Hillmorton Locks - I should know this... :(

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

It is this sort of behaviour on canals that results in empty pounds in the morning,  causing problems and delays for others whilst the perpetrator sails blissfully on oblivious and uncaring of the disruption left behind. Very selfish. And contrary to CRT’s (and BW before them) boater’s guide and good and common practice for almost everyone else (certainly anyone not extremely lazy and selfish).

Speaking from the position of one who pretty much always leaves locks with both gates shut and paddles down, I can at least see some logic with not closing the gates on paired locks such as Hilmorton since there is a 50% likelihood of helping the next boater out by leaving the gates open. You aren't inconveniencing anyone since if they need to fill a lock they can always use the other lock with it's gates closed. I'm not totally sold on the leakage idea since are you saying that only the top gates ever leak? If the lock leaks there is a good chance that the water is going to flow through both top and bottom gates anyway from my experience. I would agree that on unpaired locks it can be irritating to be following someone who doesn't close down the locks when they've finished, since that then means that we have to and, as you say, is just laziness, but on paired locks? for me the jury is still out.

[ditchcrawler]

But do the bottom gates leak faster or slower than the top ones. if the lock is normally half full then they must be leaking at a similar rate, so what difference would one being left open make.

 

[RLWP]

3 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

No that's no a leak - that's multiple ones...................

Sign of the times innit

 

Well, Friday anyway

 

Edited March 2, 2019 by RLWP

[GUMPY]

4 minutes ago, RLWP said:

Sign of the times innit

 

Well, Friday anyway

 

https://youtu.be/8EdxM72EZ94

[RLWP]

14 minutes ago, Loddon said:

https://youtu.be/8EdxM72EZ94

 

[nicknorman]

44 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Speaking from the position of one who pretty much always leaves locks with both gates shut and paddles down, I can at least see some logic with not closing the gates on paired locks such as Hilmorton since there is a 50% likelihood of helping the next boater out by leaving the gates open. You aren't inconveniencing anyone since if they need to fill a lock they can always use the other lock with it's gates closed. I'm not totally sold on the leakage idea since are you saying that only the top gates ever leak? If the lock leaks there is a good chance that the water is going to flow through both top and bottom gates anyway from my experience. I would agree that on unpaired locks it can be irritating to be following someone who doesn't close down the locks when they've finished, since that then means that we have to and, as you say, is just laziness, but on paired locks? for me the jury is still out.

There’s little doubt that overall, leaving gates open reduces total workload (for everyone). But that is not the issue, it is about water conservation. Yes Hillmorton is one of the busiest flights if not the busiest, but equally it suffers from low intermediate pounds and that is a consequence of, amongst other things, leaks. Someone will be the last boat up or down for the night, giving 8 hours or so of non-use for leaks to do their thing.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Just now, nicknorman said:

There’s little doubt that overall, leaving gates open reduces total workload (for everyone). But that is not the issue, it is about water conservation. Yes Hillmorton is one of the busiest flights if not the busiest, but equally it suffers from low intermediate pounds and that is a consequence of, amongst other things, leaks. Someone will be the last boat up or down for the night, giving 8 hours or so of non-use for leaks to do their thing.

So the water is only going to leak through the top gate and into the lock, and not out of the bottom gate then? How about if they put the bottom gates at the top and cured it!

[RLWP]

Just now, Wanderer Vagabond said:

So the water is only going to leak through the top gate and into the lock, and not out of the bottom gate then? How about if they put the bottom gates at the top and cured it!

That's silly. How would you reach the lock beam?

[nicknorman]

45 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

But do the bottom gates leak faster or slower than the top ones. if the lock is normally half full then they must be leaking at a similar rate, so what difference would one being left open make.

 

Depends. The leakage rate is roughly related to the difference in levels either side. So if both top and bottom gates leak equally, resulting in a 1/2 full lock after time, the consequence is still 1/2 the leakage rate compared to a full or empty lock with the corresponding gate open. Most of the time one gate (or end) leaks more than the other, resulting in locks inexplicably nearly full or nearly empty despite it being known that the lock was in the opposite state perhaps only 30 mins earlier. You simply can’t see all the leakage routes through a lock just by looking at the surface.

2 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

So the water is only going to leak through the top gate and into the lock, and not out of the bottom gate then? How about if they put the bottom gates at the top and cured it!

No, I have never said only the top gates leak. Not sure where you got that from.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

5 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Depends. The leakage rate is roughly related to the difference in levels either side. So if both top and bottom gates leak equally, resulting in a 1/2 full lock after time, the consequence is still 1/2 the leakage rate compared to a full or empty lock with the corresponding gate open. Most of the time one gate (or end) leaks more than the other, resulting in locks inexplicably nearly full or nearly empty despite it being known that the lock was in the opposite state perhaps only 30 mins earlier. You simply can’t see all the leakage routes through a lock just by looking at the surface.

No, I have never said only the top gates leak. Not sure where you got that from.

It was making the point that if the lock leaks, the lock leaks and it becomes a bit academic as to whether it is a lot or a little, it will still be taking water from the higher pound. With respect to these specific locks the pound above goes 11 miles to Napton where I assume it is also fed by Napton reservoir so it will have to be leaking quite substantially to lower an 11 mile pound significantly overnight. Anyone moored in the inter lock pounds, which are relatively short, knows the risk they take, I never moor in short lock pounds unless there is a clear flow through by-weirs (Delph flight as one example) and even then I would remain alert to falling water levels in case some muppet had failed to close a lock paddle. There lies the rub, far more water is going to be lost within a far shorter space of time by inept use of paddles than is ever going to be lost by merely not closing the top or bottom gates of a paired lock. 

 

I would also disagree with the assumption,"... There’s little doubt that overall, leaving gates open reduces total workload (for everyone)....", because if I'm following another boat through a non-paired flight, if they don't shut the gates, it means that I have to, how does that reduce the total workload for everyone, it just defers it to me. If you didn't mean 'overall' but merely meant for these specific locks then perhaps a bit more clarity was needed. 

[nicknorman]

14 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

It was making the point that if the lock leaks, the lock leaks and it becomes a bit academic as to whether it is a lot or a little, it will still be taking water from the higher pound. With respect to these specific locks the pound above goes 11 miles to Napton where I assume it is also fed by Napton reservoir so it will have to be leaking quite substantially to lower an 11 mile pound significantly overnight. Anyone moored in the inter lock pounds, which are relatively short, knows the risk they take, I never moor in short lock pounds unless there is a clear flow through by-weirs (Delph flight as one example) and even then I would remain alert to falling water levels in case some muppet had failed to close a lock paddle. There lies the rub, far more water is going to be lost within a far shorter space of time by inept use of paddles than is ever going to be lost by merely not closing the top or bottom gates of a paired lock. 

 

I would also disagree with the assumption,"... There’s little doubt that overall, leaving gates open reduces total workload (for everyone)....", because if I'm following another boat through a non-paired flight, if they don't shut the gates, it means that I have to, how does that reduce the total workload for everyone, it just defers it to me. If you didn't mean 'overall' but merely meant for these specific locks then perhaps a bit more clarity was needed. 

Leakage: the point is that by closing both gates you reduce leakage to a minimum. Not just leakage, but mis-operation too. I don’t know what it is about the lock just below Dog& Doublet 3 locks up Curdworth, but about 1/2 the times we transit (and it’s close to our home base) I find one or both bottom gate paddles not fully closed, open enough to create significant flow. A bottom paddle a turn up, plus gate at the other end left open = significant leakage.

 

it is not really about mooring in inter-lock pounds, it is about arriving at the bottom of a flight and finding that intermediate pounds above are low or dry. One then has to spen an hour or two running water down from the top lock, to fill the intermediate pounds. And whilst as you say the imaoct on the level of the top pound might seem minor, equally the amount of reservoir water needed to restore the level is “a lot”.

 

As to workload, if you do the maths you will find my point is correct. That said it does depend on the nature of the traffic flow. If one assumes an equal amount of traffic up and down then the point is very much proven. However if the traffic is non-random for some reason such as a lot of boats leaving an event, then much less so. 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

14 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Leakage: the point is that by closing both gates you reduce leakage to a minimum. Not just leakage, but mis-operation too. I don’t know what it is about the lock just below Dog& Doublet 3 locks up Curdworth, but about 1/2 the times we transit (and it’s close to our home base) I find one or both bottom gate paddles not fully closed, open enough to create significant flow. A bottom paddle a turn up, plus gate at the other end left open = significant leakage.

 

it is not really about mooring in inter-lock pounds, it is about arriving at the bottom of a flight and finding that intermediate pounds above are low or dry. One then has to spen an hour or two running water down from the top lock, to fill the intermediate pounds. And whilst as you say the imaoct on the level of the top pound might seem minor, equally the amount of reservoir water needed to restore the level is “a lot”.

 

As to workload, if you do the maths you will find my point is correct. That said it does depend on the nature of the traffic flow. If one assumes an equal amount of traffic up and down then the point is very much proven. However if the traffic is non-random for some reason such as a lot of boats leaving an event, then much less so. 

Why would one assume a random traffic flow on the canals? There are too many variables to make any sort of assumption such as that. Many people who cruise may be taking a cruising ring so they may go 'up' here but come 'down' somewhere else. Anyone standing at Harecastle Tunnel would have only seen me go through one way (on four occasions) since becoming a liveaboard. Any locks near to hire centres will be subject to entirely predictable non-random traffic flows, I have regularly travelled through lock flights where there have been a whole load of us going up or down and no-one coming in the opposite direction, yet we haven't come from any event or any rational explanation as to why this should be so. When you talk with lockies the odds are that more have been travelling in one direction on their flight on a given day than in the other direction so an equal amount of traffic up and down I would suggest would be the exception rather than the rule. That being the case it re-iterates my point that if I'm following someone who doesn't shut down the lock when they leave, I'm having to do more work.

[nicknorman]

43 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Why would one assume a random traffic flow on the canals? There are too many variables to make any sort of assumption such as that. Many people who cruise may be taking a cruising ring so they may go 'up' here but come 'down' somewhere else. Anyone standing at Harecastle Tunnel would have only seen me go through one way (on four occasions) since becoming a liveaboard. Any locks near to hire centres will be subject to entirely predictable non-random traffic flows, I have regularly travelled through lock flights where there have been a whole load of us going up or down and no-one coming in the opposite direction, yet we haven't come from any event or any rational explanation as to why this should be so. When you talk with lockies the odds are that more have been travelling in one direction on their flight on a given day than in the other direction so an equal amount of traffic up and down I would suggest would be the exception rather than the rule. That being the case it re-iterates my point that if I'm following someone who doesn't shut down the lock when they leave, I'm having to do more work.

Yes obviously if you are following a boat who leaves the gates open, it is a complete pain in the arse.

 

if you do the maths and assume random traffic flow, the overall workload is massively reduced in the long term for everyone, if gates are left open. As we both said, in reality traffic flow isn’t random but even then, there has to be a very big bias for bunching in one direction for the overall picture to make the above statment untrue. So I would suggest that overall, the workload is definitely reduced by leaving gates open. It’s just a pity that water conservation issues override that benefit.

Edited March 3, 2019 by nicknorman

[Boater Sam]

10 hours ago, Loddon said:

Simple answer, I never shut gates when leaving a lock*, unless I can see that the other end is leaking or someone is right up my jacksie. Been doing it this way for 50 years not changing now.

 

* I do reverse locks when needed such as on Anglian rivers.

So its you that selfishly leaves gates open despite the requests of BW and now CRT for the last 40+ years that we close them all when leaving a lock?

I do hope that I am never following you through a flight, I would be in your face before you went in the cut.

How can you be so proud of the fact that you are an inconsiderate boater?

With all your years you do know better, please wise up and follow the code.

[GUMPY]

6 hours ago, Boater Sam said:

So its you that selfishly leaves gates open despite the requests of BW and now CRT for the last 40+ years that we close them all when leaving a lock?

I do hope that I am never following you through a flight, I would be in your face before you went in the cut.

How can you be so proud of the fact that you are an inconsiderate boater?

With all your years you do know better, please wise up and follow the code.

Another one outraged who didn't read what I said

what's so hard to understand about the fact that I close up if someone is up my jacksie?

Only 28 days to go !

Edited March 3, 2019 by Loddon

[nicknorman]

1 hour ago, Loddon said:

Another one outraged who didn't read what I said

what's so hard to understand about the fact that I close up if someone is up my jacksie?

Only 28 days to go !

What if they are 3 locks behind out of sight?

 

28 days and then we can celebrate.

[Boater Sam]

1 hour ago, Loddon said:

Another one outraged who didn't read what I said

what's so hard to understand about the fact that I close up if someone is up my jacksie?

Only 28 days to go !

Read it well Julian but if you are trotting up Cheshire locks and I was one lock behind you, you would not see me and I would be cussing you.

 

Doesn't alter the fact that the powers that be dictate we close up before leaving and practically all of us have done so for years, you just had to be bolshy didn't you?

[GUMPY]

21 minutes ago, Boater Sam said:

Read it well Julian but if you are trotting up Cheshire locks and I was one lock behind you, you would not see me and I would be cussing you.

Last time I came up there the locks were paired so you could use the other lock and there is no need to complain.

However due to them being left to rot I guess there is only one lock per pair now.

[Boater Sam]

They were never all paired, Rode Heath of course had the iron lock that was demolished and several of the off pairs were cascaded.

One in the Malkins Bank  flight has become very tight due to the walls leaning, suppose it will stay that way till it becomes unusable altogether.

There was an attempt a few years ago to get some more of the remaining pairs back in working order.

Due to maintenance cuts though if one goes out, they tend to fix it with  "Aware" tape for several months or more.

Locally called Heartbreak Hill, unfairly in my opinion, due to the distances between lock being too long to quickly walk and not long enough to ride.

[GUMPY]

I remember one being a single but it is 20years since I came up there early one morning 5am after a night in The Commercial

[Victor Vectis]

Last time I came down Bascote on the GU I certainly had 'serious issues' with whoever had left the uphill gates open, both of 'em, on the lock below the staircase.

 

It was just gone 7 in the morning and raining. The pound below the staircase had drained away through the bottom gates of the middle lock and was empty.

Took about an hour to refill.

 

Grrrrrr.......

[Alway Swilby]

8 hours ago, Loddon said:

Another one outraged who didn't read what I said

what's so hard to understand about the fact that I close up if someone is up my jacksie?

Only 28 days to go !

 

7 hours ago, nicknorman said:

What if they are 3 locks behind out of sight?

 

28 days and then we can celebrate.

Nicknorman's question still hasn't been answered.

[GUMPY]

13 minutes ago, Alway Swilby said:

 

Nicknorman's question still hasn't been answered.

[nicknorman]

5 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Yes that about sums it up. You don’t seem to give a damn about how your behaviour affects others.

[GUMPY]

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

Yes that about sums it up. You don’t give a damn about  others.

Fixed that for you!

Edited March 3, 2019 by Loddon