Kegworth Flood Lock

[Richard T]

CRT have issued a notice today stating that this lock will close from 1st September to 24th October for gate renewal. This is being done early because over winter the Soar floods which delays completion of any works.

Does anyone know if the loop which the flood lock bypasses is still navigable? There are boats moored on it but they are upstream of the bridge so presumably they access the moorings from that side.

[matty40s]

We did it in Aug 2020, just because it was the first big cruise since Covid and thought why not, we also knew the river was a couple of inches higher due to storms in the catchment area.

[Cancunia]

I'm a bit late to the thread, but in case anyone is still interested. As of 26 Sept, it is possible to bypass the Kegworth Flood Lock by going around the river loop. The only problem is that there's a large Willow branch across the river just as you approach the upstream fork that rejoins the main river, it requires a sharp turn to get around it. I got round in my 36 foot narrow boat and met a couple of river cruisers going the other way but without a bow saw or a chain saw, it would be a struggle with anything over 40 foot.

 

Happy to be corrected, but I can see absolutely no purpose in that flood lock or the money being spent on renewing it as the river is connected on both sides of the lock. 

[Tony Brooks]

22 hours ago, Cancunia said:

Happy to be corrected, but I can see absolutely no purpose in that flood lock or the money being spent on renewing it as the river is connected on both sides of the lock. 

 

But does it not provide a safer haven, immediately above and below, for boats when floods hit. Until the river overtops the gates/lockside they should be out of the current.

[PeterScott]

On 26/12/2014 at 15:36, Mrs Trackman said:

We have been round the river section thus avoiding the lock. From memory need to go through centre arch of road bridge.

Not sure how well dredged it will be now so few boats moor there. Anyone done it recently?

... and on 4 Mar 2007

[matty40s]

30 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

But does it not provide a safer haven, immediately above and below, for boats when floods hit. Until the river overtops the gates/lockside they should be out of the current.

No, it's not safe there.

The Soar flood system is designed to protect Leicester, Loughborough and then Zouch/Kegworth. So everything is dumped from upstream quickly. As soon as Pillings Lock flood sluice gate is raised, the Kegworth Lock disappears underwater...I have seen it with only the metal handrails and paddle racks  visible! 

I did have a picture, but Photobucket have stolen them.

 

 

[Richard T]

The only safe place at Kegworth is above the deep lock. Going downstream even above Ratcliffe lock is iffy. The next real place of safety is the bottom of the Erewash or Cranfleet cut beyond the flood gates.

[matty40s]

Or...

 

[magpie patrick]

Did Kegworth Shallow Lock ever bypass a weir? This extract from the 1850s six inch map suggests not

 

In which case one wonders why they built a lock? 

Interestingly the maps refer to this as New Lock and Kegworth Deep as Old Lock, so presumably it was a later addition

[matty40s]

No, there was no wier on that section of river, BUT the wier by the Old Lock was extended to include the Plaster Mill stream once that shut down to increase water capacity.

The Old lock was moved Eastwards at the same time..straightening the lock cut and is about 2 feet higher than the old OLD lock.

Ratcliffe Lock was moved at a similar time.

Edited October 6, 2025 by matty40s

[Pluto]

There does appear to be shallows just above the river bridge which the new lock and canal would ave avoided. The sharp bend could also have created difficulties in lining up for the bridge.

[magpie patrick]

On 06/10/2025 at 13:48, matty40s said:

No, there was no wier on that section of river, BUT the wier by the Old Lock was extended to include the Plaster Mill stream once that shut down to increase water capacity.

The Old lock was moved Eastwards at the same time..straightening the lock cut and is about 2 feet higher than the old OLD lock.

Ratcliffe Lock was moved at a similar time.

 

Quite a few changes - although I still can't see how it created a meaningful head of water at the New Lock/Shallow Lock/Flood Lock, and I certainly can't see how it does now! Why do CRT maintain the gates? 

[matty40s]

9 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

Quite a few changes - although I still can't see how it created a meaningful head of water at the New Lock/Shallow Lock/Flood Lock, and I certainly can't see how it does now! Why do CRT maintain the gates? 

Possibly just to help slow the flow....making the majority of it go round the original longer bendy route. This would help the properties and marina downstream of the flood lock.

Not having gates at all would result in a straight flow of a large volume....possibly more likely to take the flood bank on the next bend out.

[magpie patrick]

2 hours ago, matty40s said:

Possibly just to help slow the flow....making the majority of it go round the original longer bendy route. This would help the properties and marina downstream of the flood lock.

Not having gates at all would result in a straight flow of a large volume....possibly more likely to take the flood bank on the next bend out.

 

That makes sense I think - do you normally work this lock or do they only close the gates with a stronger stream? I've been through it once, 25 years ago, and can't remember whether we had to work it or not.

 

Ufton lock on the Kennet had a fall of one foot, when navigation was restored they didn't bother putting gates on. The flow through the chamber is impressive. 

[matty40s]

Its normally chained open in the Summer months unless a deluge happens. Its is operated normall from Oct-March...although sometimes the gates just swing open anyway.

[magpie patrick]

4 minutes ago, matty40s said:

.although sometimes the gates just swing open anyway.

 

On 29/09/2025 at 11:31, PeterScott said:

 

 

As in this picture! 🫢

 

From memory I went through in April and the gates were closed - it has a fall of about an inch. I could of opened them both ends but felt it wasn't my place to do so. 

[AKD]

On 06/10/2025 at 10:48, magpie patrick said:

Did Kegworth Shallow Lock ever bypass a weir? This extract from the 1850s six inch map suggests not

 

In which case one wonders why they built a lock? Interestingly the maps refer to this as New Lock and Kegworth Deep as Old Lock, so presumably it was a later addition

 

Practical considerations, . . to keep commercial traffic on the move. 

The Trent Navigation Co./British Waterways Nottingham-Leicester traffic on the Soar continued for another 100(+) years after the Lock Cut and the Shallow Lock were built, but even then, into the 1950's and 60's, with power driven craft, the old original river course via the sharp bight into the multi-arch road bridge by the pub became impassable/impractical in either direction with a only a few inches of fresh in the river.  Without the Lock Cut and the Shallow Lock, navigation with horse-boats would have been impossible for frequent and often lengthy periods during every Winter, and early Spring too.

Edited October 9, 2025 by AKD

[AKD]

On 07/10/2025 at 09:33, Pluto said:

There does appear to be shallows just above the river bridge which the new lock and canal would ave avoided. The sharp bend could also have created difficulties in lining up for the bridge.

 

I don't know where you've got that idea from, . . but the multi-arch road bridge over the old original course of the Soar at Kegworth affects the depths lowside of the bridge in exactly the same way as the piers of every other multi-arch non-tidal river bridge do.    

When the Shallow Lock and the New Cut were built, back in the 1800's, the main operational 'difficulties' would have been getting the upriver traffic towlines back onto the hauling path from the navigation arch, . . irrespective of whether or not there was any extra fresh on.

[magpie patrick]

18 hours ago, AKD said:

 

Practical considerations, . . to keep commercial traffic on the move. 

The Trent Navigation Co./British Waterways Nottingham-Leicester traffic on the Soar continued for another 100(+) years after the Lock Cut and the Shallow Lock were built, but even then, into the 1950's and 60's, with power driven craft, the old original river course via the sharp bight into the multi-arch road bridge by the pub became impassable/impractical in either direction with a only a few inches of fresh in the river.  Without the Lock Cut and the Shallow Lock, navigation with horse-boats would have been impossible for frequent and often lengthy periods during every Winter, and early Spring too.

 

Interesting stuff - and shows the many facets to a succesful river navigation.

 

I'm aware of other locks where there was no weir on the section of river bypassed - Butchersfield on the Mersey and Irwell had a fall of around two feet - but they weren't common, more often a simple bypass channel would suffice and 100-200 years on it's often not easy to tell that this channel isn't the river. 

 

Butchersfield was to cut off a huge loop in the river - little more than the length of the lock saved around 2 miles IIRC, and the flow through the cut would have been excessive given the gradient. The locks were removed along with much of the loop when the ship canal was built, and now only the short cut remains - it's straightness giving away that it isn't natural

 

Thanks for the history lesson on this unusual cut

[Pluto]

14 hours ago, AKD said:

 

I don't know where you've got that idea from, . . but the multi-arch road bridge over the old original course of the Soar at Kegworth affects the depths lowside of the bridge in exactly the same way as the piers of every other multi-arch non-tidal river bridge do.    

When the Shallow Lock and the New Cut were built, back in the 1800's, the main operational 'difficulties' would have been getting the upriver traffic towlines back onto the hauling path from the navigation arch, . . irrespective of whether or not there was any extra fresh on.

Looking at the aerial view on Google maps. Butchersfield did have a weir, as marked on the 1849 OS map, which also shows that a new lock had replaced an older one, close to the weir. The old lock site seems to have been made into a weir subsequently.

[magpie patrick]

4 minutes ago, Pluto said:

Looking at the aerial view on Google maps. Butchersfield did have a weir, as marked on the 1849 OS map, which also shows that a new lock had replaced an older one, close to the weir. The old lock site seems to have been made into a weir subsequently.

I think it was the old lock site I had in mind before the new larger one was built 

[Pluto]

The new locks were built around 1828, and OS maps suggest the old lock was converted into a flood channel between 1873 and 1891, with the upper end of the meander being cut by infilling between the old lock and the old weir.

[magpie patrick]

On 11/10/2025 at 15:27, Pluto said:

The new locks were built around 1828, and OS maps suggest the old lock was converted into a flood channel between 1873 and 1891, with the upper end of the meander being cut by infilling between the old lock and the old weir.

 

Clearly I am, at best, relying on incorrect information and at worst misremembering things - my source is a talk on the M&I I went to a couple of decades ago where I'm reasonably certain the speaker said that Butchersfield Lock was added later as a short cut and had no weir, just the gradient of the river. I'm reasonably certain as it wouldn't occur to me to invent something like that - it is so unusual, but I may have the wrong lock, the wrong navigation, or (just possibly) be misremembering what he said - it is plausible for example that the lock was built and the weir then added, and I didn't hear, or didn't remember, the second bit  

 

Further to the above, and having just explored that navigation on NLS Maps, I think I had the wrong lock - was it Sandy Wards Lock on the M&I? 1850s 6 inch plan below

 

[AKD]

8 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

 

Clearly I am, at best, relying on incorrect information and at worst misremembering things - my source is a talk on the M&I I went to a couple of decades ago where I'm reasonably certain the speaker said that Butchersfield Lock was added later as a short cut and had no weir, just the gradient of the river. I'm reasonably certain as it wouldn't occur to me to invent something like that - it is so unusual, but I may have the wrong lock, the wrong navigation, or (just possibly) be misremembering what he said - it is plausible for example that the lock was built and the weir then added, and I didn't hear, or didn't remember, the second bit  

 

Initially constructing a new (short) Lock Cut and Lock, at Butchersfield or anywhere else, without a new weir to replace the first/original one, is and would have been the most practical, and obviously the lowest cost way of making this particular improvement to the Navigation, . . the try it, initially with the minimum cost outlay, and see how it works approach.

However, my own experience and first hand observations on a great many different River Navigations, of the effects of Cuts, with or without Locks, constructed primarily for the purpose of distance shortening and/or navigational imrovements, is that there is/was always an increase in silting and shoaling at the points where the new cut leaves and rejoins the existing or orginal course of the River.

A new Cut with new Lock, but initially no new weir, . . then new weir added later, dependant on the rapidity and/or severity of any new problems occuring with siltation and shoaling, . . is the order in which I would expect improvents and new construction to have taken place.

Edited October 13, 2025 by AKD

[Pluto]

On 13/10/2025 at 09:29, magpie patrick said:

 

Clearly I am, at best, relying on incorrect information and at worst misremembering things - my source is a talk on the M&I I went to a couple of decades ago where I'm reasonably certain the speaker said that Butchersfield Lock was added later as a short cut and had no weir, just the gradient of the river. I'm reasonably certain as it wouldn't occur to me to invent something like that - it is so unusual, but I may have the wrong lock, the wrong navigation, or (just possibly) be misremembering what he said - it is plausible for example that the lock was built and the weir then added, and I didn't hear, or didn't remember, the second bit  

 

Further to the above, and having just explored that navigation on NLS Maps, I think I had the wrong lock - was it Sandy Wards Lock on the M&I? 1850s 6 inch plan below

 

Patrick, you need new glasses as well!!! The name is Sandywarps, as the OS map annotated with the 1849 scheme for improvement shows. Just the sort of name you would expect for a meandering section on a flood plain. This section is almost level, with not enough fall for a water mill, and Steers, in his first plan for a navigation in 1721, did not have a lock between Warburton and Holmes Bridge. The later improvements were to straighten the river and to dredge it to increase carrying capacity. There was much discussion around how the increased rate of flow in the river would affect the Mersey below Runcorn, and thus the port of Liverpool.

Edited October 19, 2025 by Pluto