Jump to content

Steel Lock Gates?


John Liley

Featured Posts

9 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

Okay - this is the sort of thing I advise on professionally, both from the canal point of view and the heritage/conservation point of view - these are my thoughts and I'm very happy to keep posting if you have more questions. 

 

Until fairly recently wooden gates were de riguer  for many reasons, including but not limited to conservation. The technical reasons even came into the type of wood. Steel gates transfer more of any shock load (e.g. a boat hitting them) into the lock structure, but so do gates made of eki. Steel gates are more resilient when hit, they tend not to break, but in extremis they bend and don't bend back afterwards. 

 

The Monmouth, Brecon and Abergavenny Canal Trust trialed steel gates that look like wooden gates and also have buoyancy (a major failing of previous steel gates) , not only will they last far longer but they are modular and can be brought to site in sections and assembled by volunteers. Both are big issues on restoration of isolated waterways. A K&A gate might see 50,000 boat movements or more in a 25 year period, one on the Neath Canal might not see 500 boat movements in that time.These gates got Heritage Lottery Fund approval. 

 

There is also the issue of the amount of wood a pair of wooden gates need (six trees a lock?), and the quality - this results in them not being as "green" nor as durable as might be supposed. A pair of flood gates at Ebley (also HLF funded) were cracking less than a year after installation for example. I suspect this issue has generally shortened gate life as well, looking at how intact gates are on the North Walsham and Dilham Canal (last used 90 years ago) - not usable, but substantially intact, and made from timber around 110 years ago, I suspect many modern wooden gates will be dust after 110 years. 

 

C&RT should, sensibly, look at a mix. The steel lookalikes would serve well in many cases, but I'd be reluctant to see them on Bingley five rise for example, but I really don't see why they shouldn't be on the locks at Soulbury or Bank Newton

 

 

Thank you for this, which is really useful. And thank you to all who have responded - it certainly seems a topic of concern. I will pass on these comments to Bill Fisher and Terry Kemp of the Kennet & Avon Trust, who wrote the initial article in the 'September' issue of Waterways World (which curiously appeared in late July). 

 

Were C&RT to be sufficiently well-financed there is no good reason why it should not continue with wooden gates as before - except production ,seemingly, is not keeping up with the rate of gate decay. Add in also that Britain is running out of suitable trees, and the case for using steel opens up. Why not,  perhaps, a system of modular steel gate frames, to which could be added timber trim - plus rubber, or plastic, which I have seen used in France? A worthwhile university project, methinks.

 

My main reason for launching this topic here, however, was to learn if any way can be found to curb over-pedantic vetoes by Conservancy officials. That has yet to be revealed. Did they, as a point of interest, object to those hydraulic gate paddles that were tried for some years in British Waterways days?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jerra said:

Assuming both were made of the same material one possible reason could be supply.    I suspect there were more large aged Oaks around so that the centre of the tree was very dense.  Oaks of the required girth are probably much harder to come by these days.

 

Just a thought I am probably wrong.

There is certainly a shortage of decent UK grown Oak, we just don't grow it as a forestry crop, apart from a few very rare plantations, France grown much more and I think (it may have changed) most of the Oak used here is imported from there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, John Liley said:

 

 

 

 

My main reason for launching this topic here, however, was to learn if any way can be found to curb over-pedantic vetoes by Conservancy officials. That has yet to be revealed. Did they, as a point of interest, object to those hydraulic gate paddles that were tried for some years in British Waterways days?

Sorry no first hand knowledge ( but when has that ever stopped anyone on here) I suspect the only way is to go via the planning appeals procedure and spend heavilly on expert evidence

Alternatively simply not tell tehm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently saw a complete house 3d printed.

 

Boeing currently 3d print about 60,000 parts for their planes...and Airbus similar.

 

Computers can control milling machines and build cars.

 

Rather than scratching about with bits of wood and traditional tools...could they not come up with a big 3d print machine that works 24/7 without tea breaks...and could just have a few measurements entered to make gates ?. 

?

 

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if you consult the crows that live near Epinal you will find they prefer steel gates. The top gates on the flight going downare braced horizontally by angles or channels and as the water drops small fish are trapped in the water behind the steel.. The waiting crows swoop down and fish them out. They followed us down every lock and never even said thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Dont they make gates at Stanley Ferry anymore? Seen many under construction there over the years.

I think so. I saw one with a Stanley Ferry builders plate on it recently and was a little surprised as I’m used to seeing them all say Bradley. I’m sure it was a new replacement too.

6 minutes ago, Bobbybass said:

I recently saw a complete house 3d printed.

 

Boeing currently 3d print about 60,000 parts for their planes...and Airbus similar.

 

Computers can control milling machines and build cars.

 

Rather than scratching about with bits of wood and traditional tools...could they not come up with a big 3d print machine that works 24/7 without tea breaks...and could just have a few measurements entered to make gates ?. 

?

 

?

What material would you 3D print them using?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Dont they make gates at Stanley Ferry anymore? Seen many under construction there over the years.

Yes they still make them there. The wooden ones that is. I dont know where the steel ones are made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Liley said:

 

 

My main reason for launching this topic here, however, was to learn if any way can be found to curb over-pedantic vetoes by Conservancy officials. That has yet to be revealed. Did they, as a point of interest, object to those hydraulic gate paddles that were tried for some years in British Waterways days?

Ideally a best practice guide is needed - I'm chairman of the RCHS managing committee and recently we were asked to endorse such a guide published, IIRC by IWA but I don't know whether it's seen the light of day yet (sorry, I get involved with too many things to keep track of them after I've signed them off) 

 

Until such a guide is produced, having a heritage person on board who understands such things will help when discussing with local authority conservation officers

 

To the bit in bold, the answer is yes, when BW tried to fit them at Foxton, the local authority intervened on the basis they were a listed structure. Two things have happened since the gory days of the hydraulic paddle - first, a lot more locks are listed structures and thus not covered by C&RT's permitted development rights, second local authorities have taken a much narrower interpretation of those rights than they used to.

Edited by magpie patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Liley said:

 

 

Thank you for this, which is really useful. And thank you to all who have responded - it certainly seems a topic of concern. I will pass on these comments to Bill Fisher and Terry Kemp of the Kennet & Avon Trust, who wrote the initial article in the 'September' issue of Waterways World (which curiously appeared in late July). 

 

Were C&RT to be sufficiently well-financed there is no good reason why it should not continue with wooden gates as before - except production ,seemingly, is not keeping up with the rate of gate decay. Add in also that Britain is running out of suitable trees, and the case for using steel opens up. Why not,  perhaps, a system of modular steel gate frames, to which could be added timber trim - plus rubber, or plastic, which I have seen used in France? A worthwhile university project, methinks.

 

My main reason for launching this topic here, however, was to learn if any way can be found to curb over-pedantic vetoes by Conservancy officials. That has yet to be revealed. Did they, as a point of interest, object to those hydraulic gate paddles that were tried for some years in British Waterways days?

So Bill Fisher is still active in canal things! We used to moor in his marina over ten years ago, please send our regards, Dave and Gillie from Vox Stellarum (The ones who did the rapid engine swap on his service berth).

 

................Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

Ideally a best practice guide is needed - I'm chairman of the RCHS managing committee and recently we were asked to endorse such a guide published, IIRC by IWA but I don't know whether it's seen the light of day yet (sorry, I get involved with too many things to keep track of them after I've signed them off) 

 

Until such a guide is produced, having a heritage person on board who understands such things will help when discussing with local authority conservation officers

 

To the bit in bold, the answer is yes, when BW tried to fit them at Foxton, the local authority intervened on the basis they were a listed structure. Two things have happened since the gory days of the hydraulic paddle - first, a lot more locks are listed structures and thus not covered by C&RT's permitted development rights, second local authorities have taken a much narrower interpretation of those rights than they used to.

There was an agreement between BW (as it was) and IWA not to install any further granny gear  - either as replacement for existing hydraulic kit or otherwise.  There was also a flap on (I think) the Hanwell flight where new top gates had been fitted with only single gate paddles, unlike their listed predecessors.

 

You will know better than me - but for an unlisted structure, operations that "do not materially affect the external appearance of the building" are not development and thus do not require planning permission.  Whether a switch from timber to steel materially changes external appearance will be both a question of design and opinion.

 

The original question was about how to avoid over-keen conservation officers which seems mainly to apply to listed structures.  I suppose the partial answer is something equivalent to the ecclesiastical exemption granted to some denominations https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1176/made .  It is not a license to do as the owner pleases as, in practice, the exemption is only available to those that have good policies and procedures.   Not easy to persuade Parliament though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you go for steel gates, you will also end up with standardised paddle gear. One of the fascinating things about canals for me is the diversity of paddle gear, and I have advocated for many years that certain locks on each canal should be fitted with the traditional paddle gear of that specific canal. Paddle gear often changed over time, so you could have certain locks conserved as they were at a certain date, so two or three locks on a canal would have different 'heritage' paddle gear. For instance, upper gate paddles were only introduced on many canals when railway competition developed. This diversity of paddle gear types could be used as a marketing tool to encourage people to visit more canals. However, this would require a change in conservation legislation, so unlikely to happen. Legislation, in effect, states that a listed structure should be maintained as it was at the time of listing, so a lock with hydraulic paddle gear when listed should retain that paddle gear. There is provision for the replacement of parts which wear out, such as lock gates, but how this is interpreted has not been adequately sorted out. Perhaps what is important is that the diversity of paddle gear should be properly recorded, something I keep saying I will do for the L&LC, which probably had the greatest diversity of any canal. Not unsurprisingly, the Lancashire and Yorkshire workshops seem to have had conflicting standards. The photo below from the Waterways Archive of Bingley shows some of the lock furniture, which tends to be forgotten, such as the pulley for towing a boat between locks, the bar across the top of the gate to stop the line getting caught, and the cleat for holding a boat forward away from the cill. All are now memories, apart from Leeds River Lock, which has a cleat. I should also mention the hoops on the gate frame which allowed boatmen to climb up the gates.

L&L 1 R0208.jpg

Edited by Pluto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, John Liley said:

 

My main reason for launching this topic here, however, was to learn if any way can be found to curb over-pedantic vetoes by Conservancy officials. That has yet to be revealed. Did they, as a point of interest, object to those hydraulic gate paddles that were tried for some years in British Waterways days?

I don't know if officials did but I suspect many boaters did, not just because they were slow but because they were potentially lethal because they couldn't be dropped quickly in an emergency. I was on a boat which nearly sank (going down Marsworth in 1986, IIRC) when the bows got hung up on a protruding stone block by the bottom gate recess, by the time we managed to wind the sodding hydraulic paddles closed the stern had almost gone under. I'm glad to see that they've almost all disappeared today, though sadly there are a few still lurking... :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tacet said:

There was an agreement between BW (as it was) and IWA not to install any further granny gear  - either as replacement for existing hydraulic kit or otherwise.  There was also a flap on (I think) the Hanwell flight where new top gates had been fitted with only single gate paddles, unlike their listed predecessors.

 

You will know better than me - but for an unlisted structure, operations that "do not materially affect the external appearance of the building" are not development and thus do not require planning permission.  Whether a switch from timber to steel materially changes external appearance will be both a question of design and opinion.

 

The original question was about how to avoid over-keen conservation officers which seems mainly to apply to listed structures.  I suppose the partial answer is something equivalent to the ecclesiastical exemption granted to some denominations https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1176/made .  It is not a license to do as the owner pleases as, in practice, the exemption is only available to those that have good policies and procedures.   Not easy to persuade Parliament though.

That is pretty much a result of history rather than modern legislation. Whilst the exemption is jealously protected, it is quite expensive and at times can lead to the same situation that gave rise to this thread ie conservation turns into preservation. Any matter that involves judgement will throw up examples of what may appear to folk as irrational or restrictive.

 

In my experience, other pressure groups, such as the Victorian Society, are much harder to bring onside when proposing changes to give better functionality to listed buildings. Just try and ad a toilet to a medieval church! (It can and is being done but can take a lot of negotiation)

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.