Jump to content

New signs on locks


Featured Posts

Ours are fixed to the part of the balance beam that is over the gate, above the cill itself.

 

When the gates are shut, it's over the cill, when open they are alongside the lock edge, facing the water.

 

I've not seen any on the projecting part of the balance beam (yet!)

 

 

From the Staffs & Worcs last weekend:

 

100667516.jpg

 

Tim

Edited by Tim Lewis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Staffs & Worcs last weekend:

 

100667516.jpg

 

Tim

Certainly not the same type as being fitted in our area.

 

Ours are longer, thinner, and I think gaudier - but I'll check tomorrow!

 

Probably not too hard to install like that on single locks, as they could easily put some staging across to work from.

 

I suspect fitting to the twin top gates of a double lock needs a bit more equipment, time & money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly not the same type as being fitted in our area.

 

Ours are longer, thinner, and I think gaudier - but I'll check tomorrow!

 

Probably not too hard to install like that on single locks, as they could easily put some staging across to work from.

 

I suspect fitting to the twin top gates of a double lock needs a bit more equipment, time & money.

 

This was one of the better ones, many of them were just cable tied to the railings, I guessed that they were all temporary signs until the 'proper' ones are fixed.

 

And whilst I'm whinging about signs my other complaint wearing my photographers hat is why they have to put big signs up at good photographic spots, this one at the Bratch completely ruins the shot!

 

100669801.jpg

 

Tim

Edited by Tim Lewis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will! Which way are you travelling on your cruise? Could there be another lockwheeling banter?

No definite plans yet, other than we are heading North from Tring summit on the GU, so we have until the Leicester main line branches off to mull it over, (we will not be doing Nene, I think, if only because we are only on a BW licence).

 

We had thought about a ring through Leicester, but lack of good information about that broken lock on the Soar means we can't really decide.

 

I like the BCN though, so may be putting a case for going back to Brum.

 

When we know where we are going, we'll post again, and see if anybody is around to meet up.

 

Only restrictions are somewhere over a fortnight and an absolute max of a bit under 3 weeks. Oh, and we aren't equipped for any rivers of any substance either.

 

I don't think our paths are likely to cross any of those who have currently posted a summer cruise plan.

 

If any of the forum watchers, that don't currently post want to PM me if they'll be about, please do. We hope to have Internet on board for the first time, if the technology doesn't fail us....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be too extreme to say "spoils enjoyment of canals".

But when BW play the "heritage" card at every turn, (usually as a reason for inactivity), then slapping bright yellow signs on the most visible part of locks is clearly "not heritage"

I'm not sure what "the heritage card" is exactly, or if this precludes BW from doing anything which looks modern.

 

I object to it principally because I see it as a pointless waste of money.

Then our difference of opinion is principally one of perception. As I said earlier, none of us yet know what effect these signs will have in preventing accidents.

 

I look forward to the first published picture of a "cilled" boat, with a pair of these signs as a backdrop.

Really? You actually want to see potentially life-threatening accidents with people's boats flooded and ruined simply because you don't like the signs? :lol:

 

Of course boats will still be cilled despite these signs, the idea I think is to reduce the numbers of these incidents - they will never be completely eliminated. Some drivers still go around bends in the road at 50mph and crash even though the road sign before the bend said 30. However, many more motorists do reduce their speed and stay on the road.

Edited by blackrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have to remember that no matter how much people like to have a jibe at BW, and lets face it they do seem to give forum members plenty of ammunition, they are a the people who have the job of managing our canal system.

 

Canals, and locks in particular, are potentially very dangerous places. They are pretty places filled with history, often surrounded by a backdrop of a beautiful English countryside. They draw people to go and watch the pretty boats. There are often nearby pubs selling alcohol and on a sunny day the canal around a picturesque lock flight becomes a tourist haven.

 

Imagine if, for example, quarries held the same interest. Often set in beautiful countryside. They have very deep lakes and you might get a chance to see some fantastic geological strata in the walls which give clues to the history of the surrounding land. Can you imagine the problems that could arise from people wanting to drive their families down into the quarry to enjoy the view and have a picnic by that pretty lake? It is of course not allowed. It is far too dangerous for ordinary people to be in a quarry. Employees who work there will have had an induction which included all the H&S awareness they were likely to require.

 

Far too many people just see the canals are being historic pretty places. The induction that hirers get before they set off is done at a time when they are excited and anxious to make a start on their cruise. Often there will be young children around who will be even more excited and they will be interrupting the induction. Short of insisting that every boat hiring crew have half a day in a classroom type situation so they can instruct the hiring crew on not only H&S issues but also the care and maintenance of the boat I think the majority of hire bases do very well given the constraints that are upon them.

 

How many of your experienced boaters have met people on your travels who are first time boat owners. They either have a bright shiny new one which they have just parted with a large wad of their retirement fund to buy or they have a rusting hulk that they picked up for a song off eBay. How many of these people will have had a H&S induction on the dangers that lurk on our canals?

 

BW have a duty to remind people that these areas, while being very pretty, are also potentially very dangerous. Every time a significant accident happens there will be an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive. If BW are found to be lacking in their duty of care they they will not get off lightly. It will cost them a lot more than a few signs might cost them. If people choose to ignore the signs then they do so at their peril.

 

We are all used to seeing the yellow "Danger overhead lines" signs on the towpaths to ensure fishermen are reminded not to fish near overhead electrical cables. I do not remember anyone getting so upset about them?

 

As someone who enjoys taking photos of the canals I agree that the signs will be yet another thing to clutter up a pretty photo. I guess I better go and buy photoshop!

 

It does seem a shame they have to put the signs there but BW will HAVE to put the signs there. There will have been a risk assessment done which showed a potential danger was not being sufficiently highlighted to people. BW will have had no choice because they H&S laws will have directed that this is a requirement. If they fail to comply and an accident happens they then are in breach of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rose,

 

It would be a boring world if we all agreed, and your case is very well argued.

 

However I think we just need to agree that our opinions clearly differ on this one.

 

Whilst I'm not saying that some kind of risk assessment didn't take place before it was decided to take this action, I think it gives BW far too much credit to assume it necessarily did.

 

A large number of the senior managers have been bought in from outside, and both have no canal knowledge whatsoever, but also seem loath to take advice from those who do. They are quite happy to come up with edicts for projects that cost a lot of money, without any sensible decision process having been gone through.

 

I have never heard of a death or even serious injury from a cilling, and so far nobody else has been able to come up with one either.

 

But people do drown from falling in locks, for example, but it is unusual (on BW) to see signs warning of drowning hazards, or deep or fast moving water.

 

I well remember the huge amount of money spent in erecting signs about fishing near overhead power lines. They were often erected by contractors on hired boats, futher increasing cost. I don't know if that was sparked off, (no pun intended), by an accident, or not, but again I've never heard of one. They are fairly widely ignored down here.

 

Mike,

 

Obviously I didn't mean I wanted to see a picture of people drowned or injured. But how often are people drowned or injured when a boat is cilled ?

 

How are you going to know if the signs have reduced accidents, please ? Where can we find the current statistic, to compare any future statistic to ?

 

We can argue about this for ever, but I'm pretty certain in two years time neither of us will be able to prove their effectiveness one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure BW will have records of accidents at locks. I think I already answered your point about nobody dying so far in a cilling incident: An accident doesn't necessarily have to lead to death in order to make those in charge want to prevent such incidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Mike, thanks,

 

I meant to comment upon your point about speed warning signs on road bends.

 

I do not see this as the same as these signs on canal locks.

 

If you are talking about putting a maximum speed for the bend, these are tailored to the bend, and do give you useful information about perceived level of danger.

 

If a sign was erected on every bend, saying "bends can be dangerous, use an appropriate speed", then in my view that would be a waste of time.

 

I can't see the blanket fitting of these to every lock will have much impact, (I'm hoping there isn't one at Fenny Stratford, by the way!).

 

I have no problem with signs that genuinely point out a danger you may not be aware of. Such as those at very deep locks that warn of added danger of engulfing a boat with gate paddles when filling a lock. They are sensible signs, and I think are a good idea.

 

As I said, I'm aware of deaths resulting from bows caught on bottom gates, but have yet to hear of any from sterns caught on cills. If it's about health and safety, wouldn't it be better to target the area where deaths have definitely happened?

 

My cynical self, based on what we have been told by BW staff, says that this is more about hire companies trying to avoid damage to their property, than about protecting life and limb. I'd like to think I was wrong, though.......

 

A large number of the senior managers have been bought in from outside, and both have no canal knowledge whatsoever, but also seem loath to take advice from those who do.

 

Since when has two been a large number? :lol:

 

I know - coat . . . .

 

Well based on one that telephoned me, two would have been a large number, had anyone given him some things to count!. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, I'm aware of deaths resulting from bows caught on bottom gates, but have yet to hear of any from sterns caught on cills. If it's about health and safety, wouldn't it be better to target the area where deaths have definitely happened?

 

 

So you have managed to get from this assertion to a position that getting hung up on bottom gates is more dangerous than getting hung up on the cill.

 

I don't think that this is very logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan, first point, I for one am getting a bit bored about you going on and on and on and on about some fairly small signs mounted to the top gates of a number of locks, but as you chose to do so lets have a quick look at some arguments shall we?

 

The cost of signs is neglible compared to the cost of many more comprehensive safety works: my catalogue doesn't have boats caught on cills but it does have similar size no smoking, hard hat area whatever and these cost a few pounds each. Bespoke signs are about the same price som long as you want at least a few tens of them: even multiplied by every lock on the network they won't cost more than about £30 grand and then guys have to fit them. Try doing any meaningful work at a structure for that money. Each one will be a ten minute job and despite your sceptisism I'll bet a fair few are mounted by someone leaning over, or yes, from a work boat while it passes through a lock. To lean over, open the gate so it's against the towpath, kneel down on the bank or footboard and reach over. A crude risk assessment would suggest that the only serious risk assuming no boat tries to enter the lock would be dropping the drill and the sign in.

 

While, as far as I'm aware, no one has died from a cilled boat, that doesn't mean no one will. The four people who died in the accident you relate were disabled and in the cabin: the boat sank and the combination of them being disabled and in the cabin meant they couldn't get out. If a boat slips off the cill the same thing will happen. "near miss" analysis is fundamental to safety research: there were two near misses in Bath last year, both with boats going through the first few locks of their holiday, and in one case only their second lock ever. The newbies were uninjured because seeing what was happening they jumped onto the bank. The other boaters were luckier, as they were thown into the lock, then the boat tipped sideways. It could have trapped or crushed them, thankfully it didn't. Had they been sharing the lock with another boat it could have got very nasty.

 

As a general rule I think BW now put bumper boards in the middle of broad lock gates to reduce the risk of a fender catching like this again: so they have tackled that one.

 

And yes the ones that sink are the tip of the iceberg, of course there are numerous cillings where the boaters recognise what's happening and sort it out before disaster happens. Same applies with car accidents, fatalities are comparitively few and far between which is why analysis includes serious, slight and damage only: it too is hampered by a lack of information. Damage only accidents and 90% of slight injury accidents don't get reported. But if you only deal with ones where people get killed you end up with the perverse situation whereby dangerous situations aren't dealt with because no one has been killed yet.

 

Putting them on every lock, or at least every lock where the cill is a hazard (Hawkesbury Stop Lock would be daft) is sensible. You may think people ignore it, but many actually learn that the hazard is there and get educated by it. Have you not noticed that every junction on urban roads has a give way sign? You may not always notice it, but you've got used to the fact you have to give way.

 

And finally every lock cill that can catch a boat while the lock is emptying is potentially dangerous: the sinkings last year weren't all in the same lock, and it was probably a nasty coincidence that two happened in Bath (but at different locks). You can't predict which locks are the problem.

 

You won't agree with me: you have your view that these signs are a waste of money and I won't change it. BW do waste money, such as recent bollard fitting at narrow locks. But this isn't such an example, and it's not even that expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess if Eugene Baston were still around, he would be encouraging us to make some kind of formal request to BW to say exactly what the cost is.

 

Clearly the signs themselves cost bugger all - I fully accept that, my only question would be about manpower costs. Not having seen one being fixed, I can only guess what might go on (at broad locks, at least).

 

The reason junctions have "Give Way" (where you don't necessarily have to stop), "Stop", (where you are legally obliged to), or no signs, (usually where you have priority), is to let you know what action the law expects you to take, (and also to help mark the junction).

 

If all junctions were identical, other than making them visible, no sign would be required.

 

In my view, virtually all locks of any significant depth have cills, it's something you know, or soon work out, so why the signs. As I said before, if you are protecting hire fleets, then limit them to say the first 10 downhill locks that any hire boat might meet. Widen that to include any brokerage who may sell someone a boat ? O.K., O.K. - so a private individual may buy a boat at any point on the system, and not know about cills, I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And finally every lock cill that can catch a boat while the lock is emptying is potentially dangerous: the sinkings last year weren't all in the same lock, and it was probably a nasty coincidence that two happened in Bath (but at different locks). You can't predict which locks are the problem.

 

If that right? i thought they were both in Bath deep lock? Which has to be, by anyone's reckoning, an exception - a badly designed 18 ft lock in a flight of 8 ft locks.

 

The main problem in Bath Deep lock is that if anything happens the hydraulic paddles are impossible to drop against the pressure of the water so that if a boat starts to get hung then there is no way to stop the process. Also, the cill is around 12 ft higher than the water level at the bottom so the angle of any boat caught on the cill makes sinking pretty well inevitable.

 

Coming up once I got my tiller caught under the walkway at the bottom of the lock (inside the lock - another design flaw). I opened the paddles to free it and had to go all the way down the lock again because I couldn't close the paddles once opened.

 

The conclusions i would draw from the above is, ok a sign might make someone who has forgotten aware of the danger (though if not already trained would probably be dismissed as meaningless ) but the real solution is to make the lock safe to use; paddles that can be dropped in an emergency and boards on the gates to aid the smooth drop of the bows of the boat.

 

I notice in Fulbourne's pic above he has a bow fender which kind of defeats the whole design of the bow of narrow boat which is shaped in such a way as to prevent it getting caught on anything, unlike a fender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that right? i thought they were both in Bath deep lock? Which has to be, by anyone's reckoning, an exception - a badly designed 18 ft lock in a flight of 8 ft locks.

 

Neither of them were in Bath Deep Lock: the first one (which made national headlines) was in the top lock, the second in the fourth lock down: the deep lock is the fifth down.

 

Which doesn't alter Bath deep lock being a bit of a... can't think of the right word but it isn't complementary

 

edited to add: Bath deep lock now has rack and pinion gear on the bottom gates, but still has hydraulic gear on the top ground paddles

Edited by magpie patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm told by BW staff that these signs, along with the much debated "strapping posts" have been funded separately by HMG as a Health and Safety exercise and not from licence fees.

 

I would be bitching if they were wasting my money but they ain't and in a few years we'll notice them as much as the "gate paddles cause strong flows" signs.

 

At least they're fastening them properly instead of simply donating all the scrap aluminium to the local low life, as seems to have happened with a lot of recently erected BW signage around Brum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<Snip)

 

I notice in Fulbourne's pic above he has a bow fender which kind of defeats the whole design of the bow of narrow boat which is shaped in such a way as to prevent it getting caught on anything, unlike a fender.

 

When boating in narrow locks I make the deliberate decission to leave the bow fender on because I do not want to damage gates whwn entering the lock or during filling (and before the holier than thou posters say that they have never hit a lock gate in there lives I would point out that I am not a professional boatman and stopping a 71'6" 28 ton boat in a 72'6" lock can be an art - or is to me at least)

 

I would also note that the chain on the fender has a weak link which will snap before any damage is caused.

 

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, when I get something wrong, I'm perfectly prepared to admit it.

 

We have just travelled on the Grand Union from Tring summit, down the Marsworth flight, and through all the broad locks up to Leighton Buzzard.

 

My memory was playing tricks. because although some of the signs are positioned over the cills, when the gates are closed, (albeit quite close to the pivot point), most are in fact fitted on the balance beam on the "over land" part, (generally quite close to the pivot point again).

 

So will concede I was wrong, and that most could have been fitted by a team with hand tools, with no boat or special staging required

 

I'm sorry to have misled the forum, and I fully accept that if this is the normal approach, the cost of fitting will be a lot less than I assumed.....

 

However.....

 

(I wish I could post a picture, but my connection is refusing to upload images at the moment.)

 

The gates around here all have an additional timber on the balance beam side, being the part closest to the inside of the lock. The purpose ofthese timbers is clearly to provide a rubbing surface, if boats contact the balance beam on the way in or out of the lock.

 

All the new signage is being applied to these rubbing surfaces. Several we passed are already scuffed up, and a couple have their leading edge folded, and ripped away from the mounting screws, so they are now only held at the top,

 

Given they have only been here a few months, I think we can safely say they will be slowly being removed by passing boats over the next few years.

 

(I have to say it's not obvious to me where they could be pl;aced to meet the requirement of being likely to be read, but also to survive.)

 

Alan (& family).

 

Current location : Old Linslade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to know just how many accidents are caused by boats getting hung up on the cill, and what the risk to the workmen who affix the signs in the precarious positions on the lock gates is by way of risk assessment.

 

I'm not saying that anyone has been injured, but if there are next to no injuries from boats being hung on cills, and only one BW worker is injured whilst affixing a sign, then the whole process is surely one of negation of the point of the exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post these else where, but we have just traversed audlem locks on Saturday, and what a ghastly mess!

 

- Last time I went up them was pretty much a year to the day, long lining the fullers pair up, in similarly glorious weather. And it really did sadden me to see that these signs had arrived. Not only that they had gone up, but how poorly they had been so, and how little thought had clearly gone into the whole jolly rubbish affiar.

 

Oh, and all the 'warning gate paddles create strong flow' signs where totally illegible as well, how long before they're replaced?

- I wound every single gate paddle up all the way before working the ground paddles.

- Didnt cause a problem for us, but there we go, without signs its a dangerous world!

 

dscn2417kd6.jpg

 

dscn2415lw0.jpg

 

dscn2435qp7.jpg

 

dscn2445wy7.jpg

 

dscn2430nt6.jpg

 

 

Seriously. The waste of money and resources annoys the hell out of me, even if it wasnt BW paying. But what really gets on my tits is that anyone actually thinks that these signs will actually help in any way proportional to the cost (not just financially) of them being there.

 

I think there is a time and a place for changing the canals, and adding notices to help prevent things going wrong. However in the main it should be the ownership of the owner/operator of the boat to know and inform people of how the lock should be worked. And BW job to make it serviceable and usable in a suitable and correct fashion. Not on the head of BW to tell people at every lock what they should already know.

 

Even the 'gate paddles strong flow' signs i find far more acceptable. Simply because not all locks have gate paddles, and people may have used locks before that dont, and not realise the implications of using the extra paddles at certain times in the lock filling cycle.

 

Perhaps a singular information board at the beginning of key flights even, or locks where the problem is know to be particularly bad (bath deep). Particularly where they are near hire bases.

 

However, in terms of marking/signing cills all that i feel should be in place is a simple and clear indication of where the cill ends. In the form of a suitably maintained white mark. With or without the word 'cill' on it. (or 'sill' if you really must)

 

Daniel

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.