Captain Pegg

It isn't just CRT's view. Braunston to Napton was built by the OCC as part of the through line from Hawkesbury to Oxford and remained in their ownership until nationalised. The distinction between north and south Oxford is of course an artificial construct in any case so there isn't a true boundary. I think technically the Grand Union doesn't even quite get as far as Braunston turn. JP

You might need a big phone if you happen to be at the bottom of a River Severn lock at the time. That's the only place where I have been challenged about not displaying a licence. As a result I figured it's best to display a valid licence. JP

Yes, one lock full does transit one boat in each direction. I was simply referring to the amount of water that passes through the flight irrespective of pumping. Maybe CRT want to save money on pumping or perhaps the system hasn't been coping. JP

Think of it as a system and the objective is to reduce the volume of water from that used by a fixed number of boats per day when they are allowed to randomly operate the parallel locks in unrestricted fashion. The aim should be something that tends toward one lock full of water per boat which is the theoretical minimum volume that can be achieved. One lock full per boat will be achieved when there is always a boat waiting to go in the opposite direction to the one that has just used the lock. Hence minimum water is used if lock usage can be regulated to make this happen. Logically, providing we accept there is a level of inefficiency of water usage when allowing boaters to operate the locks randomly a water saving will be achieved when a sufficient proportion of boats are regulated to ensure that one follows another in use opposing direction. While this can be achieved with either one or both of the parallel locks in operation the advantage of using only one of the locks is that by slowing down the rate boats passing through at times of peak usage the overall length of time during the day that there will be a boat available to make an opposing move will be extended, thus making it more likely that water will be saved. A further advantage of having only one set of locks available is that once a queue has built up there isn't actually any need to supervise the operation with lock keepers since the taking in turns up and down will happen naturally. This means the system is still being regulated after they have gone home until such time as there are insufficient boats to keep taking it in turns. The impact of this is - or could be - controlled by restricting the overall hours the locks are open (I'm not sure if this is happening or not). So it really all comes down to how many boats use the locks outside of the times that there are boats queued waiting for passage and whether the result of those boats using only one set of locks is more inefficient than that of a whole days random usage of the parallel locks. What is certain in my mind is that it is possible to save water by regulating the use of the locks and that using only one of the locks is part of that equation. What no one knows is whether it actually does save water, that would require measurement to confirm the reality. My gut feeling is that the system in operation probably does save water albeit perhaps not that much. Similarly I suspect the water saved by having parallel locks and therefore less turning of locks also isn't that significant. Ultimately it's the same amount of work that needs to be done to get the same number of boats up and down the same rise/fall. What puzzles me most is that with a short flight with very long pounds above and below, a probable net inflow to the pound above, and the availability of back pumps that there is really much of an issue at all. So while I expect CRT have the ability to both model and measure the impact of different methods of operation at Hillmorton I think it's entirely possible the operations and engineering teams haven't discussed the issue and the restrictions are possibly an over zealous middle management decision to appear to be doing something. JP

I don't agree with your view that closing one set of locks absolutely does not save water. Your comment implies that this somehow makes me less able to understand the issue than you. It isn't an insult but neither is it polite or a good debating tactic. On the subject of maintenance I doubt water leakage is a significant factor at Hillmorton. They are the only significant locks between the bottom of Napton and top of Atherstone and apparently have back pumps. An organisation like CRT will always have a significant workbank of repairs and probably have fairly rudimentary methods for prioritisation of workload. The value of their assets and the penalties for asset failure probably don't justify the major expenditure required to move to state of the art tools and techniques. We may not like the result of this - which is a regime of short term repairs rather than a preventive regime - but we as boaters may be even less inclined to pay to change it. Unfortunately conditions that vary from the norm expose the weaknesses in the regime. JP

It can take a while to get through there at any time. Doesn't take many boats to cause a jam. Vulpes left home last Friday and may not be back until Xmas. It's currently in a safe haven as I am on my hols but in a strange foreign land rather than on the boat. JP

I was wondering what a baby hire-boater was too.

This is all supposition. Whether it saves water or not depends upon the pattern of boat movements. Either of the arguments presented are logical. The only way to find out for certain would be by measurement. That is something CRT are probably able to do. JP

Those gas holders were the view from my bedroom window in the 1980s. Nice. JP

Was that taken after the breach near to the basin about 40 years or so ago? JP

I totally understand not wanting assistance that disrupts an established method when single handing. It invariably results in it taking longer or mistakes being made. For me I either want no direct assistance or for the volockies to work the flight while I remain on the boat. At Hanbury I prefer to find volockies on duty than not but generally I am pretty ambivalent about them because the scheme is so random. Having a volockie station at the thirteenth lock up Tardebigge (exactly the half way lock of 35 between the winding holes at Stoke Prior and Tardebigge New Wharf) seems pointless. It's hard not to give a very literal answer when you get there and are asked "do you need assistance?" However are there really folk here who would prefer not to have someone set ahead or close up behind? Has anyone ever tried asking volockies to do just that? Members of the public are usually very happy to help in this way. I had a gentlemen who must have been about 80 setting ahead for me last week. He was even stepping over the bottom gates. I suspect he wasn't just an average gongoozler. JP

It isn't training, and nor is what they get at the hire base. It's a demonstration of how a lock works. That same argument can be used against the entire volockie scheme. It's also unofficially what happens on occasion at some places anyway. I am suggesting it could be deliberately arranged for attendance at key locks when a new hirer sets off and there isn't a suitable lock available close to the hire base. If the volockie scheme can't be relied upon to demonstrate how a lock works safely then it's a useless scheme. JP

There seems to be a potential opportunity to use the volunteer lock keeper scheme for a genuine purpose. The way volockies operate at present is too random to be classed as a genuine service to boaters. It should be possible to specifically arrange tuition for new hirers at specific locks by collaboration between CRT and hire bases. JP

I was just pointing out that the existence of a 24 hour charge and a fine for overnight parking aren't mutually exclusive. The premise of the OP is that they are. Other than that I am spectacularly not bothered about the implications. JP

Sorry Doc, You see I've been been out boating and I haven't had any run-ins with volockies, encountered any obstructive wide beams or clueless hirers, or struggled with abused and ill-maintained infrastructure. Hence I have drawn the conclusion I live in a parallel universe to CWDF. And in any case I don't think Jerra's post did convey the same meaning. Nonetheless it is a poorly worded sign and unless it's well enforced it's probably a bit moot too. JP

I don't think it does mean that. I suspect the intention is that the hourly charges apply on the same calendar day in which case the terminology "up to 24 hours" is entirely appropriate. Once the stay covers more than one calendar day it is deemed to be "overnight". That fits with the way the law recognises days by calendar date rather than by number of hours and doesn't recognise part days. JP

Yes, as of 2013.

Households where one parent earns above £60k don't get child benefit. Although they can still claim the benefit there is a 100% tax charge applied to the highest earning partner. The tax charge commences at £50k and becomes 100% at £60k. it leads to a slightly strange situation where a household can earn £99k and still get child benefit whereas one earning £60k might not. JP

That makes sense and it would require an off-vertical quoin. It also sounds like an intrinsic feature of the design rather than something achieved by a mysterious art known only to bygone waterways operatives. JP

The angle of the quoin was referenced in a recent thread. I doubt that a gate could ever be truly balanced since that could only be done with no wind and no flow while levels are on weir. Those conditions don't generally exist in real life usage of locks. The aim is presumably to make a gate naturally swing to either open or closed from broadly either side of half way. I know they don't all do this but did they ever? JP ETA - thanks for a bit of insight. It seems to be a stick used to beat CRT but enquiries never seem to shed much light on the facts.

Do go on Alan. Do you have more examples of bolts installed the wrong way round other than Alan Fincher's Hillmorton incident, or more incidents of pawls being installed the wrong way round other than the one that featured in a recent thread? I don't think you are that much older than me but I don't remember the "good old days" to which you refer. My early memories are of canals being a challenge, evidence from the hardy few who fought for the future of canals in the 1960s suggests it was worse then. The system may have declined in the most recent years but is that surprising given the economic status of the country in recent times. Is it right that we should take issue with that? As for contractors, they built the canals and pretty much every engineering marvel that you know. They even physically United the States of America with an immigrant Chinese workforce over a hundred years ago. There's nothing much new in the world. Contracting work out isn't a problem in itself, if there is an issue it's likely to be with the clienting capabilities of CRT. And back to balancing gates. If you don't know what the skill is how can you say it's been lost? I am not even sure there is such a skill and that the balance of gates is inherent in the design. CRT do of course still design and construct their own gates at Bradley. It's also worth noting that if sustainability and reliability were the key objectives CRT would be allowed to build them in steel. We can't have it both ways. JP

Reference to the art of balancing gates is often made on the forum - sometimes by folk who know their onions - but what exactly does this art of balancing gates that has apparently been lost entail? JP

Put like that it is fair to ask if that view is shared by the wider forum. I think the way the original post was pitched and the bit about "persistent abusers squatting" and the sub-plot that sparked off has turned a lot of people away from entering into any discussion on this thread. I think a lot of the evidence you state could have been applied at almost any time over the history of canals since at least nationalisation and possibly since the decline in toll income much much earlier than that. To a degree these things come in cycles and have to be offset against expansions of the system over the past 30 years and more. CRT is a vehicle specifically created to reduce direct state funding of inland waterways and push the source of funding toward the charitable sector. Therefore we should perhaps not be surprised by some of CRTs policies and if there is blame to be apportioned perhaps we should go a step beyond CRT. I don't see things improving in the near future - the country has had much bigger challenges than the state of its canals for the last decade or so and that isn't about to change - but I really don't see a threat to the future of the waterways that form the core of the system and which are well used. Some lesser used examples would benefit from us all making more use of them. To that end I think it's very foolish to take up against folk who wish to use the waterways no matter how different their approach to boating maybe to our own. The only requirement is that they should boat within the law (and not anyone else's view of what is right or wrong). JP

It seems more logical to me that blistering occurs because the paint is impermeable, otherwise wouldn't whatever causes the blister be able to escape from under the paint? The benefit of rust treatment is to provide a uniform surface to which paint will adhere. It shouldn't affect permeability of the finished paint system but it should help it to stay stuck to the boat. Rusted metal will have small voids within it because of the way rust forms and these will remain under the applied paint and potentially cause the system to fail. Best to treat rust by mechanical removal rather than by chemically converting if possible. Reality is that both are often necessary. Let's see if Dr Duck concurs with either of our premises. JP

If it was many years ago you did the Warwickshire Ring it could be worth doing it again. It is an excellent ring with great variety. Did you go via North Stratford or via Knowle locks last time? Perhaps do the other route this time. You could also go the other way round the ring to make it a bit different. Market Harborough would be pretty leisurely. I got to the bottom of Foxton (i.e. down the locks and back again) on a midweek hire from Stockton top. That's further than you would do in a week. However it might make sense to do Market Harborough first with the aim of combining it with a trip to Stoke Bruerne. You'll be close to base and easily able to manage your time as you see fit knowing you will be able to get back to base. If you do the Leicester Arm do take the short trip to Welford in one direction as well. JP