The mystery of how 'Abigail' sank

[John Orentas]

In both of those photo's it can be clearly seen that the boat has been held up close to the top gate of the locks so it is beyond me that anyone could in anyway contest the descriptions of the incidents of being 'Cilled'.

 

Taking that inevitable logic I maintain that such occurrences should never be described as accidents, such happenings are totally avoidable.. When going up or down in a lock the boat should always be positioned a close to the bottom gate.. Obey that simple rule and such errors can never happen.

[alan_fincher]

I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that there must be two different sets of news reports for this incident, and depending upon your CanalWorld Username you get to see one set or the other.

 

There's the set that I and one or two others are seeing, which would appear to have no possible connection with "cilling".

 

I can't say what the other set shows, because I can't see them!

[alan_fincher]

Look at this link.....

 

http://www.grannybuttons.com/granny_button...ting-stree.html

 

It shows clear pictures of the recovered 'Abigail', and describes it's bow fender arrangements and also the 'square' design of the hull, where, unlike other types, the baseplate is not significantly narrower than the overall beam.

 

Also some (to me) sensible theories about how it might have become caught.

[magpie patrick]

In both of those photo's it can be clearly seen that the boat has been held up close to the top gate of the locks so it is beyond me that anyone could in anyway contest the descriptions of the incidents of being 'Cilled'.

 

Taking that inevitable logic I maintain that such occurrences should never be described as accidents, such happenings are totally avoidable.. When going up or down in a lock the boat should always be positioned a close to the bottom gate.. Obey that simple rule and such errors can never happen.

 

John, how the heck do you conclude Abigail was cilled? look carefully, front of boat by bottom gates of lock is high, back of boat, the bit that would have caught on the cill, low, the exact opposite of how it would have been cilled!

[Timleech]

Look at this link.....

 

http://www.grannybuttons.com/granny_button...ting-stree.html

 

It shows clear pictures of the recovered 'Abigail', and describes it's bow fender arrangements and also the 'square' design of the hull, where, unlike other types, the baseplate is not significantly narrower than the overall beam.

 

Also some (to me) sensible theories about how it might have become caught.

 

That projecting bottom plate looks to me to be well over an inch rather than the 'more than half an inch' which is mentioned

Downright dangerous if that is the case.

 

Tim

[Maffi]

Tim you might like to read GB again.

[Steve King]

I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that there must be two different sets of news reports for this incident, and depending upon your CanalWorld Username you get to see one set or the other.

 

There's the set that I and one or two others are seeing, which would appear to have no possible connection with "cilling".

 

Alan, you put it very politely and I own up to incorrectly suggesting that the boat was caught on the cill.

 

Some here had the opportunity to view the photos of Abigail soon after the incident and clearly showing the boat hung up at the tail of the lock and by the fore end. I however had only seen the photo in WW and the one on nbw which appeared to show the boat suspended from what must surely have been the head of the lock, and therefore most probably the top cill. That it could possibly have been the tail of the lock seemed impossible to believe (what is there to hang a boat on there?) and so I came to the wrong conclusion.

 

 

Steve

[Timleech]

Tim you might like to read GB again.

 

OK, I've done that. And...?

 

Tim

[alan_fincher]

Alan, you put it very politely .....

 

Really!

 

I thought I was being rather too unsubtle.

 

Steve,

 

My comments were in no way aimed at you, and you had already changed your mind once you saw more pictures.

 

What staggered me was that despite some very clear pictures showing the outcome, some people were continuing to see something that was very clearly not there.

 

I've also re-read the Granny Buttons page, BTW, and can't see anything in there inconsistent with Tim's post. What are we both missing ? (Well, it is late!...)

 

EDIT:

 

However, on looking yet again, I do have one issue with the Granny Buttons version.

 

This suggests the boat caught on the right (starboard) side. In my view that would result in the boat being higher on the right, and lower on the left, as it would have dipped down until it's square shape jammed in the wider lock.

 

The pictures however suggest a boat caught first on the left (port) side.

 

Unless the pivoting so as the back went down, and the bows up, has resulted in the boat somehow slewing over the other way to which it first hung, it looks to me that it caught on the left, not the right as GB suggests.

 

I still think before the boat was removed, it must have been possible to work out exactly which part of the lock was supporting which part of the boat. It's not rocket science.

Edited August 18, 2008 by alan_fincher

[enigma]

The boat was decending the lock, you can tell this because the single gate is behind the boat and the double gates in front, I know the canal. There as been a similar incident where a boat was going down a lock with a log between the hull and the lock wall. As the boat descended the lock the tapered walls jammed the log tighter and the boat began to rotate about its middle. The crew realized the problem and refilled the lock before it was too late. This seems the same scenario but the descent was not stopped until it was too late.

[Maffi]

OK, I've done that. And...?

 

Tim

 

 

That projecting bottom plate looks to me to be well over an inch rather than the 'more than half an inch' which is mentioned

Downright dangerous if that is the case.

 

Tim

 

GB didn't say 'more than half an inch' he said, "well over half an inch and perhaps more than the more-rounded rubbing strakes above".

[Timleech]

GB didn't say 'more than half an inch' he said, "well over half an inch and perhaps more than the more-rounded rubbing strakes above".

 

 

To say 'well over half an inch' implies to me that half an inch is the nearest 'round number' dimension, whereas my impression from the photos is (OK, the camera can lie, and mislead with perspective) that the projection is well over an inch. Yes, that is still well over half an inch, I agree, but not what's implied by the statement.

 

Tim

[mayalld]

In both of those photo's it can be clearly seen that the boat has been held up close to the top gate of the locks so it is beyond me that anyone could in anyway contest the descriptions of the incidents of being 'Cilled'.

 

Taking that inevitable logic I maintain that such occurrences should never be described as accidents, such happenings are totally avoidable.. When going up or down in a lock the boat should always be positioned a close to the bottom gate.. Obey that simple rule and such errors can never happen.

 

You are clearly looking at a different picture!

 

The pictures of "Abigail" VERY clearly show that the boat is close to the BOTTOM gates of the lock.

 

How you can conclude that a boat wedged in the stonework towards the tail of the lock, with its rear end down in the bottom of the chamber has been cilled is beyond me!

[polyhistor]

Hi,

First post for me

I`ve read the thread with interest and following all the input, would like to try and bring together many of the points made and formulate my own theory.

Firstly, I found it interesting that the crew were `experienced` , that the lock is `single`, that BW blamed innapropriate lock handling, and from the crew comments the crew didn`t appear to have an explanation.

So, i conclude the crew, who were both apparently working the paddles, (i assume there are two) opened them quickly and the sudden outsurge of lockwater into the pound caused a mailstrom within the lock, sufficient to destabalise `Abigail`. This twisted and banked her , locking her on to the sides with the protruding baseplate on one side and chines/rubbing strake on t`other.

I wonder whether the crew did try righting her by gradually filling the lock again and took in water at the stern. The displacement weight at the stern would be considerable , combining the engine and the boat weight from the pivotal point (can`t think of the word)

Any theories on relieving this weight after the event?.... rigging the stern line to the ratchet and pinion on the upper paddle.... or to a boat behind to give a counter weight whilst the lock is filling?