Tony Dunkley

Your words, not mine . . . but stick at it . . . I'm sure that one day you'll manage to respond to a Post without misquoting or distorting what's been said.

They haven't got an official policy . . . they make up rules and pseudo legal requirements as they go along and as they need them.

Don't you think C&RT should be doing that anyway . . . it's called getting priorities in order.

They portray it as a huge problem, but in reality I think they blow it up out of all proportion as one way to divert attention from their miserable failure as a Navigation Authority.

Is that a factual statement or a plausible sounding supposition?

Something that would help . . . convince Parry to spend the £2.7 million p.a. 'Enforcement' budget on maintenance and repairs instead.

Check for leakage through the gates behind you while still in the lock, just before it levels off, whether going up or down. If there is no significant leakage then closing the gate(s) behind you at the other end is completely pointless. Leaving gates open gives the next boat along a 50/50 chance of finding the lock ready for them. Closing gates for no good reason only ensures that nobody ever has a lock ready.

Well, you should check . . . . it's a lot quicker and easier than stopping your boat clear of the lock and then closing the gate(s) you've come out of, just to see if they'll stay shut.

I think you'll find that without exception the stern end of every boat will be the overall length of the boat away from the forward edge of the stem . . which should be right up to the bottom gates before drawing up. PS. You may find that a useful bit of information to have at hand when filling in Boat Safety Certificates.

So if there isn't any leakage at the other end of the lock, what is the purpose of closing gates behind you?

Have you been pleasure boating for long enough to have ever seen any of what I mean by "professional boatmen" ? . . . . the ones that finished working narrowboats and vanished from the Cut a long time ago. Just to correct your assumption about going to "the other side of the bottom gate" . . . nobody did that, it wasn't necessary, you just glanced over the gate to see if there was any noticeable turbulence in the lock tail, such as would be caused by a fouled or damaged cill, or a paddle not right down. Of course you would already have a good idea of whether or not there was any serious leakage, by the amount of time the lock was taking to fill and level off.

Earlier on you said this about cill notices -- " I think they are in the right place, on the top balance beams."

I asked about checking when working and just before leaving a lock . . . not "before locking". Checking that the boat is clear of the cill when going downhill is the last thing to do before drawing the bottom paddles, and the person best placed to do that is whoever happens to be at the bottom gates to draw up.

What's the point of re-closing a gate that's swung open. If there was any significant leakage from the other end it wouldn't have done so. The fact that it has swung open again should be telling you that there was no point in closing it the first time.

You've identified there the circumstances when a narrowboat is probably most likely to come to grief in the Humber or lower Ouse and Trent. Grounding and then waiting for the next tide certainly isn't a problem, but the arrival of that next tide may turn into a potentially very dangerous situation, depending on whether you've sat down on mud or sand and if the tides at that time are big Springs which start running up at a very brisk pace right from the first of the flood. Narrowboats, like any flat bottomed vessel, can 'suck in' to soft mud when drying out and then fail to lift before getting swamped on the on the next tide. A few hard bursts of ahead and astern are likely to do the trick, but, depending on such as freeboard and hull openings, there can be no guarantees. If you've grounded on a big tide and get swung beam on to the flood as you float free, particularly on the outer end of a sandbank, a vessel with so narrow a beam and probably very small GM could be rolled over by the force of the incoming tide. I would suggest limiting passage by narrowboat in these waters to the times around the smallest Neaps, when the first of the flood is nothing more than a gentle and slow rise in water level, which will neither try to roll you over nor swamp you before you can get free if you're in soft mud. Of course, both these potential dangers can be much reduced, but never completely eliminated, if you're with someone who has sufficiently good, and very importantly up to date local knowledge to avoid grounding in the first place. The fact that there has not yet been, as far as I am aware, any really serious mishap with a narrowboat in this area, doesn't mean that they are suitable or safe vessels for use in these waters. You can get away with walking across the M1, but it doesn't make it a safe or advisable thing to do.

Yes, precisely that. I don't see that any blame whatsoever can be attached to the Maersk. The HL shouldn't have attempted the overtake at that time or place.

While the HL had not yet drawn abeam of the Maersk, any interaction between the two would have tended to draw the HL sideways to the Maersk's starboard quarter, at the same time causing the Maersk to start a swing to port, but I don't see any of that happening in the video clip. I think the HL intentionally moved out away from the Maersk to avoid any interaction, but hadn't given enough consideration to, and was caught out by, the shallows to starboard.

That didn't really look like interaction between the two ships, but more like the HL opening the gap to the Maersk and trying to avoid any such interaction, but in doing so, getting too close to what looks to be quite shallow water to starboard. Just as the HL starts the shear to port there appears to be a breaking wave caused by the draw from the HL, growing out from the starboard shore. From this point on the collision is inevitable, once a vessel of this size, or indeed even a much smaller ship, has smelled the ground and begun such a violent shear in relatively shallow and confined waters, there is really nothing that can be done. The Maersk would appear blameless and the collision caused by the HL's serious misjudgement in attempting to overtake in a too narrow and shallow channel.

What I meant is either top or bottom gates/paddles leaking . . . I did specify "the gates behind you" . . . whether that's top or bottom gates depends on which way you're going. tony dunkley, on 29 Sept 2014 - 1:51 PM, said: In the course of this thread it's occurred to me to ask if it is the normal practice among pleasure boaters to check the gates behind you for leakage whilst working, and especially just before leaving a lock. It was something always done without fail at every lock by professional boatmen, almost subconciously, it only needs a glance, as part of the process of working a lock, partly to reduce the chance of pounds dropping behind you and also to make sure that none of the paddles were partially fouled and hadn't gone right down, slowing the lock from filling or emptying as fast as possible.

I don't see why not.

Would anyone like to answer this?

It should not be a question of 'drawing ground paddles to find out', because if you're entering or leaving the top end of a lock with the pound significantly down then the paddles should be up any way. In Post 116 I said " loaded boats get in and out of locks noticeably quicker with the top paddles up, allowing the displaced water better passage to run back out of or in to the lock chamber." . . . Believe it . . . it's not an opinion or a theory, it's a fact . . . something I was taught, a frightening number of years ago, and then proved in use to be a very handy and useful thing to know. Loaded boats had something around a foot, or more, draught than most pleasure boats, so a loaded boat entering or leaving a lock with a full pound had roughly the same sort clearance over the cill as a pleasure boat with quite a low pound. Suggestions on here that a boat's hull, if over the cill, will stop water running through ground paddle holes is just complete nonsense.

Not so, . . . loaded boats get in and out of locks noticeably quicker with the top paddles up, allowing the displaced water better passage to run back out of or in to the lock chamber.

That's very true . . . One of my old skippers always reckoned that the main difference between amateur balls ups and those made by professionals, was that the professional ones were usually more spectacular.

They wouldn't have started working the lock because they couldn't get into it. You can see how far in it was in the photo.