'DIS' markers

[mayalld]

They had a punch up and the winner got the lock.

 

I've always found that when faced with some inconsiderate bastard who turned a lock, the best possible tactic is to make them squirm, by not doing the British thing.

 

• All fake expressions of regret and not having seen you to be rejected.
  
• Caustic, but quietly spoken, remarks about their lack of consideration.
  
• No assistance with the operation of the lock.
  
• If at all possible, take up the ideal position for you to get into the lock, and which makes it hard for them to pick up their crew.
  

[Naughty Cal]

I've always found that when faced with some inconsiderate bastard who turned a lock, the best possible tactic is to make them squirm, by not doing the British thing.

 

• All fake expressions of regret and not having seen you to be rejected.
  
• Caustic, but quietly spoken, remarks about their lack of consideration.
  
• No assistance with the operation of the lock.
  
• If at all possible, take up the ideal position for you to get into the lock, and which makes it hard for them to pick up their crew.
  

 

And you wonder why you always find the bad uns when you go away

[Tam & Di]

I have alternatively heard it stated that if two boats were racing each other in the same direction towards an already prepared lock, that the one reaching the lock distance first, (maybe just managing an overtaking), got the lock.

 

That still sounds bizarre, but almost less so to me than the "standard" explanation.

 

If it was for boats in opposite directions, was it then accepted practice to turn a lock against boats coming the other way, even if they might arrive there only seconds later ? As water supplies were often a very major issue, even that sounds wrong.

 

Anybody know definitively ?

 

We always understood them to the post beyond which one boat could not overtake another to get to the lock, probably becoming most significant at the point there were motor driven craft and horse drawn ones operating concurrently. I always assumed too that a lock should not be turned around if a boat coming the other way had passed his distance post, but that would be a secondary meaning. Don't forget locks had lock keepers in the "good old days", so the lock distance post would sort of serve as his "linesman" to minimise dispute about which boat he prepared a lock for first.

 

In France there are still a few cast iron notices around reading "Limite de Trématage" - limit of overtaking - making it more explicit (and still a fair number of locks with lock keepers, though rapidly being given over to automated use by the boater)

Edited December 11, 2009 by Tam & Di

[mayalld]

And you wonder why you always find the bad uns when you go away

 

Phylis dear,

 

such behaviour is reserved for those who have already transgressed by turning a lock.

[WJM]

Amazing how quickly history can be lost. This forum must be one of the strongest concentrations of canal knowledge in the country, yet nobody knows definitively what these things are for!

[NB Alnwick]

Amazing how quickly history can be lost. This forum must be one of the strongest concentrations of canal knowledge in the country, yet nobody knows definitively what these things are for!

 

That is exactly what I was beginning to think. I reckon the cracking of a whip is still a bit far-fetched - even in Victorian days there was still a lot of background noise around especially in industrial areas so a whip crack would not have carried far. If it was to mark the point where the first past the post gets the lock that is at least understandable.

 

Because that would also make overtaking unnecessary.

[Tam & Di]

Amazing how quickly history can be lost. This forum must be one of the strongest concentrations of canal knowledge in the country, yet nobody knows definitively what these things are for!

 

We always understood them to the post beyond which one boat could not overtake another to get to the lock ........

 

Although his explanation may not be much more authoritative than mine, L.T.C. Rolt does say virtually the same in his book "The Inland Waterways of England".

[WJM]

"We always understood them to the post beyond which one boat could not overtake another to get to the lock"

 

I am not at all comfortable with this explanation. Any of these posts that I have seen are far too close to the lock to serve that purpose. Are we really suggesting that 70' narrowboats were speeding past each other less that 100 yards from a lock? With a speed difference of 2 or 3 mph, nobody is going to start an overtaking manoeuvre so close to a lock, even if it is only for fear of smashing their own boat into the lock!

 

I think the claim to a set lock is the only explanation that actually works!

[NB Alnwick]

"We always understood them to the post beyond which one boat could not overtake another to get to the lock"

 

I am not at all comfortable with this explanation. Any of these posts that I have seen are far too close to the lock to serve that purpose. Are we really suggesting that 70' narrowboats were speeding past each other less that 100 yards from a lock? With a speed difference of 2 or 3 mph, nobody is going to start an overtaking manoeuvre so close to a lock, even if it is only for fear of smashing their own boat into the lock!

 

I think the claim to a set lock is the only explanation that actually works!

 

No but some boats did move faster than others even in the days when they were all horse drawn so there could have been arguments on the lines of I'm empty and going faster so let me go first - in which case the 'first past the post' argument against overtaking at locks holds up.

[mayalld]

"We always understood them to the post beyond which one boat could not overtake another to get to the lock"

 

I am not at all comfortable with this explanation. Any of these posts that I have seen are far too close to the lock to serve that purpose. Are we really suggesting that 70' narrowboats were speeding past each other less that 100 yards from a lock? With a speed difference of 2 or 3 mph, nobody is going to start an overtaking manoeuvre so close to a lock, even if it is only for fear of smashing their own boat into the lock!

 

I think the claim to a set lock is the only explanation that actually works!

 

I agree!

 

I would also like to offer evidence from the BW bye-laws....

 

25.

No person shall:

a. Open or close or attempt to open or close the gate of any lock

except by the means provided for that purpose or before the

water is level on both sides of the gate.

b. Draw or operate any sluices until the lock-gates are closed.

c. Operate or leave open any sluice so as to waste water.

d. Operate any sluice otherwise than by means of the handle or

other device normally used for that purpose.

e. Fill or empty any lock of water for the admission of any vessel

to the lock when there is another vessel approaching the lock

from the opposite direction and within two hundred yards thereof

and the level of the water in the lock is suitable for such

approaching vessel to enter the lock.

f. Cause or allow any vessel to remain in a lock longer than is

necessary for the convenient passage thereof.

 

Now, this comes from bye-laws laid down in 1965, when those drafting them would have been more familiar with the working practices of the canals than we are now. Further, it is highly likely that the general canal bye-laws were created as an amalgamation of the pre-nationalisation bye-laws of the various companies.

 

So, I think we can fairly definitively say that if a lock is in your favour when you pass the "DIS" marker, it should not be turned on you.

[magnetman]

so what does DIS stand for then?

[mayalld]

so what does DIS stand for then?

 

DIStance

[Naughty Cal]

so what does DIS stand for then?

 

The opposite of Dat?

[magpie patrick]

Not all canals had these things, and I've no idea how far away the particular ones referred to are, but a few thoughts.

 

I'll bet they are only at isolated lock and at the top and bottom of flights, as within flights there won't be overtaking and it is fairly obvious who should have priority (assuming the crew have brains that is)

 

On the Glamorgan Canal there were no such posts, the issue was resolved with fisticuffs. There is documented evidence of this, and of the disadvantage one steerer who was a Christian and a pacifist suffered as he would give way rather than fight.

 

I don't really buy the overtaking theory, if an unloaded motor doing 4mph overtakes a loaded horse boat doing 1mph the manoeuvre still takes 200 feet to complete, and that's assuming the horse boat cooperates. That is an extreme example, and generally the speed differential wouldn't be that great, although I suppose it could be the point at which any fly-boat ceased to have priority.

 

In Idle Women, there is an instance where the women are struggling (with what turned out to be wire on the prop) and the boat behind tried to overtake, but not at the approach to a lock, the women would not let them pass, suspecting foul play.

 

I also remember reading, many years ago, they were known as "cracking posts" on some canals, which supports the whip theory. Remember a hoirse drawn boater has no engine to drown out sound, and it's surprising what sound does carry, when I had a car with a sun roof, I could hear birdsong, and I can hear it over our BMC too. A well cracked whip can be heard a long way away, and if you cracked a whip near a crowd these days, they'd all dive for cover wondering where the gunman was.

[mayalld]

Not all canals had these things, and I've no idea how far away the particular ones referred to are, but a few thoughts.

 

I'll bet they are only at isolated lock and at the top and bottom of flights, as within flights there won't be overtaking and it is fairly obvious who should have priority (assuming the crew have brains that is)

 

It appears that on the Oxford, they were fitted at all locks

[magpie patrick]

It appears that on the Oxford, they were fitted at all locks

 

Hmm, that surprises me, unless the posts are very close to the lock or you can't see the next lock. Coming up Napton, at most locks I'd have though the next lock was closer than the post would be (not the top two, which are some way away), and Clayton, the only other flight, aren't that strung out

[Tam & Di]

So, I think we can fairly definitively say that if a lock is in your favour when you pass the "DIS" marker, it should not be turned on you.

 

I am happy with that as a supplementary significance, but nevertheless when we came onto the canals in the late 50s we were told that it specifically meant that there was no overtaking once a boat had passed the distance post (by Frank Mercer, lock keeper at Cowley). It would be pretty difficult for one horse boat to pass another without some co-operation (or without a blade to cut towlines), but certainly I would guess it was not unknown for a steamer or diesel powered boat to try to push by, however close to the lock they were.

 

Our current experience is in France, where as I mentioned just now there are a few cast iron posts still in situ which specifically say "Limit of Overtaking" and which are positioned about 100m from locks, or notably the aqueduct over the Loire at Briare.

[mayalld]

Hmm, that surprises me, unless the posts are very close to the lock or you can't see the next lock. Coming up Napton, at most locks I'd have though the next lock was closer than the post would be (not the top two, which are some way away), and Clayton, the only other flight, aren't that strung out

 

It surprised me, but I'm pretty sure that we saw some at Clayton

[Tam & Di]

It would be pretty difficult for one horse boat to pass another without some co-operation (or without a blade to cut towlines), but certainly I would guess it was not unknown for a steamer or diesel powered boat to try to push by, however close to the lock they were.

 

Thinking on it a bit more it is quite possible the posts were put in only after steam and diesel powered boats became common. With a propellor driven boat the prop is pulling water from in front and from the side and thrusting it backwards. A towed boat simply pushes water aside and reacts quite differently. If a propellor driven boat simply roared past a horse boat it would throw it about quite considerably as it is in the water being drawn in by the prop, quite possibly endangering the horse. The motor driven boat can stop quite quickly if necessary, whereas the horse boat can only be brought to a halt if there is a convenient strapping post to take turns of a line around. So although I have no experience of horse boating I would assume they need to start slowing down rather sooner than a motorboat does, tempting the motor steerer to charge ahead - I think there was a certain amount of aggro between horse boatman and those with engines anyway.

 

I stick with what I was told - that they are to stop overtaking which would be very dangerous so close to the lock, but I'd be interested to see if anyone can turn up Grand Junction Canal bye laws.

[Albion]

Hmm, that surprises me, unless the posts are very close to the lock or you can't see the next lock. Coming up Napton, at most locks I'd have though the next lock was closer than the post would be (not the top two, which are some way away), and Clayton, the only other flight, aren't that strung out

 

 

It surprised me, but I'm pretty sure that we saw some at Clayton

 

Pedant alert

Ahem, I think you'll find that's Claydon

End of pedant alert

Roger

[magnetman]

Thinking on it a bit more it is quite possible the posts were put in only after steam and diesel powered boats became common. With a propellor driven boat the prop is pulling water from in front and from the side and thrusting it backwards. A towed boat simply pushes water aside and reacts quite differently. If a propellor driven boat simply roared past a horse boat it would throw it about quite considerably as it is in the water being drawn in by the prop, quite possibly endangering the horse. The motor driven boat can stop quite quickly if necessary, whereas the horse boat can only be brought to a halt if there is a convenient strapping post to take turns of a line around. So although I have no experience of horse boating I would assume they need to start slowing down rather sooner than a motorboat does, tempting the motor steerer to charge ahead - I think there was a certain amount of aggro between horse boatman and those with engines anyway.

 

I stick with what I was told - that they are to stop overtaking which would be very dangerous so close to the lock, but I'd be interested to see if anyone can turn up Grand Junction Canal bye laws.

 

I definitely agree with this completely.

 

These posts are made of concrete so they aren't really that old. perhaps they were fitted during the 1930's improvements and their purpose was specifically to prevent powered vessels overtaking unpowered vessels and it is quite possible that there was also a fine attached to this activity as I believe there was if a boat was seen by an official to be breasting open a gate before the lock is ready.

[alan_fincher]

It seems unlikely, unless they are different from the ones I am familiar with, that these would ever have been placed in flights of closely spaced locks, or indeed anywhere even where two locks are close together.

 

I'm not sure if I can say for certain whether they were (are ?) at uniform distances from locks, but on the GU that distance certainly did not seem to be less than about 200 yards.

 

So if locks were less than that distance apart, you would have had to erect the sign for one before the preceding lock.

 

I am confident there were locations where you could not see the lock distance, even in a single direction, from a lock, (or vice versa), and probably never could have done.

 

Certainly there were many locations where you would not have had a hope of seeing one lock distance sign from the other.

 

Although my dad reckoned he had an explanation along the lines of some being given about boats in both directions, it never seemed to bear scrutiny to me, because of where the signs actually were in reality.

 

The only one which actually seems to hold water, (in the GU case at least), is the "no overtaking" thing. Even the "no turning lock" thing doesn't work, as soon as you can't see a post from a lock.

 

I'm not saying I buy the "no overtaking" explanation, but even with lock-keepers, I can't see anything else they could have worked for in all cases.

 

Of course it's possible that these broadly similar things "Dis", "Lock Distance", or just Posts actually meant different things on different canals, (or that the rules about where they were put differed. I was only ever really aware of the GU - about 30 to 40 years back they were still commonplace.

 

I'm not the most observant person, but if many have survived down here, I don't think they are very visible any more!

[magnetman]

It seems unlikely, unless they are different from the ones I am familiar with, that these would ever have been placed in flights of closely spaced locks, or indeed anywhere even where two locks are close together.

 

I'm not sure if I can say for certain whether they were (are ?) at uniform distances from locks, but on the GU that distance certainly did not seem to be less than about 200 yards.

 

So if locks were less than that distance apart, you would have had to erect the sign for one before the preceding lock.

 

I am confident there were locations where you could not see the lock distance, even in a single direction, from a lock, (or vice versa), and probably never could have done.

 

Certainly there were many locations where you would not have had a hope of seeing one lock distance sign from the other.

 

Although my dad reckoned he had an explanation along the lines of some being given about boats in both directions, it never seemed to bear scrutiny to me, because of where the signs actually were in reality.

 

The only one which actually seems to hold water, (in the GU case at least), is the "no overtaking" thing. Even the "no turning lock" thing doesn't work, as soon as you can't see a post from a lock.

 

I'm not saying I buy the "no overtaking" explanation, but even with lock-keepers, I can't see anything else they could have worked for in all cases.

 

Of course it's possible that these broadly similar things "Dis", "Lock Distance", or just Posts actually meant different things on different canals, (or that the rules about where they were put differed. I was only ever really aware of the GU - about 30 to 40 years back they were still commonplace.

 

I'm not the most observant person, but if many have survived down here, I don't think they are very visible any more!

 

There are still some about, often a bit recessed and obscured by hedges. I'm also not sure if they are at fixed distances or whether it is dependent on if the lock is visible or not but I do think the 'no overtaking beyond this point' is defintiely the explanation for their existence.

 

It could be that DIS stands for something completely different, like an acronym where the letters indicate the first letters of three seperate words rather than being a shortening of a longer word, but this appears relatively unlikely

 

 

<quote Alan Fincher> "Although my dad reckoned he had an explanation along the lines of some being given about boats in both directions"

 

not sure I quite understand what you are saying here.

 

are you suggesting that some of the DIS marker posts were inscribed with the text on both sides? I've only seen them being visible from one side and that has always been on the side one would see on the approach to a lock.

 

 

Its possible that they could be an early attempt at the now common practice of helping people find out where they are and this could have been incorporated into an homo-equine terrestrial localisation knowledge system in which case DIS might stand for Driver Information System. a bit like GPS which stands for Generalised Phase Shift where people are moved into a state of existence (a Phase Shift) which enables them to follow all instructions given to them by a small wallet-sized machine despite the fact they are at the time fully aware that it is clearly wrong.

 

Of course modern usage suggests that 'driver' is not the correct term but is there anyone alive who can prove that this wasn't the correct term at the point at which these markers were in use?

 

edited to make more sense

Edited December 11, 2009 by magnetman

[Derek R.]

GPS Global Positioning System

 

Seriously, you're all 'aving a laugh! DIS = Distance one post each side of a lock, equidistant from the lock. First boat to reach it has priority over the lock, and a whip crack was the determining factor. Of course there was cheating, and lots of punch-ups.

 

Overtaking? Never heard that one anywhere, though confess it might have been an 'added' reason. You'd be pretty daft to try it, though Buffalo was apt to, and got stuck in a lock entrance with Pheonix in doing so September 1896. (Buffalo - steam tug 8' wide, Pheonix FMC steamer 7' wide - scroll down to the Millner Letters HERE).

 

Before the posts got knocked about, lost, or buried in weeds, boatmen and women knew exactly where they were, what they were for, and didn't need to read any lettering.

 

Can't believe there are three pages of this!

 

PS Boats are only driven on the BCN, and where GPS meant 'Gerroutheblurryroad!' (On a polite day)

Edited December 11, 2009 by Derek R.

[magnetman]

GPS Global Positioning System

 

Seriously, you're all 'aving a laugh! DIS = Distance one post each side of a lock, equidistant from the lock. First boat to reach it has priority over the lock, and a whip crack was the determining factor. Of course there was cheating, and lots of punch-ups.

 

Overtaking? Never heard that one anywhere, though confess it might have been an 'added' reason. You'd be pretty daft to try it, though Buffalo was apt to, and got stuck in a lock entrance with Pheonix in doing so September 1896. (Buffalo - steam tug 8' wide, Pheonix FMC steamer 7' wide - scroll down to the Millner Letters HERE).

 

Before the posts got knocked about, lost, or buried in weeds, boatmen and women knew exactly where they were, what they were for, and didn't need to read any lettering.

 

Can't believe there are three pages of this!

 

PS Boats are only driven on the BCN, and where GPS meant 'Gerroutheblurryroad!' (On a polite day)

 

Interesting.

 

How old are these posts anyway. I'm thinking of the ones on the Grand Union. or the Grand Junction depending on timing of course. I think they are GUCCo not GJCCo ie post 1929.

 

How would the lock-keeper, if there was one, know who's whip it was that was cracked, or were there other sound signals particular to different companies?

 

I've never really checked it out but are they always the same distance from a lock and if so then surely this distance is recorded somewhere and has some reasoning behind it.

 

I'm thinking of Lady Capels lock near Watford on the Grand Union, if you were approaching it from above the lock itself doesn't become visible until the last minute whereas if you are coming from below you can see it for quite a long time, depending on the season and state of undergrowth.

So maybe a crack of the whip would help stop, or perhaps just encourage, racing to the lock but as has been mentioned previously any boatperson 'worth their salt' would already know where the locks were anyway so why would they need an indicator at the side of the towpath?

 

I'm definitely going for the idea that these were installed when powered boats were becoming more common but there were still significant numbers of horse drawn boats. they may even be a health an safety system set up because as 'Tam and Di' mentioned earlier a steamer, with its large propeller and deep draught, could actually put the horse of an unpowered boat in significant danger and maybe even its crew.

 

If you overtake after a ''DIS" marker your insurance is invalidated.

 

times change, but not that much when it comes to insurance.