More Lock Etiquette

[Arthur Marshall]

31 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

No, what I am saying is that I stop closing the gates when people are wilfully unhelpful (I still close the paddles whatever the circumstances). It is after all far quicker and more convenient for me to empty the lock, open the gates shut the paddles and leave without bothering to shut the gates and since they seemed only interested in their own convenience, why shouldn't I?

Nice of you to bother with the paddles. Actually, this just looks like you were looking for an excuse to behave in a way that makes life easier for you and your crew while not bothering about normal practice or anyone else. Typical self-righteous git behaviour, in fact. 

And a lesson to the people behind that behaving like a three year old  in a sulk yelling "I'll get you back for that" is acceptable behaviour on the cut. 

Just because one person out of a big crew on a couple of boats behaved in a way you disapproved off, you made life harder for all of them. 

Sorry, you're a prat. 

 

[matty40s]

17 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

 

Can anyone appoint themselves to be an arbiter of such things and does the post come with a uniform?

Volockys at Hillmorton.....?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

6 hours ago, billS said:

Closing the gates after leaving the locks (unless a boat is approaching) is a requirement set out in the CRT boaters handbook, and is now common practice. Some people don't follow this of course, but they are generally regarded as selfish, lazy arrogant gits by those who do.

I actually complied with the requirements of the Boaters Handbook which clearly says,".... and close the gates behind you unless a boat coming towards you wants to use the lock...." which had been exactly the case when I tried to leave the gates open. From then onwards, since I couldn't see the next locks how could I be sure that there wasn't another boat coming up, so merely left the gates accordingly.

5 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Nice of you to bother with the paddles. Actually, this just looks like you were looking for an excuse to behave in a way that makes life easier for you and your crew while not bothering about normal practice or anyone else. Typical self-righteous git behaviour, in fact. 

And a lesson to the people behind that behaving like a three year old  in a sulk yelling "I'll get you back for that" is acceptable behaviour on the cut. 

Just because one person out of a big crew on a couple of boats behaved in a way you disapproved off, you made life harder for all of them. 

Sorry, you're a prat. 

 

Since we were something like 6 locks from the bottom before I stopped closing the gates, it seems to have taken me a long time to,"...look for an excuse to behave in a way that makes life easier.." for me, if doing that it would have made more sense to have done it a whole lot earlier. I had merely decided that I no longer had any inclination to assist, in much the same way that they had displayed no inclination to assist the boater going up, sauce for the goose and all that.

 

To be honest, leaving the lock gates isn't that big a deal, as anyone who has used the River Wey will testify, the practice there is to leave the lock gates open when you exit the lock presumably on the basis that it might possibly save someone a bit of time (if they are travelling from the right direction). All it means is less work for one crew, but possibly more work for another crew (as was the case here). It should also be mentioned that the balance of some of the bottom gates on the Hatton Flight isn't exactly ideal as the gates have a tendency to open themselves as soon as the lock is drained, I merely ceased bothering about doing anything about it.  

[ditchcrawler]

14 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I actually complied with the requirements of the Boaters Handbook which clearly says,".... and close the gates behind you unless a boat coming towards you wants to use the lock...." which had been exactly the case when I tried to leave the gates open. From then onwards, since I couldn't see the next locks how could I be sure that there wasn't another boat coming up, so merely left the gates accordingly. 

Sorry to say this but as a boater who is experienced as you are I think on this occasion you acted like bit of a dick head which surprises me from other posts you have made in the past.

[Captain Pegg]

3 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Sorry to say this but as a boater who is experienced as you are I think on this occasion you acted like bit of a dick head which surprises me from other posts you have made in the past.

I had similar thoughts. It’s a behaviour at odds with how WV portrays himself on the forum. No great shakes, who doesn’t have a little bit of contradiction in their make up? I’d put it down to him having a bad day if he didn’t keep trying to justify it with poor arguments.

 

JP

[sirweste]

Think the point is that closing the gates and paddles as you leave isn't done to help the following crew, the help they get from the action is a bye product from following the current rules.

 

Leaving them open is just you and crew being exceedingly petty. 

 

Completely agree that the following crew shouldn't have turned the lock, I would have been tempted to say that I'd changed my mind and I wanted to reverse up the flight now so it was my lock.

[Jim Riley]

I've just travelled on the C&H, there are some locks that can be left open, no wastage of water, the river locks on the short stretches of canal round the weirs, with no other lock between it and the flood lock. 

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Jim Riley said:

I've just travelled on the C&H, there are some locks that can be left open, no wastage of water, the river locks on the short stretches of canal round the weirs, with no other lock between it and the flood lock. 

That might be safe in some conditions but I can envisage circumstances where it would not.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

4 hours ago, Jim Riley said:

I've just travelled on the C&H, there are some locks that can be left open, no wastage of water, the river locks on the short stretches of canal round the weirs, with no other lock between it and the flood lock. 

Have to say I've yet to be convinced of the water wastage argument, I have a tried and tested method of assessing whether the lock I am approaching from below is full or empty by looking at the bottom of the lock gates as I approach, if water is pouring out it is full, if not it is empty (or as near as makes no difference). Since all bottom gates leak, pretty much without exception (often as a result of boaters scraping their boats along them), where lies the water wastage argument in shutting them? If the top gates leak, and all bottom gates do leak, ultimately the water simply flows through the lock, yes water wastage, but not going to be stopped by shutting a leaking gate.

[David Mack]

6 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Have to say I've yet to be convinced of the water wastage argument, I have a tried and tested method of assessing whether the lock I am approaching from below is full or empty by looking at the bottom of the lock gates as I approach, if water is pouring out it is full, if not it is empty (or as near as makes no difference). Since all bottom gates leak, pretty much without exception (often as a result of boaters scraping their boats along them), where lies the water wastage argument in shutting them? If the top gates leak, and all bottom gates do leak, ultimately the water simply flows through the lock, yes water wastage, but not going to be stopped by shutting a leaking gate.

A couple of years ago I had a chat with the lockie at Marsworth. He pointed out that at most GU locks the bottom gates leak badly due to wear of the mitre posts by boats only using one gate. But on top gates the coresponding wear occurs at the top of the mitre post, above water level, and has little effect on watertightness. So it doesn't much matter (in water saving terms) if bottom gates are left open. But if top gates are open water will leak through the bottom gates, and this can easily drain a pound overnight. 

Obviously there are exceptions e.g. where the bottom gates are new.

 

Where there is moderate leakage at each end then the level in the lock will tend to stabilise at around half full.  Since the flow through a leak varies with the pressure head, overall leakage through a half-head leak at each end will be less than a full-head leak at one end. So shutting all gates will reduce water loss.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

A couple of years ago I had a chat with the lockie at Marsworth. He pointed out that at most GU locks the bottom gates leak badly due to wear of the mitre posts by boats only using one gate. But on top gates the coresponding wear occurs at the top of the mitre post, above water level, and has little effect on watertightness. So it doesn't much matter (in water saving terms) if bottom gates are left open. But if top gates are open water will leak through the bottom gates, and this can easily drain a pound overnight. 

Obviously there are exceptions e.g. where the bottom gates are new.

 

Where there is moderate leakage at each end then the level in the lock will tend to stabilise at around half full.  Since the flow through a leak varies with the pressure head, overall leakage through a half-head leak at each end will be less than a full-head leak at one end. So shutting all gates will reduce water loss.

That was pretty much my point.

[Jim Riley]

1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Have to say I've yet to be convinced of the water wastage argument, I have a tried and tested method of assessing whether the lock I am approaching from below is full or empty by looking at the bottom of the lock gates as I approach, if water is pouring out it is full, if not it is empty (or as near as makes no difference). Since all bottom gates leak, pretty much without exception (often as a result of boaters scraping their boats along them), where lies the water wastage argument in shutting them? If the top gates leak, and all bottom gates do leak, ultimately the water simply flows through the lock, yes water wastage, but not going to be stopped by shutting a leaking gate.

I am talking of a lock in specific circumstances, the water flows through the lock, back into the river, other water goes round over the weir. No wastage. 

[Mike Todd]

Individual locks may well have particular conditions but most boaters are not in a  position to assess them. For example, there are several locks on the lower GU which are marked with specific requirements (leave empty) because of ground conditions that lead to the adjacent house being flooded below. No boater, unless a local, can realise this.

 

I believe that other lock-specific rules arise from the behaviour of the pound between the locks, especially if close together.

 

Some river navigations have general rules that are different, not least because the locks are part of a more general water management system - eg Nene.

 

Hence it is much better for the Navigation Authority (NA) to establish simple and safe rules for everyone to follow rather than expecting each boater to make judgements that they are either not qualified or not informed enough to make.

 

By all means engage with the NA to change the rules if you think that they are sufficiently inappropriate, best done collectively, but it is unwise to start the belief that rules are for everyone else, not for me, even if that is the political zeitgeist.

 

In the case of short river sections with a full lock at the lower end and a normally-open flood lock or gate at the top end, consider a sudden flood condition. the NA staff close the flood gates assuming that the other end is shut, or at least as much as it can be. But if the lock is left in a state that allows higher levels of water to flow through then the pound will now quickly empty, not good for boats moored there.