Electrification of CRT Broad and Wide Locks.

[oboat]

This year I spent the summer on the Upper Thames and was impressed by the EA system of not allowing nb on its 14ft beam locks to pass through a single gate.
The reason given being, the potential damage to the unopened gate leaf, which I am certain we can all relate to.
During the recent IWA webinar CRT made comment about (worth a look).
 a). The rising cost of back pumping resulting from leaking damaged gates on wide locks.

This potentially increasing again due to rising fuel costs.

b). The high cost of access to install new gates.
c). Recently the number of damaged gates had got to a point where CRT were having difficulty keeping up with the replacement need. 
One potential aid in reducing gate leaf damage from signal leaf opening on a double lock is to electrify  selected locks where the potential benefit could or would outweigh the perceived high cost of electrification.
Note: Other benefits could also occur but at present I am only concentrating on costings.
Marsworth top lock colander struck me as a good candidate for consideration! 

Can any body identify other ONE OFF sites worth considering? 
I do have other sites in mind however I would be grateful for informed member suggestions.
Yes, I understand just doing one lock could have other consequences and  I am also aware of potential CHM ramifications. But this is just a start point? Thanks.
 

[dmr]

I think the best solution is to electrify all locks and then turn off the electric so that boats can't go through them.

[magnetman]

First point.

Above Oxford (Kings lock and up to Lechlade) the locks are balance beam type with no hydraulics so it is obviously possible, while there is no lock keeper in attendance, to just open one gate and go in through the single gate. The locks are not actually 14ft wide they are all wider than that.

 

Second point.

 

Hydraulic locks (Godstow down to Teddington). The reason the EA do not permit vessels to pass through single gates or gates which have not been fully opened is that a gate strike would damage the hydraulic ram.

 

It isn't about damage to gates themselves or leakage it is about causing damage to the rams and associated fittings.

 

It is also rather unusual for a hydraulic lock to have one gate fully open while the other stays shut. Generally (not always) they open at more or less the same speed.

 

Out of lock keeper hours when public power is in operation there is nothing to prevent people from opening the gates as much or as little as they wish  but it is bad practice. Gates should always be opened all the way regardless of size of vessel.

 

 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

18 minutes ago, oboat said:

Can any body identify other ONE OFF sites worth considering? 

Nope.

it’s heritage not to be f###ed with.

 

More cost effective to have an army of officious Volunteer Lockies.  
(actually it’s probably not, probably more cost effective to maintain the gates and fix’em)

[David Mack]

On the River Wey its a rule that both gates must be opened, and when I've been there I've seen everybody doing just that, without any need for enforcement.

[Midnight]

It always wrankles when boaters moan about leaking double locks then insist they only need one gate. I got an ear full from a member on here this year when I opened both gates. He told me his wife would be annoyed as she only needed one.

[oboat]

1 hour ago, dmr said:

I think the best solution is to electrify all locks and then turn off the electric so that boats can't go through them.

 

1 hour ago, dmr said:

I think the best solution is to electrify all locks and then turn off the electric so that boats can't go through them.

Can you please read the question again.

[oboat]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

First point.

Above Oxford (Kings lock and up to Lechlade) the locks are balance beam type with no hydraulics so it is obviously possible, while there is no lock keeper in attendance, to just open one gate and go in through the single gate. The locks are not actually 14ft wide they are all wider than that.

 

Second point.

 

Hydraulic locks (Godstow down to Teddington). The reason the EA do not permit vessels to pass through single gates or gates which have not been fully opened is that a gate strike would damage the hydraulic ram.

 

It isn't about damage to gates themselves or leakage it is about causing damage to the rams and associated fittings.

 

It is also rather unusual for a hydraulic lock to have one gate fully open while the other stays shut. Generally (not always) they open at more or less the same speed.

 

Out of lock keeper hours when public power is in operation there is nothing to prevent people from opening the gates as much or as little as they wish  but it is bad practice. Gates should always be opened all the way regardless of size of vessel.

 

 

 

 

Please read the question again and add approx to 14ft Then provide a constructive response.

[frangar]

I always only open one gate on a wide lock…and rarely touch when entering or leaving. In fact even when sharing I open one gate and push across. Saves a load of time on a flight when not many crew…perhaps boat design and skippers ability need to be looked at….some modern boats do have ridiculously wide chines and poorly designed rubbing strakes…and this “contact sport” rubbish needs to stop. 

[magpie patrick]

This old chestnut... 

 

Electrification is not cheap, needs a power source and is another thing to go wrong. In some limited instances it is a good idea but if you think the cost of gate replacement is high then the cost of maintaining several hundred electrically operated locks would be eye watering - it's not just the power supply but the inspection, maintanance of moving parts and replacement etc

 

Second, a gate operated by a hydraulic ram is subject to different loads - you CAN just fasten a ram to an existing gate but over time it damages the gate. The ram can also apply a lot more force to the gate than a boaters backside on a balance beam can, so the gates need to be more substantial to deal with this. 

 

Third, the boats brushing on gates is easily fixed with sacrificial wooden strips on the mitre post - this damage happens on narrow locks too and also potentially where pairs of narrow boats enter a lock side by side.  Gates get brushed against unless the lock is quite a lot bigger than the boats entering - it would help if gates went all the way into the gate recesses - too often they don't

 

The REAL cause of damage to the closed gate is not brushing it but hitting it, especially when going downstream when the gate can't just move out of the way on impact. 

 

The most brutal damage to gates is caused by hitting them when they have a head of water against them. 

 

[Jen-in-Wellies]

Come to Yorkshire, where many of the canals are as @oboat describes. Aire and Calder to Leeds and Wakefield. Sheffield and South Yorkshire to Rotherham were widened and mostly made push button boating in the 1970's and early '80's for bigger boat commercial traffic, just before Maggie closed down most of the industry that used it. The only powered lock that allows just one gate to be opened on it's own is at Thorne and that is quite a bit wider than 14', so easier to get through in a narrowboat without wearing the mitre. The movement of gates and paddles is by hydraulic ram, but the hydraulic pump, control systems and sensors are electric. A lot of the moveable bridges are push button and those smaller swing bridges that are swung by hand still have electrical interlocking, so you physically can't move the bridge deck away from the  road unless the barriers are blocking the road.

The down side is that all this stuff is fragile and breaks a lot. In the summer months, CaRT has a person in a van, who spends all day going around the locks and bridges, fixing minor problems that are preventing them from working. It is common to come across a structure that isn't working and having an hour or so wait till they can get to you. More severe break downs, needing a day, or two to fix are not uncommon. This is on waterways with relatively sparse boat traffic. Some of that traffic is commercial, so CaRT make keeping it all running a high priority. What it would be like somewhere like the GU at Braunston on a sunny bank holiday weekend, when a sensor decides it isn't going to play nice any more, I don't want to think about.

Say what you like about manual locks, they are very robust and can be used till they are almost falling apart. Very useful now CaRT spend so little on maintenance.

Jen

[magpie patrick]

Thanks for the on-the-spot info Jen - the breakdowns are a serious issue that needs to be addressed - this happens with other equipment too - we got held up at Wooton Rivers when the pumps feeding the K&A summit failed. 

 

Thorne Lock allows one gate only opening as this gets a longer narrow boat into the lock - blimmin sight cheaper than lengthening the lock! 

 

I have twice recommended mechanising locks, neither has happened. Both were on restoration schemes and in both instances the lock house was a private residence prior to restoration - mechanisation would have allowed the locks to be operated from the side opposite the house. In the end negotiations with the house occupants, along with some mitigation such as fencing and access gates, made this unnecessary. 

 

If there is a good one-off candidate for mechanisation it might be Bradford Lock on the K&A, but this is the first lock for a lot of hirers and they "cut their teeth" on it - I'm not keen on hirers then going down the locks in Bath without this practice run. Bradford lock takes a hammering from the number (and dare I say competence) of users, but the hydrailics would also take a hammering, I could see them failing a lot.

 

When we went on the Yorkshire Waterways as kids, the mechanised locks just had big hydraulic rams fastened to the balance beams*, and out of hours the connecting pins were taken out so the lock could be worked manually. If popular locks are to be mechanised they need a manual override. 

 

*These rams could open the gates against a foot of water, and often did, which shortened the life of the gate! It also masked the leakage problems to the extent that some locks were virtually impossible to operate manually.

 

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by magpie patrick

[GUMPY]

Bottom gates suffer more than top gates as the rubbing strake on a boat is above the water level at the top.

You rarely see leaky bottom gates on the Nene / Gt Ouse as there are almost none, the answer to me seems simple, replace problem lock bottom gates with manual Nene style guillotine structures. No power needed, no paddles to maintain and it would keep people fit winding them up and down 🤭

[MtB]

8 hours ago, oboat said:

This year I spent the summer on the Upper Thames and was impressed by the EA system of not allowing nb on its 14ft beam locks to pass through a single gate.

 

Swerving off at a tangent, what system is that please? I don't remember there being any system preventing me using a single gate but it was a long time ago I went above Oxford, and it was not a happy trip.

 

Is it just a rule people comply with voluntarily, or is there some sort of mechanical interlock to force both gates to open together? 

 

Thanks.

[oboat]

1 hour ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Come to Yorkshire, where many of the canals are as @oboat describes. Aire and Calder to Leeds and Wakefield. Sheffield and South Yorkshire to Rotherham were widened and mostly made push button boating in the 1970's and early '80's for bigger boat commercial traffic, just before Maggie closed down most of the industry that used it. The only powered lock that allows just one gate to be opened on it's own is at Thorne and that is quite a bit wider than 14', so easier to get through in a narrowboat without wearing the mitre. The movement of gates and paddles is by hydraulic ram, but the hydraulic pump, control systems and sensors are electric. A lot of the moveable bridges are push button and those smaller swing bridges that are swung by hand still have electrical interlocking, so you physically can't move the bridge deck away from the  road unless the barriers are blocking the road.

The down side is that all this stuff is fragile and breaks a lot. In the summer months, CaRT has a person in a van, who spends all day going around the locks and bridges, fixing minor problems that are preventing them from working. It is common to come across a structure that isn't working and having an hour or so wait till they can get to you. More severe break downs, needing a day, or two to fix are not uncommon. This is on waterways with relatively sparse boat traffic. Some of that traffic is commercial, so CaRT make keeping it all running a high priority. What it would be like somewhere like the GU at Braunston on a sunny bank holiday weekend, when a sensor decides it isn't going to play nice any more, I don't want to think about.

Say what you like about manual locks, they are very robust and can be used till they are almost falling apart. Very useful now CaRT spend so little on maintenance.

Jen

Good points, & that was my principal concern (the Lee is the same but no Man in Van) we experiences the CRT man in van on our last trip pre CV19. In fact we met him so often he almost became a family friend. We were very impressed.  

[oboat]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Swerving off at a tangent, what system is that please? I don't remember there being any system preventing me using a single gate but it was a long time ago I went above Oxford, and it was not a happy trip.

 

Is it just a rule people comply with voluntarily, or is there some sort of mechanical interlock to force both gates to open together? 

 

Thanks.

All the Locks in question had staff, all very old school. At one he was on a lunch break but still stood over us and made certain we used the long pole on the 2nd gate. It was a fab trip, in fact our best on the river to date.

[magpie patrick]

7 minutes ago, oboat said:

All the Locks in question had staff, all very old school. At one he was on a lunch break but still stood over us and made certain we used the long pole on the 2nd gate. It was a fab trip, in fact our best on the river to date.

 

Now there's a good idea! Boats to carry a long pole and the offside gate to have a hook to engage it. I guess the gates would need to be balanced well for this to work but it's a lot simpler and easier than electrification! 

 

(Yes, I'm serious)  

[oboat]

8 hours ago, Goliath said:

Nope.

it’s heritage not to be f###ed with.

 

More cost effective to have an army of officious Volunteer Lockies.  
(actually it’s probably not, probably more cost effective to maintain the gates and fix’em)

CHM Restrictions/Opportunities
Unfortunately like most things Cultural Heritage Management/Interpretation is subject to fads of fashion, and local officer personal (often armature) interpretation. Actions which may be supported in one location, can be rejected (frozen moment) in another. 
Thus, although I have suggested Marsworth (adjacent power) as an example for this proposal it could be developed for use in other suitable One Off locations with high usage and/or pumping costs. The badly leaking locks on the L&L spring to mind.

Not waterway related but the more observant may have noticed that buildings with new extensions are beginning to appear where the new roof is subservient to the original for no apparent reason.

This CRM fashion seems to have developed about 15-20 years ago in the Channel Islands where it has created some ridiculously malformed buildings.

 

[oboat]

18 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

Now there's a good idea! Boats to carry a long pole and the offside gate to have a hook to engage it. I guess the gates would need to be balanced well for this to work but it's a lot simpler and easier than electrification! 

 

(Yes, I'm serious)  

The poles in question are lightweight Aluminium which rest on a hook on the beam and the toe board of the gate when not in use. Unfortunately I can think of a myriad of alternative uses for such items.

[magpie patrick]

3 minutes ago, oboat said:

The poles in question are lightweight Aluminium which rest on a hook on the beam and the toe board of the gate when not in use. Unfortunately I can think of a myriad of alternative uses for such items.

 Footbridges on the tail of every lock would be an alternative - the most common reason for not opening one gate on a wide lock is, I suspect, the walk round to do it. Certainly that's why I'm resistant to it when on my own.

[oboat]

2 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 Footbridges on the tail of every lock would be an alternative - the most common reason for not opening one gate on a wide lock is, I suspect, the walk round to do it. Certainly that's why I'm resistant to it when on my own.

So to get back to the point of the original question! 

Which locks do you feel could benefit most from such an installation & why?

[magnetman]

7 hours ago, oboat said:

Please read the question again and add approx to 14ft Then provide a constructive response.

 

OK.

 

9 hours ago, oboat said:

This year I spent the summer on the Upper Thames and was impressed by the EA system of not allowing nb on its 14ft beam locks to pass through a single gate.

 

The EA do not have a "system of not allowing nb on its 14ft beam locks to pass through a single gate".

 

There is a system called a "Lock keeper" but if they are not there you can open one gate and go through it (referring to balance beam locks from Kings to St Johns).

 

I misunderstood the point being made. It sounded like there was an interlock system of some sort whereby one could not only open one gate. There isn't. People in narrow boats routinely pass through single gates on the locks above Oxford if there is no lock keeper there. It happens all the time.

 

 

As I said in my non-constructive response, the hydraulic powered locks are on power 24/7 regardless of whether there is a keeper on. You CAN open the gates partly and take the boat through, sliding against the  mitres if you want to. There is no system to prevent you doing this because the gate power circuit requires a constant button press and does not complete the opening cycle without an operator on button. Therefore you can just stop the gates whenever you like. People do this regularly. It damages the hardware.

 

The only system which can ensure that gates are always fully opened is a Lock Keeper.

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by magnetman

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It sounded like there was a system whereby one could not only open one gate.

 

 

Yes that's what I thought might have been installed, so I asked for clarification above.

 

But yes now the OP explains, I remember the ally pole and how futile it felt to use it, when one gate open makes a 9ft gap! 

 

[magnetman]

If you automate the gates so that they open fully without an operator you introduce the risk of crushing anyone who falls in between the gate and the lockside. This is why the system on powered locks requires an operator to be holding the button down and it would not be appropriate to enable full opening with operator not present.

 

I think some locks in France might be fully automatic but the French do have a completely different attitude to H&S to the British.

 

 

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Yes that's what I thought might have been installed, so I asked for clarification above.

 

But yes now the OP explains, I remember the ally pole and how futile it felt to use it, when one gate open makes a 9ft gap! 

 

 

Ah. The hitcher poles. Is the "system" being referred to?

 

They do make opening the other gate easier but by no means obligatory.

 

I'm  wondering if it is in the byelaws that both gates must be open. Hmm. Not sure.

[magnetman]

Maybe section IV covers it ? If you left one lock gate closed someone else might collide with it.

 

(1993 Thames byelaws)

 

Operation of locks weirs and sluices
49 (a)No person shall
(i) open or close or attempt to open or close the gate of any lock except by
the means provided for that purpose or before the water is level on both
sides of the gate;
(ii) draw or operate any sluice until the lock-gates are closed;
(iii) operate or leave open any sluice so as to waste water;
(iv) operate or leave open any lock-gate so as to risk causing any hazard or
unreasonable hindrance to other users of the river or its banks towpaths
or footpaths;
(v) operate any sluice otherwise than by means of the handle or other device
normally used for that purpose;
(vi) cause or allow any vessel in their charge to remain in a lock or channel
or cut leading to and from the same longer than is necessary for the
convenient passage thereof except when permitted by the Authority