Peter Lee

I didn't have much of an opinion on this until a month or two ago... We were half way through the Blisworth Tunnel heading north: traffic was quite busy - we'd already passed 2 or 3 boats coming the other way and there was another white light ahead. In preparation for the passing, I reduced revs and gently moved over to the right side of the tunnel. Slowly the light became brighter and I was starting to make out the shadow of the boat and steerer on the back against the distant light at the end of the tunnel. Then "BANG!" and silence from the engine, apart from the alarm whistle. Now the oncoming boat was coming ever closer - and without engine power the bow of our boat was swinging to the left into its path. Frantic restarting attempts on the engine were made difficult by the fact that I couldn't tell whether it was running due to the noise from the other boat's engine - getting louder as it neared. Panic starting to take over - shouting "Slow down I've lost the engine!" (Forgot I could have used the horn in the panic.) Fortunately, the oncoming steerer realised that something was wrong and slowed down so the resulting collision was just a small knock. They steered around us safely with me on the wrong side of the tunnel and left us in the darkness. There was another boat coming towards us, but that was probably ten minutes away, so time to do some investigation. Now with immediate crisis averted, I realised that the engine would run out of gear, but as soon as I engaged forward gear the "Bang!" and instant engine stop. "Ah something probably round the prop!" I realised. "Bring all the torches" followed by the quickest dive down the weedhatch ever - remembering at the last moment to take out the engine key for safety. (Oncoming boat getting nearer - it's light ever brighter...) Fortunately, the problem was obvious - a rope fender jammed in the prop. It just needed to be pulled out (and carefully laid on the deck). Weedhatch back, tightened down - deck hatch closed. Key back in - JOY - the engine starts and goes into gear with no problem. The rest of the mile or so to the tunnel mouth was uneventful - but a stiff cup of tea was ordered once in the open! Could have turned out much worse - major collision, or having to pole the boat out of the tunnel. It was seriously scary - but one lesson learned - use the horn! And all because someone wanted to protect their paintwork going through the tunnel. Pick up those fenders!

Towards the end of my 40 year working life, I had a boss who, when asking for an instruction or procedure to be written for others to follow, would say, "Make it so Stuart's Dad can understand it". Apparently, Stuart was a schoolfriend of his son and his Dad was one of those clueless people who can't find the right platform at a railway station, the right check-in desk at an airport or who goes the long way round the M25: basically he had little common sense. Indeed there was evidently some wonder that he was a father... Anyway, it seems that Stuart's Dad occasionally hires a boat. I came across him on the Grand Union near Birdingbury Wharf. You can see his way of mooring on Youtube here: There are hundreds of examples around of how it should be done but he failed to see these and use the equipment properly. That's what Boat Hire companies are up against - some people's only ability is to flash a credit card to pay for the holiday, being clueless in pretty much everything else. Fortunately, they are not in the majority, it seems to me. But for the clueless minority - if they can't even tie up properly what hope have they got of getting the more dangerous things right?

I came across some staff from Amey working on behalf of the Highways Agency the other day. As part of the motorway structure, they were inspecting the M5 Culvert using an inflatable dinghy. I asked about the water depth. Unfortunately, they did not measure it accurately, but did stick a ranging pole into the bottom and the comment was "it's very silty". They said the last time they inspected the Culvert was a couple of years ago, when it only carried the Body Brook - they reported that it was silty then. Did any dredging work go on in the Culvert during the restoration project? I certainly did not see any, but was not around every day. What did happen was that there was a great deal of mud stirred up by the remodelling of the Body Brook etc - Morrisons had "silt curtains" across the Culvert, but they would not have stopped every bit of mud/silt going into it. Perhaps we should encourage some heavily laden (e.g. 40 tons) ex-working boats to go through to stir up the silt a bit! Although BW does only specify a maximum draught of 750mm (2ft 6in) for this section of the Junction Canal so perhaps we're lucky to get such boats through at all. Incidentally, the Amey staff commented on the brick headwall for a drainage pipe (at the West portal) that's been bashed (twice!) by boats. I assume that BW will have to pick up the cost of repairing that.

I was talking to a boater the other day who had just come through the M5 Culvert on the Droitwich Junction Canal. He said he had been surprised because his boat had suddenly stopped in the tunnel. He checked for obstructions at the front and stuff round his prop, but then it started moving again. He concluded that the crew of the boat behind him coming up through Lock 7 had opened the ground paddles to fill the lock and this had reduced the water level in the Culvert. This is not the first time I have heard this happening - there was a case just after the opening in June 2011. The thing which I find odd is that this particular boat was one which has a probable draught of 750mm at most (2ft 6in). The M5 Culvert is only just big enough for navigation, but exactly how much water depth is there? If you look at the original planning application drawings, it is shown as 3m wide by 3.3m high, with a water depth of 1.3m (4ft 3in). Elsewhere, in a BW report on the Culvert, its size is quoted as 3m x 3m which would make the water depth about 1m (3ft 3in). (If you want to look at these documents, they are on the Wychavon Council planning website, links available on my page at www.leepd60.net63.net/DEIcanal308.htm) Let's assume that the latter dimension is correct - 1m (3ft 3in) water depth. This would leave at least 250mm (10in) of water under the boat that grounded. Now, how much is it likely that the water level in the pound between Lock 6 and 7 will be dropped by opening the ground paddles on Lock 7? Just taking the section west of the M5, suppose it is an average of 8m wide, by about 200m long and 1.4m deep. This puts its volume at 2.24 Megalitres. Lock 7 dimensions are around 2.2m x 26m x 1.2m, giving a volume of around 70 kilolitres. Taking 70kl out of the pound with 2.24Ml in it is about a 3% drop in level, or 44mm. Call it 50mm or 2 inches. This 50mm drop in level should mean that there is still 200mm (8in)of water beneath the boat and it should not have grounded. The other thing to think about is "squat" due to the boat's motion: this tends to cause a boat to ride lower in the water when there is restricted depth. However, this is very much speed related - if a boat was going too fast, it could squat down and ground, but as soon as it stopped moving, the squat effect would be removed and it would refloat. This is not what happened above - the boater had time to check for obstructions and prop fouling before the boat ungrounded. Incidentally, I checked the water level at Lock 7 just after the incident - the pound was at nominal level with the bywash weir running normally, so the water in the Culvert was at exactly the usual level (showing about 2m headroom on the gauges). So just what is the depth of water in the M5 Culvert? Has anyone done any checks? Was it dredged during the restoration project? Any other explanations/theories?

For anyone interested, the website "Droitwich Canals Restoration in Pictures" is now at http://www.leepd60.net63.net I have had to move it due to problems with the previous web host. Lots of pictures of the engineering work, mainly by the contractors, over the last 3-4 years to restore the Droitwich Canals. Cheers Peter Lee

Nice pictures, Tim. To follow on from Max Sinclair's reply, the Body Brook flows into the Junction Canal about 50m downstream from Lock 6. It falls into a stilling pool to slow down its flow before it connects to the canal, which from here to Lock 7 should really be called "the canalised Body Brook". Its level varies with rainfall quite considerably - my guess is that the local ground being mostly of Mercia Mudstone, which is relatively impermeable, means that rain runs down into the Brook rather than being partially absorbed in the soil. (Same applies to the River Salwarpe, which also responds quickly to rainfall events). I have noticed that the water level in the M5 Culvert does briefly rise a bit when Lock 6 is emptied - no more than a cm or two, though. I think this is because the wave of water is somewhat restricted by the size of the culvert, compared to the channel either side. Once the extra water has got through the culvert, there's plenty of volume in the pound between Lock 6 and 7 for the overall effect to be very small. (Besides which, excess water flows over the bywash weir into the pipeline down to the Barge Canal.) Similarly, with high rainfall - the pound level will be ultimately controlled by the spill weir into the River Salwarpe which is set 100mm (4 inches) above the normal level. However, there will be the same "bunching" effect at the M5 Culvert so the level here could go somewhat higher - perhaps 200 to 300mm or more. With regard to the Barge Lock, the original planning documents talk of putting crest boards on the river weir next to the lock to ensure that the river level is always higher than the canal. For some reason, this was never done, with the result that sometimes it is possible to open both sets of gates without using the paddles. Presumably, this will become less frequent as winter rainfall levels return. Anyway, if anyone wants to spend an hour or two of idle time, you can look at my pictures of the various stages of the later engineering works to restore the canals (from 2008 on) by Googling "Droitwich Canals Restoration Pictures".

I seem to have stirred up a HORNets' nest! Alan Fincher is quite right - the "tube" is dead straight and you can see right through it FROM THE EAST. However, when approaching from the west, the fact that Corbetts Bridge is offset means that you have to turn just before entering the tunnel. If you are driving a full length boat, like I was, you find that the bow of the boat is just about entering the tunnel while your back end is still coming round to line up. Hence, the steerer cannot see down the tunnel to see if it is clear. Hence, my suggestion for westward bound boats to sound their horns half way down the tunnel. This would give time for an eastward boat to stop and reverse back to allow the westward boat out. Alan also made the point about travelling slowly - I totally agree. But, given the lack of visibility as a boat turns into the tunnel, as some point two boats are bound to be at just the wrong position and may be unable to stop in time. The other problem is that you cannot go so slow that you have no steerage, given that the eastward boat needs to turn quite aggressively into the tunnel from under Corbetts Bridge. The answer is probably to slow almost to a halt under Corbetts Bridge, then put enough power on to turn the boat into the tunnel without picking up too much speed. "Smelly" reckons that a timed system would be better - 10 minutes one way then the other. This would require traffic lights (you can't rely on people reading their watches or setting them accurately). Admittedly, a set of lights on a timer would be cheaper than the full blown "press button" light system. However, I suspect that most of the cost of traffic lights lies in the manpower to install the kit - in particular the cable runs - and also the cost of getting the electricity company to connect it to the grid. So if you're going to put traffic lights in going for the full works would probably not be much more expensive that a simple timed system. Anyway, for cheapness, you can't beat a horn blast!

Me and my family completed the Droitwich Ring last week and I've been thinking a lot about it. Firstly, a big thank you to all who worked over the years to bring the Droitwich Canals back to life. It's a remarkable story of determination and patience that hopefully will inspire many other such projects in the future. One or two points that I remember. As we approached Linacre, the reeds really encroach on the navigable channel, so that for extended distances, only a single boat width is visibly clear. And no where to stop for a cuppa or to lift the weed hatch, except at locks... The M5 culvert itself is an accident waiting to happen, in my opinion. BW originally proposed a traffic light system but this was not installed due to a tight budget. The problem is there is no line of sight through the culvert - Corbetts Bridge, offset at about 10 degrees on the western end prevents a clear view. Sooner or later, two boats are going to hit head on a few feet into the western end of the culvert. And two lots of 15 tons hitting at a closing speed of 1 or 1.5mph is likely to lead to some damage, I think. For boats going west, they can see if the culvert is clear, all through, and have a straight entry into the culvert. For boats going eastwards, they have to do a tricky bit of turning under Corbetts Bridge to line up with the culvert. The steerer at the back has no idea if a boat is about to emerge from the culvert as he sets his boat up. I suggest that what is needed is for westward bound boats to use their horn when around half way down the culvert. This way, the sound should easily carry to a boat near the western portal, but not be loud enough to cause any annoyance to local residents (bearing in mind that the M5 motorway is roaring away a few yards above). I notice that a few boaters use their horn on entering the culvert - but horn use seems to be similar on boats to on our roads: it's "not British" to use the it - but surely here safety should take precedence? What do others think?

For info on how to operate the side paddles on the Hanbury flight - see my video at This includes video of the impressive sight when a side pond is being filled.