unable to move the boat forward into the pound as it was sitting on the invert at the bottom of the lock - and that was after a lock full of water had been added to the pound!

[NickF]

I had a problem with a low pound on the east side last year. Having read about the first time a sinking like this happened on this forum I made extra sure I didn't. start to cross the cill until I was sure I would clear it without grounding. If you aware of the risk you can at least tfake some precautions against it happening to you.

Thank you CWDF!