Anyone passing Barrowford Locks?

[IanD]

14 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

That surely cannot be anywhere near true. The amount of water used is the capacity of the lock plus or minus the displacement of the boat (at its simplest) - which is a fraction of the lock capacity. Insofar as a WB is more than two NB then they will use a different amount but only by a very small amount, probably much less than any of the other second order variables

Think about what happens for boats going both up and down a lock, as well as the draught/displacement of the boat compared to the typical volume of water in a lock -- I think this was covered in an earlier thread. A wideboat typically weighs about the same as two narrowboats (depending on width and draught, obviously) so displaces the same amount of water as a pair, so uses the same amount of water when locking -- or 2x the amount per boat.

Edited January 6, 2022 by IanD

[IanD]

22 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Now let's think who would be more experienced at fixing paddles a locky with 30 years experience or a road contractor?

Or a lockie with 2 years experience vs. a contractor who has been doing canal repair work for 10 years? It cuts both ways...

 

The difference is that any contractor doing work on the canals has to be certified as capable of doing that by CART, regardless of what they normally mend, so hopefully things get done with reasonable competence -- and if they don't their insurance is valid.

 

Unless all lockies are similarly certified (who does this? how much does it cost? how are they insured?) it's pot luck whether you get one with 30 years experience who knows what they're doing or one with 2 years who doesn't (but thinks they do).

 

People who think they know more than they do are a dangerous thing, like the (probably well-meaning) CART maintainance worker who thought they knew best about how a boat should be tied up in a lock, and almost sank us as a result... 😞

Edited January 6, 2022 by IanD

[ditchcrawler]

20 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Now let's think who would be more experienced at fixing paddles a locky with 30 years experience or a road contractor?

Where are these lockies wit 30 years experience

[haggis]

27 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Where are these lockies wit 30 years experience

I was wondering that too! In fact the only lockies I can think of are those on the rivers, the rest being volunteers who don't tend to fix locks! 

[nicknorman]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

That surely cannot be anywhere near true. The amount of water used is the capacity of the lock plus or minus the displacement of the boat (at its simplest) - which is a fraction of the lock capacity. Insofar as a WB is more than two NB then they will use a different amount but only by a very small amount, probably much less than any of the other second order variables

The point relates to 2 boats wanting to go through a lock. 2 narrowboats = 1 lock cycle. 2 widebeams = 2 lock cycles. But of course, only if the timing is right to get the 2 narrowboats in the same lock.

[Iain_S]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

That surely cannot be anywhere near true. The amount of water used is the capacity of the lock plus or minus the displacement of the boat (at its simplest) - which is a fraction of the lock capacity. Insofar as a WB is more than two NB then they will use a different amount but only by a very small amount, probably much less than any of the other second order variables

 

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Think about what happens for boats going both up and down a lock, as well as the draught/displacement of the boat compared to the typical volume of water in a lock -- I think this was covered in an earlier thread. A wideboat typically weighs about the same as two narrowboats (depending on width and draught, obviously) so displaces the same amount of water as a pair, so uses the same amount of water when locking -- or 2x the amount per boat.

 

At risk of pulling this thread off course even further, the amount of water used by a lock (neglecting leakage!) is that which flows through the paddles, which is the area of the lock (neglecting slope of lock walls) multiplied by the rise of the lock. This is independent of the boat's displacement. 

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

 

 

At risk of pulling this thread off course even further, the amount of water used by a lock (neglecting leakage!) is that which flows through the paddles, which is the area of the lock (neglecting slope of lock walls) multiplied by the rise of the lock. This is independent of the boat's displacement. 

Be careful, because you're assuming that the water levels above and below the lock don't change as a boat goes through. If you take this into account the answer is different... 😉

Edited January 6, 2022 by IanD

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

So, boat apartheid then? How about another suggestion which is just as sensible and practical, and probably easier to police -- ban *all* widebeams? 😉

 

To repeat what I said earlier, charging a 100% premium for widebeams (because of the cases I quoted) seems unfair and too high, but equally the current 20% premium seems too low given the number of widebeams moored in popular places where the problems exist, hence suggesting 50% as a reasonable compromise.

 

Before you say "but there's no need for this where I am, me and my mates are moored where there's plenty of space!" -- how many widebeams *are* moored where you are? On my cycle along the GU Paddington arm yesterday I gave up counting at 100...

It's a wide canal Ian so get rid of the narrowboats which are clearly unsuitable for those waterways problem sorted send them back to Birmingham or other toy canals 

[tree monkey]

3 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

It always makes for an interesting moment when some self-important manager pronounces "I want you to guarantee to me that it won't fail".

 

I get that question all the time, it's remarkably hard to honestly answer when people have an extremely risk adverse attitude or to put it another way are absolutely convinced the tree has plans to destroy their house their car and murder them in their beds

 

 

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

 

If the premium was also location-based then 100% premium in areas where widebeams do cause congestion or use locks would be reasonable. But then the premium would have to be 0% in places like where Peter is where they don't cause any problem. And CART enforcement would need to detect where boats were at all times, log this over the year, and then somehow calculate a premium between 0% and 100% -- which is indeed fair, but also completely impractical 😞

 

Similarly any accurate value-based premium would require each boat to have an accurate valuation of market value every year, which is similarly fair but impractical 😞

 

Displacement is not "fair" as far as water usage in locks is concerned, any boat above 7'+a bit width which can't share locks uses double the water of a narrowboat -- to be "fair" an 8' slightly-wide boat and a 14' mage-fatty would both accry the same (+100?) premium.

 

The challenge is to find some calculation method for the license fee which brings in more money to CART (e.g. +50% to improve maintenance), is realisable without an enormous (or impractical) cost/effort, but goes some way to linking it to the strain the boat puts on the system and (arguably) how much people can afford to pay -- this element seems to be what many people object to, though nobody argues that income tax works this way which is how the government grant to the canals is paid for.

 

Basing the fee on length/width is already done, but it looks as if the +20% "widebeam premium" is too small.

 

Adding a value criterion -- perhaps via insurance value, defaulting to length/width/age for 3rd party only -- would help prevent lower-income boaters from being badly hit by a big fee increase by moving more of the increase onto those on more expensive boats. Whether this is seen as a good thing or not seems to be more political than factual, it's the old socialist vs. neoliberal problem all over again...

Not sure where you get this from: it is not the role of navigation authorities to be providers of social housing (see debate from NBTA) - it is the role of housing authorities and the benefit system, which works as well it is possible, again withing available funding which is arguably inadequate. Equally, it is not the role of navigation authorities to be part of the social security/benefit system - that is largely a matter for the Treasury.

 

If it is considered politically desirable to enable people to choose to live permanently on the canals on a basis that is beyond their means then we already have systems in place to address that (eg housing benefit). It is a different argument (not really for here) as to whether those systems are enabled to work the way you want them to, but the systems are established. The Waterway Chaplains, for example, have done quite a bit of work to ensure that those who qualify can obtain housing benefit for their licences.

 

A substantial hike in licence fees is not going to hit those whose home is on the canals and who are on marginal income, so much as those who see having a canal boat (owned or hired) as a good way of enhancing their life experience and retaining what little sanity they are allowed to keep.

 

Methinks you are tilting at the wrong windmill.

[IanD]

17 minutes ago, peterboat said:

It's a wide canal Ian so get rid of the narrowboats which are clearly unsuitable for those waterways problem sorted send them back to Birmingham or other toy canals 

 

Indeed it is, and there are a lot of end-to-end boats on it, and in the busy stretches narrowboats are double-moored -- but wideboats aren't, there isn't enough space.

 

So each wideboat occupies the same mooring space as 2 narrowboats, which are homes to twice as many people.

 

Which means the best way to fix the mooring space problem is to ban wideboats, then twice as many people can moor there.

 

Geddit?

[GUMPY]

50 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

 

 

At risk of pulling this thread off course even further, the amount of water used by a lock (neglecting leakage!) is that which flows through the paddles, which is the area of the lock (neglecting slope of lock walls) multiplied by the rise of the lock. This is independent of the boat's displacement. 

Those of us that have been around for a while  have seen this discussion many times over and know who is correct.

Its always ammusing when someone tries to prove a widebeam uses less/more water than a narrowboat as they are still wrong all these years later

 

 

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Not sure where you get this from: it is not the role of navigation authorities to be providers of social housing (see debate from NBTA) - it is the role of housing authorities and the benefit system, which works as well it is possible, again withing available funding which is arguably inadequate. Equally, it is not the role of navigation authorities to be part of the social security/benefit system - that is largely a matter for the Treasury.

 

If it is considered politically desirable to enable people to choose to live permanently on the canals on a basis that is beyond their means then we already have systems in place to address that (eg housing benefit). It is a different argument (not really for here) as to whether those systems are enabled to work the way you want them to, but the systems are established. The Waterway Chaplains, for example, have done quite a bit of work to ensure that those who qualify can obtain housing benefit for their licences.

 

A substantial hike in licence fees is not going to hit those whose home is on the canals and who are on marginal income, so much as those who see having a canal boat (owned or hired) as a good way of enhancing their life experience and retaining what little sanity they are allowed to keep.

 

Methinks you are tilting at the wrong windmill.

I'm not tilting at any windmill.

 

You think everybody should pay the same license fee, regardless of their circumstances, even if the mooring fees have to rise a lot to make CART solvent which will cause financial problems for some.

 

I don't, I think better-off boaters should then pay more and poorer ones less to stop them being driven off the canals by a big rise in living costs -- gentrification by any other name, just like happens in some cities.

 

It's a philosophical difference (neoliberalism vs. socialism) so there's no point arguing about it, you're not going to change your mind and neither am I 😉

7 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Those of us that have been around for a while  have seen this discussion many times over and know who is correct.

Its always ammusing when someone tries to prove a widebeam uses less/more water than a narrowboat as they are still wrong all these years later

 

That's not the point being argued; the fact is that one wideboat *does* use the same amount of water when locking (and delay to other boats) as two narrowboats sharing a lock. Do you disagree?

 

One wideboat vs. one narrowboat, that's another debate entirely... 😉

Edited January 6, 2022 by IanD

[GUMPY]

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

That's not the point being argued; the fact is that one wideboat *does* use the same amount of water when locking (and delay to other boats) as two narrowboats sharing a lock. Do you disagree?

 

Not disputing that but makes not a hapeth of difference unless there is a rule that says narrowboats have to wait and share locks in which case the wide beam could pass the waiting one.

I can hardly remember the last time I shared a lock with a stranger, oh yes there was one a couple of  years ago at Peterborough.

Even when moored on the GU it was a rare thing to share locks, I will admit to avoiding it as much as possible.

When we had Parglena it was very rare for a NB to be able to keep up with us unless they had lots of crew.

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by Loddon

[Alan de Enfield]

32 minutes ago, IanD said:

So each wideboat occupies the same mooring space as 2 narrowboats, which are homes to twice as many people.

 

I doubt many widebeams are single handed, whilst many NBs are singlehanded, in which case 2x NBs could have exactly the same number of people.

 

 

30 minutes ago, IanD said:

I don't, I think better-off boaters should then pay more and poorer ones less to stop them being driven off the canals by a big rise in living costs -- gentrification by any other name, just like happens in some cities.

 

Presumably when a less-well-off person goes to the garage to buy a car, or the post office to pay their road fund licence they should pay less than a better-off person. 

[ditchcrawler]

11 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I doubt many widebeams are single handed, whilst many NBs are singlehanded, in which case 2x NBs could have exactly the same number of people.

 

  

Maybe they should charge single handers a premium 

[frangar]

31 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Not disputing that but makes not a hapeth of difference unless there is a rule that says narrowboats have to wait and share locks in which case the wide beam could pass the waiting one.

I can hardly remember the last time I shared a lock with a stranger, oh yes there was one a couple of  years ago at Peterborough.

Even when moored on the GU it was a rare thing to share locks, I will admit to avoiding it as much as possible.

When we had Parglena it was very rare for a NB to be able to keep up with us unless they had lots of crew.

 

I shared 80% of wide looks last year....and I wasn't on that many wide routes.....there again im not paranoid in avoiding other boaters!

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Maybe they should charge single handers a premium 

 

Or give a 50% discount compared to 'couples' as they will use less water, toilet emptying etc.

[MtB]

Just now, frangar said:

I shared 80% of wide looks last year....and I wasn't on that many wide routes.....there again im not paranoid in avoiding other boaters!

 

Sharing wide locks is fine as long as you persuade the other boater to go in first. 

 

The trouble starts when you encounter another boater who has also worked this out!

[peterboat]

53 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Indeed it is, and there are a lot of end-to-end boats on it, and in the busy stretches narrowboats are double-moored -- but wideboats aren't, there isn't enough space.

 

So each wideboat occupies the same mooring space as 2 narrowboats, which are homes to twice as many people.

 

Which means the best way to fix the mooring space problem is to ban wideboats, then twice as many people can moor there.

 

Geddit?

Not really as most narrowboats in London are single handed widebeams tend to have a couple of occupants so its the same except its easier to pass a widebeam than 2 boats moored together.

nyway as I said its a wide canal made for wide boats the narrowboats are the problem so get rid of them back to the narrow canals

[frangar]

Just now, MtB said:

 

Sharing wide locks is fine as long as you persuade the other boater to go in first. 

 

The trouble starts when you encounter another boater who has also worked this out!

Doesnt bother me who goes in first...or goes out first..i have the OH well trained so she shuts the gate behind me to offer protection if they look a little wayward!...but I cant remember when this tactic was last needed. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Sharing wide locks is fine as long as you persuade the other boater to go in first. 

 

The trouble starts when you encounter another boater who has also worked this out!

But works best if you’re both trusting and enter at same time

Edited January 6, 2022 by Goliath

[frangar]

Just now, Goliath said:

But works best if your both trusting and enter at same time

And leave together to stop and pick crew up just as the gates shut on longer pounds......my OH often goes ahead to set the next one up or persuade the other crew to do it if theres lots of them....makes a flight much quicker....sadly some crews dont look beyond the lock their boat is in.

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Iain_S said:

At risk of pulling this thread off course even further, the amount of water used by a lock (neglecting leakage!) is that which flows through the paddles, which is the area of the lock (neglecting slope of lock walls) multiplied by the rise of the lock. This is independent of the boat's displacement. 

Why? Water enters and leaves the lock chamber when a boat leaves or leaves.

Surely the only valid criterion for how much water a boat uses when passing through a lock is the quantity which has to be supplied from the reservoir at the summit to replace that lost in lockage.

[Captain Pegg]

Aha, someone is finally thinking about the system. I suspect the notion of what type of boat uses most water in a lock is spurious. All of these boats are somewhere on the system (nearly) all the time and the system has a finite capacity. All of the boats floating on the system are displacing a certain amount of water which then doesn't need to supplied from the reservoir. Hence all boats are actually beneficial to water supply and the heavier the boat the more beneficial it is when simply doing nothing but floating. Hence I don't entirely buy the notion that a narrow beam boat is more water friendly.

 

In any case, a boat doesn't just appear at a lock, it leaves and enters pounds along the way changing where it displaces water. I think you'd have to do a study - either real or modelled - to conclude definitively, and that would have to take into account both the benefits of narrow beams sharing a lock and the disbenefit of them using a wide lock singly.

 

There's something about the science of the whole thing that tells me that the answer is that it makes sod all difference.

 

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by Captain Pegg