How long does it take you?

[alan_fincher]

Potentially it could ruin everybody's day - we shouldn't forget the tragedy that happened recently near Cropredy!

Is there any indication that the Cropredy tragedy was either caused by th crew rushing, or being pressured by others.

 

(Genuinely interested question, as I have haerd nothing about it beyond the inccurate stuff in the press generally).

[alan_fincher]

And we agreed on that as well

 

Just out of interest though. Will a narrow lock fill quicker than a wide lock? (in general of course i know they are all different)

I boat (so far) from about London up through the Midlands, and have not yet got further North than Anderton. (So can't speak for L&L, Huddersfield, Ashton, etc, etc, etc).

 

As you say, they vary, but generally I think narrow locks can be worked quicker because the gates are very lightweight (by comparison), and they usually (but by no means always) fill and empty much faster than many broad locks. Also often you can cross the lock on the boat, meaning less walking around.

 

The GU locks on the Birmingham main line are different, in that if you can actually manage the 23 (or thereabouts) usually stiff turn to get paddles wound ASAP, they really are lightening fast, (compared to say the rest of the GU and Soar).

 

A typical Grand Union lock elsewhere used to have (top gates) two ground and 4 gate paddles. But many are now emasculated to just the "grounds", and even where gate ones are now refitted, they are small, and have "deflector grids" that block with rubbish.

 

So whilst people boast the 21 Hatton locks in under 2 hours, on the lower Grand Union progress is rather slower. many of the 7 lock flights can be done, if nobody else is about, in around an hour, but that's still around 50% slower than Hatton, I'd say.

 

The reason we tend never to shoot up Hatton, Tardebigge or the Wolverhampton 21 is usually "sheer weight of traffic" - your general progress usually depending on others. I do like the flights when nobody else is about, TBH.

[zenataomm]

As a rule of thumb I seem to remember "lock miles" or am I the only one? The idea being on average it takes as long to work a lock as it would to travel a mile at 4mph which is 15 minutes.

So when planning your route and trying to estimate how long it would take you added the number of locks to the miles and divided by 4.

Not allowing for queuing, plastic bags, leaking gates etc.

[alan_fincher]

As a rule of thumb I seem to remember "lock miles" or am I the only one? The idea being on average it takes as long to work a lock as it would to travel a mile at 4mph which is 15 minutes.

So when planning your route and trying to estimate how long it would take you added the number of locks to the miles and divided by 4.

Not allowing for queuing, plastic bags, leaking gates etc.

I think I'd get further pilloried by those who consider us speed freed if I worked on "lock miles"!

 

We can do the 7 (broad) lock Marsworth Flight in an hour if on our own, so if I match that with speed, we would be doing 7 miles per hour!

 

I've always found the "lock mile" concept odd, (and it's been around at least 40 years - possibly a John Gagg concept ??), and think that with a clear run we can work nearer to two locks than one in the time it takes to travel a mile.

 

Of course, as others have said, if you arrive somewhere and there is a 3 hour queue to get near a lock, any estimating tool is practically worthless.

 

We are starting to record detail on our trips of "how long it took previous times" - this is probably a rather better guide that a rule of thumb about "time per lock".

[Water Rat.]

The reason I raised this issue was because I wanted to plan a trip ( not a compitition mind you I love a good old tussle on the forum ) and the if canal plan is suggesting this as a time scale, and I am not sure of managing these times - well their estimate is bu88ered. Now that is all fine and dandy if one has all the time in the world to bob around, and hanging around eating cake and knitting and stuff, but if you have a limited amount of time it could change things considerably.

So now I am posting part two in a new thread..............follow me all and be truely underwelmed.........how long............

[churchward]

Is there any indication that the Cropredy tragedy was either caused by th crew rushing, or being pressured by others.

 

(Genuinely interested question, as I have haerd nothing about it beyond the inccurate stuff in the press generally).

I think we will have to wait for the accident report. Unless anyone was there at the time can comment any input here can only be speculation tinged with whatever agenda someone may have.

[kerching]

Do I sense a truce in the "War of the Roses"?

Which side were Cheshire on then.

[alan_fincher]

The reason I raised this issue was because I wanted to plan a trip ( not a compitition mind you I love a good old tussle on the forum ) and the if canal plan is suggesting this as a time scale, and I am not sure of managing these times - well their estimate is bu88ered. Now that is all fine and dandy if one has all the time in the world to bob around, and hanging around eating cake and knitting and stuff, but if you have a limited amount of time it could change things considerably.

So now I am posting part two in a new thread..............follow me all and be truely underwelmed.........how long............

Julie,

 

CanalPlanAC is a wonderful, wonderful tool, but does need to be parameterised for your boating style, and where you plan to go.

 

Few will probably cruise at Nick Atty's default rates, although they are a good start until people build up experience and can substitute their own values.

 

I don't think there is yet a version that says "on this canal, I can do this speed", but in a way there needs to be, to be very accurate.

 

The BCN main line is an obvious point. Very few I think would claim that a modern boat pushing down it at 4mph could do much harm, and there are no moored boats to pass, so planning that bit on the basis of a default 2.5 mph is clearly highly pessimistic.

 

But try taking a fully loaded boat down the Wendover Arm, and I suspect you would seriously fail to make Nick's default rate of progress for a broad canal!

 

We tweak the defaults more on a day where experience has shown us that they are likely to be wrong.

 

If your question relates to the Lee and Stort, then through much of London, and on the rivers it seems to be accepted practice that much of the time you slow little if at all for moored boats on the wide bits. (Don't shoot me! - That's just how it is on those waterways, in the same way as the Lee is an exception and BW staff ask you to not shut gates as you leave! ).

 

You can go a lot faster than Nick Atty might imply on bits of that trip, (but if you are forced to hand wind any of the mechanical locks because their "electric twin" is broken, expect to be there up to half an hour. )

 

 

I think we will have to wait for the accident report.

Yes, but I wonder if there will be one ?

 

Several of the tragedies don't ever seem to result in the MAIB publishing a report, even where there was a fatality.

EDITED: To add that there do not appear to be any ongoing MAIB accident investigations relating to canals or narrowboats at the moment, and certainly no mention of Cropredy one.

 

On the ones I have seen then inexperience or poor decisions seem to be the major factor - I can't recall one that implied "too much haste", but undoubtedly some will have a degree of that about them.

 

Dave's point remains valid though - many crews can get through a lock in half the time taken by others, but still not expose themselves to anything like the same levels of danger.

 

Where I have slipped and had a "near miss" it has been because I was dawdling or daydreaming. When working a bit faster, if anything, I am more focussed.

Edited September 18, 2009 by alan_fincher

[Naughty Cal]

so if I match that with speed, we would be doing 7 miles per hour!

 

Naughty

[carlt]

Which side were Cheshire on then.

It's all Lancashire, from t'other side of the wall.

[mayalld]

It's all Lancashire, from t'other side of the wall.

 

RIGHT!

 

That's it. I can put up with many things, but this is too far.

 

Black Puddings at dawn!!!

[Naughty Cal]

RIGHT!

 

That's it. I can put up with many things, but this is too far.

 

Black Puddings at dawn!!!

 

Can you save some. I've not had black pudding for a while

[kiki]

Agreed and then more.

 

Much time is lost by getting the order wrong here, particularly coming downhill.

 

Assuming that you are against the bottom gate, as the lock reaches the lower level, the boat will "relax" as the levels equalise, and start to drift back from the bottom gate.

 

Provided you can get both gates open before the stern reaches the cill, all that the steerer has to do is engage gear and exit the lock. Delay, and the steerer will have to engage gear to avoid the waterfall, then reverse to avoid the gates, then foward again. The natural flow is interupted.

 

So, the best way to do it is;

• Open both gates
  
• Then drop both paddles
  
• Then close both gates.
  

Dropping the paddle on the first gate before opening the second gate, or waiting until the gates are closed before closing paddles wastes time (It is all about Critical Path Analysis

 

Our record for descending Marple flight is 1:25 for 16 locks. Allowing 15 minutes to travel the one mile distance, we spend 70 minutes engaged in actual lockage; less than 5 minutes per lock.

 

However, that was with extra crew, so every lock was set for us, and we get every gate open smartly.

 

We habitually do the flight in 2:30, so allowing the same 15 minutes for the mile, we spend 135 minutes in actual lockage, about 8.5 minutes per lock.

 

Ha and I bet you had Harvy doing gate 5 - the one I have to sit on to wind the paddle - hmmmmm

[Tam & Di]

A typical Grand Union lock elsewhere used to have (top gates) two ground and 4 gate paddles. But many are now emasculated to just the "grounds", and even where gate ones are now refitted, they are small, and have "deflector grids" that block with rubbish.

 

We generally worked with me on the motor and our teenage son on the butty, with Di lock wheeling. The 36 locks and about 30 miles Brentford to Boxmoor with limejuice used to take us regularly 12 hours up loaded with 50 tons and 10 hours back down empty. We would load first thing in the morning on one day and be expected for unloading at 7.00 next morning come what may. Locks took 4 minutes from the fore end of the motor coming level with the bottom gates to the stern of the butty leaving. If we faffed about (or, more likely, if we had a problem) and took even one minute longer that was 36 minutes later getting to Boxmoor, and the chippy would be closed.

 

We did two round trips a week, which when you factor in loading and unloading does not leave much to spare for owt else (other than lots of beer, step dancing and other jollity at the Brewery Tap in Brentford).

 

Oh, the good old days! Wasn't boating romantic!

[Dalesman]

I was having a play about on the canal plan website, and it seems to say that locks can be done in 11 mins. Well if it is going with you and the gates are open then ok, but 11mins? Is that really an average time, I thought the average was more like 20mins?

On the |Leeds & Liverpool up or down Wigan 21 in 3 hours..Bingley 5 rise in 28 minutes but on the Middlewich Branch with 6 boats waiting ahead of us for 1 lock,1 hour plus.. But on our long cruise we average 3.5 lock miles per hour.

[mayalld]

As a rule of thumb I seem to remember "lock miles" or am I the only one? The idea being on average it takes as long to work a lock as it would to travel a mile at 4mph which is 15 minutes.

So when planning your route and trying to estimate how long it would take you added the number of locks to the miles and divided by 4.

Not allowing for queuing, plastic bags, leaking gates etc.

 

Yes, it is a rule of thumb, but it is a poor rule of thumb!

 

Broadly speaking, most of the time, you will achieve LESS than 4 miles per hour, and more than 4 locks per hour

 

If doing 20 miles and 20 locks, the rule of thumb would say;

40 lock miles at 4 per hour = 10 hours.

 

A more accurate rule of thumb is 3 mph and 6 lph

 

In which case, you would calculate time taken as (miles +(locks/2))/3, so out 20 miles and 40 locks will take 10 hours (same answer).

 

In effect, if your route has more locks than miles, you will do better than the rule of thumb (30 locks in 10 miles = 8h20m). If your route has more miles than locks you will do worse (10 locks in 30 miles =11h40m)

[NB Alnwick]

Yes, it is a rule of thumb, but it is a poor rule of thumb!

 

Broadly speaking, most of the time, you will achieve LESS than 4 miles per hour, and more than 4 locks per hour

 

If doing 20 miles and 20 locks, the rule of thumb would say;

40 lock miles at 4 per hour = 10 hours.

 

A more accurate rule of thumb is 3 mph and 6 lph

 

In which case, you would calculate time taken as (miles +(locks/2))/3, so out 20 miles and 40 locks will take 10 hours (same answer).

 

In effect, if your route has more locks than miles, you will do better than the rule of thumb (30 locks in 10 miles = 8h20m). If your route has more miles than locks you will do worse (10 locks in 30 miles =11h40m)

 

This is generally true on shallow canals but on nice deep waterways with generous speed limits it might be possible to cover a mile at least a quickly as as a lock - especially if the latter is operated by a lock keeper who insists on waiting for a boat that is still half a mile away!

[alan_fincher]

Locks took 4 minutes from the fore end of the motor coming level with the bottom gates to the stern of the butty leaving.

Even the ones with no gate paddles? You must have had pumps to help fill them!

 

If you could still get a pair through Iron Bridge in 4 minutes, you have my admiration.

 

Even using the boat to "assist" slightly, (often the only way it can now be done at all), I doubt if the fill time is ever much under 15 minutes.

 

There are a lot that would now take more that 4 minutes to fill with everything drawn, (I'm quite confident!).

[NB Alnwick]

Even the ones with no gate paddles? You must have had pumps to help fill them!

 

If you could still get a pair through Iron Bridge in 4 minutes, you have my admiration.

 

Even using the boat to "assist" slightly, (often the only way it can now be done at all), I doubt if the fill time is ever much under 15 minutes.

 

There are a lot that would now take more that 4 minutes to fill with everything drawn, (I'm quite confident!).

 

Might be a bit quicker with two 70 foot boats loaded to the gunwhales and drawing nearly 48 inches of water . . .

[PhilR]

Might be a bit quicker with two 70 foot boats loaded to the gunwhales and drawing nearly 48 inches of water . . .

 

I can feel the old Archimedes chestnut coming ............................

[tomsk]

Would anyone care to 'run the math'? chortle!!

[NB Alnwick]

Would anyone care to 'run the math'? chortle!!

 

Can't you sleep either?

[Hairy-Neil]

So whilst people boast the 21 Hatton locks in under 2 hours, ......

 

2 hours and we were ordering a pint in the Cape of Good Hope.....

 

I do like the flights when nobody else is about, TBH.

 

It was late evening and there was nobody else about......

[alan_fincher]

Might be a bit quicker with two 70 foot boats loaded to the gunwhales and drawing nearly 48 inches of water . . .

Are you starting another wind up !?! :lol:

 

Not really sure the heavy boats will let you push gates open any sooner when ascending - you kind of need a run up if you want to take advantage of the extra weight. don't you ?

 

I doubt boats on the barrel run were ever loaded to anything very close to 48 inches by the way, by the way, despite always being loaded well above the gunwales, (there's a lot of wasted space around barrels!). Certainly archive pictures I've seen of Stamford on the run, (prior to Tam operating it), show a boat where the "extra" band on the Northwich counter is well above water. So whilst not denying they didn't usually carry a full load, I don't think they generally got loaded deeper than Town class boats on other traffic, and certainly carried higer tonnages than some.

 

Tam mentions a load of 50 tons for a pair, and that sounds about right for any pictures I have ever seen of loaded Lime Juice boats.

 

Almost certainly Tam has a significantly heavier load on here than was the norm on the barrels, I think, (but perhaps he'll tell me I'm remembering wrong!)

 

 

What is undoubtedly true is that as BW have at best only fitted new gates that have small paddle holes, (if any at all!), and louvred shutters/diverters, that the fill rate of many GU locks is nothing like what it was. Other than by aggressive use of engine on the top gates, that's not something that the boats in the lock can make a change to, and in many cases enforces a fill that will now take significantly longer than 4 minutes. I'll measure one or two next time we are coming up from London, but Iron Bridge is not the only one requiring "double figures" of minutes to fill from empty - Kings Langley (lock 69A) is another really slow filler.

[NB Alnwick]

Are you starting another wind up !?! :lol:

>snipped<

 

Well it was late . . . .

 

I am not convinced about stories of boats pushing gates open against several inches of water - although it isn't something we should experiment with these days - but the amount of pressure exerted by, say six inches of water would require a lot of horsepower/torque. Most working boats had neither . . .

 

A heavy boat ramming the top gate with some momentum would more than likely snap the collar rather than push the gate open against a substantial pressure of water.