W&B canal Sunk Boat

[Mike Todd]

16 hours ago, frangar said:

Looking at the tide marks on the wing walls and the hull it seems to me that the lower pound was down and the boat could well be sitting on something....if it then wedged and they tried to flush it through or refill the pound it only takes a low vent opening to cause an issue....

 

I have come close on few occasions to sinking my boat but thankfully got away with it mainly due to luck....it doesnt take much for a minor issue to become a big one...a slight distraction or a bad decision.

. . . and one having to be made very quickly, often with limited or no prior experience of a similar situation and none of the repeat training that professionals would (these days) do to prepare for an emergency. Just think how much worse the Key Bridge disaster would have been if the traffic controllers had had to have a five minute conference to decide how to react to the May Day. 

 

All too often there is no second chance to try something different if the first choice does not work. 

[IanD]

4 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

. . . and one having to be made very quickly, often with limited or no prior experience of a similar situation and none of the repeat training that professionals would (these days) do to prepare for an emergency. Just think how much worse the Key Bridge disaster would have been if the traffic controllers had had to have a five minute conference to decide how to react to the May Day. 

 

All too often there is no second chance to try something different if the first choice does not work. 

When we once got a rope locked round a bollard in a rising staircase lock (thanks to bad advice from a CART worker) we came perilously close to sinking -- yes with hindsight the obvious thing to do was to shut the paddles but nobody was near them, we were both trying to free off the rope assuming that this would work (because it normally does), and luckily said worker ran over and cut the rope with his saw (they were doing some woodwork on the tail bridge). It's easy to criticise afterwards, not so easy at the time especially if this has never happened to you before.

 

For an example of forewarned being forearmed, a few years ago we went up the Diggle flight not long after a boat had sunk there after grounding on the top cill when exiting the lock and the leaky gates emptying the lock below it, but I knew about this (from CWDF postings...) and was watching out for it, so when it we touched the top cill I knew there was no point trying to get the boat out and the best option was to immediately go hard astern and pull back into the lock, which we did. I'm pretty sure if I hadn't known what was happening and what to do we could have sunk there like the earlier boat did... 😞 

 

It doesn't look like there was any bad decision which lead to the boat under discussion getting jammed in the first place, that was just bad luck and a submerged obstruction in the canal. But the sinking can't have been due to a quick wrong decision forced on them in an emergency, it was the following day after lots of time trying (unsuccessfully) to free it -- surely they must have done *something* wrong to end up with the boat underwater after a day still afloat but jammed?

 

This isn't just schadenfreude or idle speculation, it can be really useful knowing why a boat sank just in case you're ever unfortunate enough to end up in the same position -- see my Diggle comment above.

Edited March 27 by IanD

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

When we once got a rope locked round a bollard in a rising staircase lock (thanks to bad advice from a CART worker) we came perilously close to sinking -- yes with hindsight the obvious thing to do was to shut the paddles but nobody was near them, we were both trying to free off the rope assuming that this would work (because it normally does), and luckily said worker ran over and cut the rope with his saw (they were doing some woodwork on the tail bridge). It's easy to criticise afterwards, not so easy at the time especially if this has never happened to you before.

 

For an example of forewarned being forearmed, a few years ago we went up the Diggle flight not after a boat had sunk there after grounding on the top cill when exiting the lock and the leaky gates emptying the lock below it, but I knew about this (from CWDF postings...) and was watching out for it, so when it we touched the top cill I knew there was no point trying to get the boat out and the best option was to immediately go hard astern and pull back into the lock, which we did. I'm pretty sure if I hadn't known what was happening and what to do we could have sunk there like the earlier boat did... 😞 

 

It doesn't look like there was any bad decision which lead to the boat under discussion getting jammed in the first place, that was just bad luck and a submerged obstruction in the canal. But the sinking can't have been due to a quick wrong decision forced on them in an emergency, it was the following day after lots of time trying (unsuccessfully) to free it -- surely they must have done *something* wrong to end up with the boat underwater after a day still afloat but jammed?

 

This isn't just schadenfreude or idle speculation, it can be really useful knowing why a boat sank just in case you're ever unfortunate enough to end up in the same position -- see my Diggle comment above.

Me too - but I think in a different lock on that canal

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

Me too - but I think in a different lock on that canal

 

I think that was a way to sink a boat that pretty much *nobody* saw coming *before* it happened (it's easy to see *after* it happened, hindsight always helps...), and where the normal solution to a low upper pound (running water down into the low pound above) wouldn't have worked because the water inside the lock was dropping faster then it could refill past the obstruction formed by the boat.

 

CART later put a red board and warning sign on the lock telling boaters not to try and leave if the water level was too low, but we went through only a couple of weeks after the sinking. It was some time before they fixed the horrendous bottom gate leaks that were the root cause... 😞 

[Paul C]

Should be a routine check these days - before leaving a lock, check its full (look at gates behind)

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

Should be a routine check these days - before leaving a lock, check its full (look at gates behind)

Huh? Pound above lock is low, so water inside lock is at the same level (low) when it's full -- no amount of looking at the gates will raise it any further.

 

Usually if you think the upper pound is deep enough to get out of the lock and up to the next lock, you won't go ahead and run a lot of water down and possibly pass the problem on to the next lock just because the level looks low. And if you're wrong then you swear and go and do it and wait for the pound to come up, but there isn't a big risk of the boat sinking in the lock.

 

Unless the bottom gates are *extremely* leaky, which they were in this case... 😞 

Edited March 27 by IanD

[Paul C]

The point being, it’s not completely full if the pound above is too low.

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

The point being, it’s not completely full if the pound above is too low.

Apart from stating the blindingly obvious -- what do you do then? Insist on going ahead every single time the upper pound level is a bit low and running water down through the next lock, and repeating this at every lock in the flight due to knock-on effect, possibly making the problem worse, and meanwhile holding up any other boats? What if the next pound is half a mile long?

 

If you've ever travelled on the HNC I'd have thought that you'd know that low pounds are *very* common, and in most cases not worth doing anything about so long as you can get through OK... 😉

[Paul C]

15 minutes ago, IanD said:

Huh? Pound above lock is low, so water inside lock is at the same level (low) when it's full 

You said it was full when the pound above is low. Its blindingly obvious it’s not full.

[IanD]

28 minutes ago, Paul C said:

You said it was full when the pound above is low. Its blindingly obvious it’s not full.

<sigh> most reasonably people would say a lock is full when the water level inside is the same as the upper pound outside and you can open the gate -- which is of course what I meant... 😉 

 

So I'll ask again -- if you look at the bottom gate and see the water level is low when you open the top gates, what would you do about it?

 

Edited March 27 by IanD

[Lady M]

Especially on the HMC, I counted the exposed bricks to make sure the lock was full enough for my boat to leave it safely.

[Tam & Di]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

<sigh> most reasonably people would say a lock is full when the water level inside is the same as the upper pound outside and you can open the gate -- which is of course what I meant... 😁

 

 I'd agree, though I do often talk of it 'making a level' which is effectively the same thing. That works in either direction, rather than having to use "empty" - on here it seems there are those who would query "empty" unless the lock had been physically pumped dry. 😁

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

 

 I'd agree, though I do often talk of it 'making a level' which is effectively the same thing. That works in either direction, rather than having to use "empty" - on here it seems there are those who would query "empty" unless the lock had been physically pumped dry. 😁

 

My point was that -- at least, before the Diggle sinking, which I think was a previously undiscovered way of sinking in a lock -- if the water level is low (not dry!) the usual approach would be to try and get to the next lock regardless, because this very often works without running water down, and was not thought to be very risky.

 

Like many other boaters I've done this plenty of times with the water anything up to a foot (or even more...) down with no big problem, if you're grinding on the bottom *then* go and run some water down -- if you do this every time the levels look a bit low (as some posts seem to be suggesting) you'll spend most of your time on canals like the HNC running water down for no good purpose.

 

After Diggle, if the water is low when a lock makes the level (thanks @Tam & Di ) going up I always go and check below the bottom gate to see if it's leaky -- because just looking at the level at the bottom gate or brickwork doesn't tell you whether there might be a problem or not. At least, on narrow canals like the HNC -- on broad ones like the Rochdale this much leakage makes the problem obvious because it takes five people to open the gate... 😉 

Edited March 27 by IanD

[Dav and Pen]

In this case I believe that they got stuck coming out and for some reason they lowered the pound thinking this would un jam the boat but this in fact made it worse as they then got fast on an obstruction possibly a motor bike. Trying to fill the lock clearly let water in rather than lift it.

[Midnight]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

Apart from stating the blindingly obvious -- what do you do then? Insist on going ahead every single time the upper pound level is a bit low and running water down through the next lock, and repeating this at every lock in the flight due to knock-on effect, possibly making the problem worse, and meanwhile holding up any other boats? What if the next pound is half a mile long?

 

If you've ever travelled on the HNC I'd have thought that you'd know that low pounds are *very* common, and in most cases not worth doing anything about so long as you can get through OK... 😉

 

On the HNC when going up I always look to see if the lock is full and the pound above has plenty if water. If not I push the boat out and if it scrapes the cill it's hard astern. Leaking bottom gates plus low water levels above are a red flag potential disaster. Happened a few times over the past years when boats have stuck on the top cill and the water leaked out of the bottom gates. Glug, glug!

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

On the HNC when going up I always look to see if the lock is full and the pound above has plenty if water. If not I push the boat out and if it scrapes the cill it's hard astern. Leaking bottom gates plus low water levels above are a red flag potential disaster. Happened a few times over the past years when boats have stuck on the top cill and the water leaked out of the bottom gates. Glug, glug!

 

Which is exactly what I said, and do -- as I said, if not for being pre-warned by posts on CWDF I might well have been the second boat sunk there, two weeks after the first one... 😞 

[Midnight]

58 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Which is exactly what I said, and do -- as I said, if not for being pre-warned by posts on CWDF I might well have been the second boat sunk there, two weeks after the first one... 😞 

 

I was pre-warned when ascending Lock 25W some years ago. I opened the top gate and noticed the pound above was low so I walked up to lock 26W and checked the level of the pound above. When I returned I asked my other half why the pound was now empty and she was going back down in the lock. The paddle had blown and fortunately she didn't try to exit the lock or it would have been Goodnight Midnight.

[Paul C]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

<sigh> most reasonably people would say a lock is full when the water level inside is the same as the upper pound outside and you can open the gate -- which is of course what I meant... 😉 

 

So I'll ask again -- if you look at the bottom gate and see the water level is low when you open the top gates, what would you do about it?

 

I'm not disagreeing with your approach - which is sensible and I do exactly the same. Its the terminology. You're right, most people would say the lock is "full" if it makes a level with the pound above, but if that pound is low its not full. So grounding on the cill is a real risk. In this instance it appears to be an underwater object, not the cill, but we don't really have enough info to go on.

 

Most people aren't super familiar with the shape of the boat under the water or the architecture of the lock underwater features. And nobody is familiar with unknown underwater obstructions which are hidden by the opacity of the canal water. I won't speculate further on this instance but in general, if I sense a grounding I'll stop and reverse rather than try "plough" through it.

[gatekrash]

And here is the reason he got hung up, from Rich on Roach who was moored below him....

 

 

Further info on the boat that sank in Gregory's top lock.  He is now tied up below the lock and drying out.  He had gutted the boat prior to a refit (so not much damage inside) but is now trying to get the engine working.  A local said it had caught up on a sunken motorbike, but then we stopped to buy coal from Rich on fuel boat Roach who had been moored below when it happened.  He said it had been overplated and the chine was now much wider than it should have been, so his boat was effectively over 7' wide.  Gregory's top is apparently the narrowest lock on the W&B so he got stuck.  He went home to sleep till CRT came back in the morning, but as Rich explained, the canal weirs through these locks (ie no bywash) so his boat was functioning as a gate ... till the water came over the stern and into the boat.  He looked quite cheerful though down his engine hole!

 

 

 

[___]

7 hours ago, gatekrash said:

And here is the reason he got hung up, from Rich on Roach who was moored below him....

 

 

Further info on the boat that sank in Gregory's top lock.  He is now tied up below the lock and drying out.  He had gutted the boat prior to a refit (so not much damage inside) but is now trying to get the engine working.  A local said it had caught up on a sunken motorbike, but then we stopped to buy coal from Rich on fuel boat Roach who had been moored below when it happened.  He said it had been overplated and the chine was now much wider than it should have been, so his boat was effectively over 7' wide.  Gregory's top is apparently the narrowest lock on the W&B so he got stuck.  He went home to sleep till CRT came back in the morning, but as Rich explained, the canal weirs through these locks (ie no bywash) so his boat was functioning as a gate ... till the water came over the stern and into the boat.  He looked quite cheerful though down his engine hole!

 

 

 

I don’t think these locks weir through the gates, both Gregory’s Mill locks have weirs above on the towpath side so it may appear they don’t have by-washes. In general W&B locks have easily visible offside by-washes.

 

Also right from the outset I recall the CRT notices stated the navigation was blocked by a sinking boat rather than a stuck boat.

[blackrose]

12 hours ago, Paul C said:

...in general, if I sense a grounding I'll stop and reverse rather than try "plough" through it.

 

Isn't another approach to proceed very gently at tickover to see if you clear any perceived obstruction, rather than ploughing though and potentially grounding?

 

That's what I do if I'm unsure about the water depth or think there may be some underwater obstruction that I can't steer around. I've grounded the bow before but I was going so slowly that I didn't get stuck and it was possible to reverse off. 

 

I see so many narrow boaters who seem to think the solution to everything is more power and haven't learned to manoeuvre slowly.

 

 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, blackrose said:

 

Isn't another approach to proceed very gently at tickover to see if you clear any perceived obstruction, rather than ploughing though and potentially grounding?

 

That's what I do if I'm unsure about the water depth or think there may be some underwater obstruction that I can't steer around. I've grounded the bow before but I was going so slowly that I didn't get stuck and it was possible to reverse off. 

 

I see so many narrow boaters who seem to think the solution to everything is more power and haven't learned to manoeuvre slowly.

 

 

I don't think it's to do with going slow or fast, it's not realising two things -- one is that most boats are trimmed down at the stern, so if you hit an obstacle or go aground anywhere along the boat while going ahead pushing forward makes the problem worse, the second is that whacking on more power sucks water out from under the boats and makes the stern squat down which makes the problem worse still.

 

I've helped several boats who've gone aground over the years where no amount of full-throttle thrashing has get them off, but a pull backwards from another boat worked. If just a pull isn't enough then a snatch (starting with a slack rope) can work, but you need to be careful because this can cause *big* tensions in the rope and either snap the rope (I've seen this) or even pull the T-stud off (other people have seen this) -- so make sure to use a nice stretchy rope like nylon, and not too short so there's enough "spring" in it.

 

Alternatively run some water down to raise the water level a bit, though this isn't so helpful in a pound half-a-mile long... 😞 

[Mike Todd]

23 hours ago, Paul C said:

The point being, it’s not completely full if the pound above is too low.

There is rarely any 'normal' level that could be used in this way. Esp in HN as the pounds are so short and the level always changes noticeably just by taking or adding a lockful

22 hours ago, Lady M said:

Especially on the HMC, I counted the exposed bricks to make sure the lock was full enough for my boat to leave it safely.

It is not the depth in the loc k that matters but that over the sill!

18 hours ago, Paul C said:

I'm not disagreeing with your approach - which is sensible and I do exactly the same. Its the terminology. You're right, most people would say the lock is "full" if it makes a level with the pound above, but if that pound is low its not full. So grounding on the cill is a real risk. In this instance it appears to be an underwater object, not the cill, but we don't really have enough info to go on.

 

Most people aren't super familiar with the shape of the boat under the water or the architecture of the lock underwater features. And nobody is familiar with unknown underwater obstructions which are hidden by the opacity of the canal water. I won't speculate further on this instance but in general, if I sense a grounding I'll stop and reverse rather than try "plough" through it.

Apart from flood conditions, I don't think I know of any lock that - in this sense - is ever full. There is always some amount of freeboard when ascending and its normal amount can vary between locks even on the same flight. Remember that the original engineers were an idiosyncratic lot with elastic measuring tapes . . . 

6 hours ago, blackrose said:

 

Isn't another approach to proceed very gently at tickover to see if you clear any perceived obstruction, rather than ploughing though and potentially grounding?

 

That's what I do if I'm unsure about the water depth or think there may be some underwater obstruction that I can't steer around. I've grounded the bow before but I was going so slowly that I didn't get stuck and it was possible to reverse off. 

 

I see so many narrow boaters who seem to think the solution to everything is more power and haven't learned to manoeuvre slowly.

 

 

But also remember the old boatman's trick of 'humping' over a sill by using engine power, firstly to push the stern down/bow up and then the other way. Works far more frequently than the HN problem.

[Bee]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

T

But also remember the old boatman's trick of 'humping' over a sill by using engine power, firstly to push the stern down/bow up and then the other way. Works far more frequently than the HN problem.

Gets under low bridges too, push back end down to get the wheelhouse under the bridge then cross your fingers that it doesn't all go horribly wrong......

[ditchcrawler]

There are some interesting photographs of the sunk boat, now afloat on this blog NB Bonjour: Short cruise in the rain, and back to Perdiswell Park (stillchuffed.blogspot.com)