PaulG
-
Posts
2,426 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by PaulG
-
-
Sorry a senior it should have been included with my comment but somehow the last paragraph got deleted when sent the comment.
Very astute of you to find it. and 10/10 for a direct hit! But actually it is an acronym of - No ones dropped dead yet - and a figment of my imagination - he's a fictitious person and my opponent when I call for proposals to improve safety that fall on deaf ears.
In the CRT scenario, he would advocate absolutely no signs anywhere an accident hasn't happened - regardless of any risk assessment.
There is the argument that signs don't actually contribute much to safety.
For example, the lad that was killed when he tried to cycle over one of the footbridges over the staircase locks in Stourport, in spite of signs that advised cyclists not to attempt do so.
This resulted in scaffolding temporary handrails being installed PDQ at similar footbridges on the Staff & Worcs.
-
A close up of Pershore watergate taken from a copy of the same postcard. My copy was posted on July 8th. 1908.
I don't think that the boat is Pisgah, it looks like a cabin-less narrowboat to me.
I agree.
That is definitely not Pisgah.
-
O.K. so I`ve read some of the topics regarding which lights to install in my sailaway
some of which are nearly 10 years old so what is the current view. Is it still
fluorescent better than Halogen better than LEDs or have LEDs improved sufficiently to be used because of power usage. For example I`ve currently allowed in total for 13 of
2.5w LEDs in the area covering galley, dinette and saloon, a length in total of slightly under 8 mtrs. Advice please.
I've swapped out all my fluorescents for LED.
I would have though that the number of light you have specified are more than adequate.
I have eight downlighters covering a similar area.
-
We knew two successive owners of Pisgah here in France - the first was Tony Paris who I believe was the person who bought it out of trade. I've not seen it for several years now. It is still on the list of DBA .member's barges though.
Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to enlarge the photo to see any detail - I found it on wikimaps too, but couldn't enlarge that copy either.
Hi Tam - I uploaded that photo to Wikimapia a long time ago.
Unfortunately I can't seem to find the original now.
I may have it on a backup I made of an old computer before I binned it - I'll take a look when I have a chance.
Edited to say that I found a Frith photo with slightly better detail. You might be able to get a bigger copy from them:
The title says it is the lock, but is actually the watergate. I think the gate itself is open and you can see the rymers to the right.
http://www.francisfrith.com/uk/pershore/pershore-the-lock-c1960_p45042
-
1
-
-
Flash locks, where does one start? what follows is somewhat general and simplified
First off, they only really worked with quite light traffic flows: there'd be a couple of days typically between flashes taking place, dependent upon flow sometimes it might be weeks. In particular navigation above them was impeded until the water made up again.
There were two different modus operandi - normally open and normally closed. The Thames one's were normally closed, retaining a water level: this is typical of a situation where the flash locks were related to mills. Fenland flash locks were normally open - level until you needed to make the river upstream navigable.
The typical model on the Thames seems to have been to have needles, rhymers or whatever they were called locally, very much like the rest of the weir these could be removed, but for the flash lock bit the beam they rested on could also be swung sideways out of the way: that's why this bit was navigable - descending barge masters didn't need to risk decapitation.
Elsewhere, flash locks had gates with lost of paddles in them - Pershore Water Gate on the Warwickshire Avon was this format and survived in use into the 1950's: A barge, "Pisgah" had to get through it on route to mills at Evesham, and pictures exist of it being winched up against the flow. Pisgah was about 70 feet by 13 I think.
I don't know the actual head retained by individual flash locks, certainly not on the Thames - they weren't really suited to anything more than a couple of feet though. Pershore Watergate was about 2 foot 6 inches, Cropthorne Appear to have been the same and the half locks on the Somerset Rivers were a foot or two. The idea of a ten foot fall through one doesn't bear thinking about, and the level would take way too long to make up. On the River Lugg there were two flash locks close together downstream of Leominster, probably because of the steep gradient two weirs were close together, and one might imagine that these two flash locks would have worked almost like a pound lock.
Edited to add
This is a fairly well known drawing of a Thames Flash Lock: the keeper has a paddle in his hand, and the beam he is on would move out of the way for a larger vessel
This is Cropthorne on the Avon, which was removed in the 1950's (I think Pershore lasted until 1962) - the navigation bit is the large gate on the right of the picture.
This is Pershore water gate, with a barge that is likely to be "Pisgah" just entering.
You can still see a few remnants of brickwork on the site today.
I remember "Pisgah" operating when I was younger. She was in trade between Avonmouth and Partridge's Mill at Pershore until it was destroyed in a fire around 1974.
Last thing I heard was that "Pisgah" was operating as a pleasure craft somewhere in France.
-
I'm afraid I must disagree.
In undertaking a risk assessment there are two main criteria to consider.
1) Liklehood of an accident occurring
2) Severity of possible accident (bruises, broken finger, lost limb, death etc)
Followed by 'what can be done to reduce No1, No2 or both No1 & no2.
As a (poor) example - the risk of an accident in an Boeing 747 with 1 passenger is the same as the risk of an accident to a Boeing 747 with 300 people. (the effect is very different - 300 dead instead of 1 dead, but the incidence of accidents, or the severity of the accident is unchanged)
If you suggest that the more people that are 'around' (rural Vs urban lock location) means the risk is increased - then all aircraft would be limited in number they can carry.
I disagree as well!
In order for an accident of the specific type that I referred to, (i.e. lock jumping) people must be present.
These people must also be prepared to take part in behaviour that is clearly dangerous, and could result in injury or even death. Most people do not take part in this kind of behaviour for obvious reasons.
Certain groups of society that are more likely to take part in this dangerous behaviour; for example,children, adults under the influence of drink or drugs, young people trying to look "macho", or to impress the opposite sex.
So it is clear that the risk is higher at locks that are located in areas where these types of people might congregate.
Isolated rural locks are less likely to be places where the dangerous behaviour takes place as very few people live nearby; therefore the risk is lower.
And you are right - your aeroplane analogy is bad.
-
I am sorry that you found "But if you look at a map you will find that Lock 62 (alleged culprit) is relatively away from housing and more rural." patronising. I was responding to #99 in which it was suggested that rural locks were less risk. I was pointing out that the lock in question is relatively rural.
I did not make that suggestion at all.
For the sake of accuracy, in post #99 I said "Some rural locks are in the middle of nowhere, and are therefore low risk."
Different thing altogether.
-
Well I did what I should have done in the first place and went back to the first post.
Narrowboat World got it wrong. EHRC is not "Investigating" CRT. The NBTA media release states EHRC are "reviewing" whether Canal & River Trust (CRT) is fully meeting its Equality Act obligations.
Having gone to the EHRC website and used the site search function I can't find any reference on it to CRT let alone a "review" of CRT.
I suspect the EHRC has responded to a complaint from the NBTA by requesting CRT provide a response to the NBTA allegations.
CRT will likely respond describing all the policies, procedures and actions taken to provide reasonable assistance to people with disabilities who want to access the inland waterways. They will also describe the actions they are taking to assist non compliant boat license holders to achieve compliance.
EHRC will then paraphrase that into a reply to the NBTA. End of story.
Surely not....
-
I suppose it depends on what you class as serious. Being rushed to hospital in an ambulance is fairly serious I'd say. Also, put yourself in the position of a trip boat steerer, passing through the bar many times a day and having people people leaping across the canal in front of your bow.
CRT also have to consider what the fall-out would be if someone was drowned in the bar under the hull of a trip boat. Yes, a drowning is equally tragic in all cases but the public/press outcry would be far louder. I'm not justifying it, just stating the pressure CRT are under here.
Dave - I really think that we are at cross purposes here.
I have never said that the notices at WB are unnecessary or unjustified. If I gave that impression then it was unintentional.
They were evidently placed for perfectly valid reasons..
What I said was there is apparent inconsistency in the approach of CRT in that signage was installed at one site, while it was not at another where similar activities were carried out with fatal results.
-
Nick, I don't believe that Tony suggested that you did get everything from Google, rather the opposite. I suggest you read his post again
I was thinking of posting something about caps (the fitting and wearing thereof).
But in the interests of peace and harmony, I won't.
-
I wasn't trying to compare the risk in the direct sense merely demonstrate the logic as to why a mitigation may be applied to a place that has no history of a particular outcome but not to one that has. For an organisation like CRT reputational risk will weigh heavily into the calculation of risk profile. That's another factor that may have influenced Worcester Bar. Without knowing the logic or even if has been applied equally to both locations I couldn't comment on whether CRT have got it right so I am not disagreeing with you.
The argument that 'it hasn't happened before' isn't a good one in making risk decisions. Past evidence certainly features in the calculation but the premise that because something hasn't yet happened means that it won't or is unlikely to in future is flawed logic.
JP
I think we actually agree about most things...
However, I was not using the "it hasn't happened before, so it won't" argument.
But of course In any risk assessment you must assess the level of risk.
The fact that many people are known to have jumped the canal at WB without serious injury is indicative of low risk. This is not the same as no risk.
An event that results in death or serious injury is indicative of the highest level of risk.
I didn't intend to get into a discussion of the H&S aspects of the two sites. I accept that there may be perfectly valid reasons for different approaches.
However, as an outsider that is not privy to CRT's assessments of the two sites,it does look inconsistent to me.
-
<snip>
FWIW the way this and other topics have gone I suggested to Dan that it might be an idea to appoint some technical adjudicators so there was a way of non-specialist moderators getting god advice as to when a thread should be locked or members warned. <snip>
If only, Tony, if only...
(edited to say that, for the avoidance of doubt, this post is intended to be read as "tongue-in-cheek".)
-
Paul
Just for info,
In fact I didn't run mine pressurised either The neck on the exhaust manifold / header tank / heat exchanger (call it what you will) had a blanking cap on it and a pipe ran up to an expansion tank which wasn't pressured either. What happened was that as the coolant expanded it reached the neck /gasket and leaked out. Sorry if that all seems a little garbled but what I'm saying is that if you have a pressure cap neck that's sealed with a gasket and you have an untraceable water loss suspect the gasket.
Frank
Thanks Frank. It sounds as if we have similar systems, the only difference being that mine has a pressure cap rather than a blanking cap.
To be honest, I've not put much effort into working out where the coolant goes. Topping it up is part of my start up routine in the morning, along with checking the oil level and so on.
I might try running it unpressurised as you do.
-
The sign and railing at the Worcester Bar are there for safety reasons but also to protect the safety and security of moorers on the basin. The commercial boats were being robbed and vandalised on a very regular basis to the point where the operators were paying a security guard to patrol the basin every night. The basin is supposed to be locked up at night. There are now fewer bar jumpers. I do have issues with the way the railings were installed though.
When I moored at GSB, watching the jumpers was a popular spectator sport among moorers, a bit like watching gladiators in the roman circus. Many times the person failed to make the jump and ended up wet and cold. Sometimes they went in directly in front of an oncoming boat (it's more exciting to jump across in front of a boat), sometimes they half fell in and got bruised and scraped on the copings on the far bank. Sometimes they smashed hard against the opposite bank, breaking ankles, legs, ribs. Ambulances were called on a few occasions.
Nobody has drowned in recent times, but the amount of people jumping across had been increasing. Do we only take a reactive approach to H&S? Isn't prevention a good idea too?
Thanks Dave - I hadn't considered the security aspect. And to answer your question, of course it should be both.
However, IMHO there is a big difference between a perceived risk and one that has been proven to exist.
I still think that the two examples show an inconsistent approach.
At one site, many people are known to have jumped the lock. No serious injuries resulted.
At the other site, the number of "jumpers" is unknown, but two people have lost their lives.
One site gets a sign, the other one doesn't.
Whether signage actually does anything to improve H&S, of course, is another issue..
-
As I touched on in an earlier post, exactly how dangerous is swimming in an full lock? (Genuine enquiry). If the kids are harried from pillar to post and not allowed to do anything involving exercise or fun, they will run out of things to do and places to go. Alternatives include staying at home and dying at an early age of obesity, and hanging around the town centre mixing with undesirables. I'd never consider swimming in a canal, and neither would my children, but that's not the lifestyle of these children. You could say they have applied their own crude risk assessment, as they have been swimming here regularly with no problems until a non-swimmer decided to jump in.
If you can swim, probably not very dangerous at all.
There's even a convenient ladder to help you to climb out.
When I was a kid we spent a lot of time swimming in the local river, regardless of parents telling us not to do it. Somehow we often "accidently" fell in, usually on hot days in the summer.
In Tewkesbury town, the local kids used to swim right in front of the sluice at Abbey Mill. It was locally known as the "32" AFAIR because the water was supposed to be 32 ft deep. Kids used to dive off the bridge and see how deep they could get. Assess the risk on that one!
-
I could google answers to a lot of posts but i would have no experence to back it up or filter the errors,i didnt put my post very well so i will shut up
Why shut up?
You raised an interesting point...
-
But other suppliers also supply fully regulated LED lights that are good between 10V and 30V, but at half the price charged by Bedazzled, (or less).
I find not a jot of evidence that these much cheaper alternatives are in any way inferior to the Bedazzled ones, and as I said I have also used over some years with no failures.
Of course it is up to you if you pay double or more to buy from a canal based supplier, but please don't assume that the products sold far cheaper are in any way less reliable.
As I have indicated, if I were to hand you a Bedazzled supplied one and one from (say) UltraLEDS, you would not be able to tell me which is which, as both have the same components, in the same positions, equally well soldered to a PCB of similar quality. I actually find it hard to believe they are not all from the same manufacturer.
I agree.
However, if you are non-technical and don't want to take a risk in buying a product that you don't really understand, then vendors like Bedazzled have a place in the market. As far as I can see they sell a well-specified and reliable product, albeit at a high price.
Personally I would not buy from them as you can buy the same or equivalent product at a much lower price elsewhere.
-
In response to Jess-- and PaulG it is about differing risk profiles.
The risk at all locks - or narrows - is not the same. The canal factors and the nature of the danger may be the same or similar but the environmental factors are different and that is why a different approach is required.
In the case of the Rochdale Canal incident it is likely there was easy access to the canalside from adjacent housing and evidence of past misuse of the canal. There must be other locations on that same canal where there is no direct access to the canal side from adjacent land, there are no immediately adjacent houses and there is no evidence of misuse. The asset owner is required to manage the risk associated with the same event - drowning - but the mitigation measures would be focused on the former and may not be necessary at the latter even if they are deemed to be so at the former.
The Smethwick and Worcester Bar scenario is the same. Taking into acccount all the factors the risk would likely to be calculated as far greater at Worcester Bar than Smethwick. If the circumstances of Smethwick can be demonstrated to be an isolated incident of misuse at that location that just happened by chance to have been there and not somewhere else then it doesn't follow that measures are required at Smethwick. However the evidence is that people can drown while jumping locks so the logical conclusion is to provide mitigation at places where there is evidence that people misuse the canal in this way; of which Worcester Bar was likely top of the list.
Risk is about managing probability and consequence but that doesn't translate easily into actual events since those are binary - they either happen or they don't - and predicting where they will actually happen isn't possible at a site by site level. The degree of consequence also involves a hefty dose of luck and conspiracy of factors. Therefore it has to be approached on a system wide basis and with the realisation that nature will sometimes be a complete bitch but that is never an excuse for not doing something within your means.
JP
Of course it depends on individual assessment.
However, I find it hard to believe that the risk at Worcester Bar (where the lock is permanently full of water, in a busy area straight outside a cafe and in an area that is covered by CCTV and AFAIR no-one has drowned in living memory) is greater than Smethwick (where local yoof are known to gather and there have been two recent fatalities as a result of aforesaid yoof trying to jump an empty lock).
-
I am not sure how you get to a point at which some locks are considered a greater risk than others. Physically they are all much the same (and the press reports are unclear about how far the actual lock was contributory or could it have happened anywhere along the canal?). I am concerned that you are tacitly concurring with the assumption that some locks are a higher risk (in a material way) than others just because of the surrounding social area. There is much danger in going down that route and my risk assessment is that you avoid it. <big snip>
With the greatest of respect, that is tosh.
Some rural locks are in the middle of nowhere, and are therefore low risk.
Others are in built-up areas where there is a high proportion of young people who are bad at recognising and mitigating dangers, and also adults who's judgement might well be impaired by the consumption of drink or drugs.
If CRT applied your logic, all locks would be fitted with anti-vandal devices.
-
When i look at treads i can sort of guess who speaks from experience and those that answer from google with all the technical facts and figures that few could ever remember or now about .but that info can be wrong or misguided which is easily found out when you are researching a sibject.just saying .
Damn.
Looks like I've been rumbled.
But seriously, I don't see that there's anything wrong with doing a bit of Googling on behalf of someone else (who may be stuck in the middle of nowhere with a slow connection and a small screen).
-
Not very clear from the original story, but a lock is mentioned several times without saying if the swimming was in the lock or just near it.
If the accident was on an ordinary stretch of canal, then the suggestion of a sign is ludicrous. With spacing of 30 feet between signs, I estimate that in the UK you'd need 153,000 signs just for the towpath side of the canal. Not to mention UK Rivers. Fair enough if they were useful, but to tell people that water is dangerous if you can't swim? Obviously you could concentrate on built up areas, but who would be the judge of that?
Like the lady in Gloucester who stated that the G&S was "dangerous and should be fenced off" because her teenage son fell in the drink trying to retrieve a football....
-
Not only that but those LM2940s are only 1A regulators so wouldn't be able to drive many lamps. Far simpler in my opinion to get 30V LEDs.
Absolutely.
I bought "cheapies" off Fleabay a couple of years ago and they are fine. You just need to make sure that the seller at least quotes an input voltage range that will cope with a battery charger or alternator output voltage.
Avoid ones that just say "12v".
-
In this case CRT appear to be in an awkward position.
from the sound of it this lock is no more or less dangerous than the majority of locks on the system, so why does this lock need signage that other locks do not?
If CRT add a new warning sign here (and nowhere else) then in the event of a similar accident elsewhere it could be argued that CRT were partially to blame for not having installed similar signage (possibly leaving themselves wide open to legal claims)
the logical assumption would be that ALL locks (of a similar design) will also need warning signs
The idea that this lock requires a warning sign does not necessarily mean that all locks need a warning sign.
It may depend on location. For example, the disused stop lock at the Worcester Bar has a notice forbidding people to attempt to jump the lock.
But even these existing warning signs are inconsistently placed.
Strangely, the last time I went through Smethwick locks, (where two people drowned as a result of attempting to jump the lock) there were no warning signs.
-
Try fitting a voltage regulator in the supply line - see http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12-VOLT-REGULATOR-FOR-LED-SPOTLIGHTS-UP-TO-10-WATTS-TOTAL-POWER-12V-MR16-/282236913118?hash=item41b6a185de:g:WMgAAOxy7nNTUTus
IMHO that is the wrong kind of 12v regulator. It just dumps excess energy as heat, which is really wasteful of your battery power.
A better device would be one similar to the one below.
I use it as an example only - it does have some drawbacks, e.g. you need to set the output voltage to 12V, but it does demonstrate the principle of a device with a capability for a wide range of input voltage combined with decent efficiency.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/191619681671?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
Flash Locks - how did they work in practice?
in History & Heritage
Posted
This particular flash lock was only needed to give sufficient water for craft to enter Pershore lock, about a mile upstream.
Pershore lock was made deeper so that the flash lock was no longer necessary.