waiting at locks

[DHutch]

Didn't realise there was such a rush...

Well, its not a case of rushing, but wishing to get the job done efficiently.

 

 

 

... floating flower garden

...sharing with a hire boat and screaming (literally) orders to their crew

...long suffering wife

...put on power and ...

How large a hole would it take to fill a boat to a point where it was very well, but not actually sunk, in a 5 days, if the hole places 6inches (150mm) below the waterline?

 

Its something i often wonder in these situations of weekend boaters who need pipe the ** down and learn how to boat.

 

 

 

Daniel

[OldGoldy]

It isn't a mattter of speed but of working efficiently. In all walks of life there is a right amd wrong way of doing things and the right way brings more satisfaction for you and less frustration for others. Regards, HughC.

Efficiency = intelligent laziness

[Speedwheel]

Efficiency = intelligent laziness

 

Works for me!

[Ange]

I think you have answered this many times in other threads.....

 

You claim that the steering is usually done by the men-folk, and the paddle winding and gate pushing by the women-folk,

 

Some may claim that the delay is because of the very slow rate at which the male brain can process thoughts like "the gates are open - I can go now", but in my experience the delay is far more likely to be that he is waiting for the woman to complete the fairly lengthy conversation she has just struck up with a total stranger

 

Ahem - objection m'lud!! There have been a few occasions where myself and the other lady have stood with gates wide open while our menfolk are so busy nattering they didn't notice! One occasion I remember particularly was when we'd set a pair of locks on Hearbreak Hill and stood with gates open waiting for the men to stop chatting and bring the boats in. We had to shout over to them when a boat appeared from the Macclesfield (I think) and headed straight for one of our locks!

 

I have to admit to times when Dave has been a bit tardy leaving the lock as he's been busy inspecting the masonry for mason's marks, or is nowhere in sight as he's magnet fishing off the back of the boat!

 

[ditchcrawler]

Nor me

I have never heard it before.

Brian

 

Maybe they didnt realise you were brested up and was sitting in the lock wondering why neither of you were moving, it is easier to sit in the lock and wait for the traffic ahead to start coming towards you especially in windy conditions or if the pound is a bit low

Some one has to move first and some boaters are sure its not going to be them.

 

When we first started boating some guy told me there was a 15 min rule at locks where we had to wait to see if a boat came along to use the lock. GIT

That sort of use to be the case at Braunston where they asked you to wait for a second boat to join you so as not to waste water with only one boat using double locks, I also think it was actually 30 min.

[GUMPY]

Me, I quite like to wait for a following boat to share locks with, the trouble is I haven't found another boat that will fit in a GU lock with us

Edited April 2, 2010 by idleness

[Keeping Up]

That sort of use to be the case at Braunston where they asked you to wait for a second boat to join you so as not to waste water with only one boat using double locks, I also think it was actually 30 min.

It used to be 30 minutes at ANY double lock.

[ymu]

I think you have answered this many times in other threads.....

 

You claim that the steering is usually done by the men-folk, and the paddle winding and gate pushing by the women-folk,

 

Some may claim that the delay is because of the very slow rate at which the male brain can process thoughts like "the gates are open - I can go now", but in my experience the delay is far more likely to be that he is waiting for the woman to complete the fairly lengthy conversation she has just struck up with a total stranger

When we first started boating it took us a while to work out why I got such filthy looks from men steering boats whilst my partner was absolutely adored by all their wives. Being a gent, he does the locks whilst I do the easy bit.

[blackrose]

People who say I come to the canal to slow down is all well and good but it does rather show a certain amount of selfishness and lack of consideration to others.

 

When I say I slow down that doesn't mean I force others to slow down - I'm simply talking about the difference between the pace of life on the canal compared to that of my life in London. If travelling at one's own pace is selfish and inconsiderate then whose pace do you suggest we all travel at? The logical conclusion of what you say implies that we all have to travel at the pace of the fastest boat!

 

One can travel at one's own pace whilst still showing due consideration for others - one thing has nothing to do with the other. I don't let anyone rush me through locks and I don't rush anyone else because that way lies accidents, but having said that, I can work my widebeam through locks single-handed faster than most pairs of narrowboats with crew. If I do find I'm slowing someone else down I'd always suggest they're welcome to go ahead of me.

Edited April 6, 2010 by blackrose

[Ynot]

Totally agree. There is nothing more aggravating than having someone pushing you to go faster than you wish to go instead of having the patience to wait until you feel it is safe for them to overtake. It happened to us yesterday on the Birmingham / Worcs when an aggravating little aluminium boat sat too close waiting for his opportunity, eventually to overtake on a bend, driving us into the siding to avoid a collision. Prat!

[Speedwheel]

Totally agree. There is nothing more aggravating than having someone pushing you to go faster than you wish to go instead of having the patience to wait until you feel it is safe for them to overtake. It happened to us yesterday on the Birmingham / Worcs when an aggravating little aluminium boat sat too close waiting for his opportunity, eventually to overtake on a bend, driving us into the siding to avoid a collision. Prat!

 

Maybe he though you were a prat. Dawdling along and not letting him past. Why didn't you pull to one side and let him by? Two sides to ever story.

[NB Alnwick]

In my day I liked to get on with it. Remember in the good old days the Guiness boats (A pair, fully loaded) did the trip from London, Park Royal to Birmingham in 37 1/2 hours, They worked fly, but it still represents a little over 3 days of 12 hours each. I realise a lot of gate paddles have been taken out, but when I was boating, this was the sort of jouney times we aimed for. People just don't seem to realise what is possible if you just get on with it.

 

Why didn't they send the stuff by road or rail if they wanted it there so quickly? If speed was so important, it would have been possible to get it there in a tenth of that time . . .

 

I guess it's the same reason that some car drivers are slow to get going at traffic lights when they've turned green, taking an age to get their cars into gear, take the handbrake off and get going. I'm always in gear and ready to go as soon as it turns green and if there's someone in front of me who isn't I do find it frustrating.

 

However, that probably says as much about me becoming easily impatient as them being slow and oblivious, and I'm certainly not going to bring those feelings onto the waterways.

 

The canal helps me to slow down and I can't see the point of choosing one of the slowest forms of transport and then wanting to do it all as quickly as possible.

 

I agree entirely - for the most part, the canal system is maintained as a leisure facility and there is no longer a need to take risky short-cuts or travel at speeds that may cause damage to the banks. Almost every lock and structure that we encounter on the canals are, in themselves, historical monuments - to be studied and enjoyed by all of us who care for our canals - why should any of us need to rush or be rushed?

[Natalie Graham]

I guess it's the same reason that some car drivers are slow to get going at traffic lights when they've turned green, taking an age to get their cars into gear, take the handbrake off and get going.

 

The reason I once did that on a series of lights was because I had a bus driver behind me who blasted his horn at me as soon as the lights changed colour, regardless of how quickly I moved away. What he didn't know (but was to find out later when warned about his conduct ) was that I was on my way to stay with the regional manager of the bus company.

 

 

Why didn't they send the stuff by road or rail if they wanted it there so quickly? If speed was so important, it would have been possible to get it there in a tenth of that time . . .

 

Probably not so much to do with requiring the goods quickly but keeping the time the boats and crew were employed

on moving each load, and thus the costs of transporting the load, to a minimum.

[carlt]

Why didn't they send the stuff by road or rail if they wanted it there so quickly? If speed was so important, it would have been possible to get it there in a tenth of that time . . .

They did, eventually.

 

That's why carrying freight, on the canals, ended.

[NB Alnwick]

They did, eventually.

 

That's why carrying freight, on the canals, ended.

 

Absolutely! Modern, more efficient (and more economical) ways of moving most freight have resulted in the canals now being used for a very different purpose.

 

It is still important to study and record the historical aspects of commercial canal carrying - which is why there is still a place for restored and preserved working boats and the people who can explain, for the benefit of future generations, how they were used. But it is wrong to pretend that those conditions still exist.

[Catrin]

Absolutely! Modern, more efficient (and more economical) ways of moving most freight have resulted in the canals now being used for a very different purpose.

 

It is still important to study and record the historical aspects of commercial canal carrying - which is why there is still a place for restored and preserved working boats and the people who can explain, for the benefit of future generations, how they were used. But it is wrong to pretend that those conditions still exist.

 

I do wonder when those conditions ceased to exist. Was it really still economic for the boat people and the 'idle women' to transport goods so slowly during the 40s and even into the 1960's? The more I look into it, the more the whole 'trainee women' thing seems strange. Surely they weren't that short of fuel during the war that it was still economic to transport things slowly by canal? Especially if you read Margaret Cornish's account, where they seemed to spend most of their time stemmed up, or waiting for an engineer to arrive.

 

The multiple handling of some goods must have been even less economic. Where goods were unloaded from lighters, which had themselves been loaded from freighters, and which were then taken somewhere else, only to be unloaded onto lorries.

 

Or was the whole thing a massive cover up? Where some people were actually transporting the crown jewels around the country, but to hide it, they had to have others transporting coal?

Cheers

Cath

Edited April 5, 2010 by Catrin

[magpie patrick]

Why didn't they send the stuff by road or rail if they wanted it there so quickly? If speed was so important, it would have been possible to get it there in a tenth of that time . . .

 

 

 

I agree entirely - for the most part, the canal system is maintained as a leisure facility and there is no longer a need to take risky short-cuts or travel at speeds that may cause damage to the banks. Almost every lock and structure that we encounter on the canals are, in themselves, historical monuments - to be studied and enjoyed by all of us who care for our canals - why should any of us need to rush or be rushed?

 

 

Alnwick, I thought I knew you better than either of these comments suggest

 

As for the first comment, there are many answers, including Carlt's. But in logistics it isn't the quickest but the most cost effective solution that usually gets the contract, and even if a barge is slower than a train, speeding it up makes it more cost effective. Speed is one of many cost factors.

 

No one in the OP (or most subsequent Ps) was suggesting damaging or dangerous short cuts, but today's LEISURE canals are busy. It;s all very well to lean on the tiller, have a chat to the local, smoke a pipe and quietly finish your pint while in the lock, but if forty boats wish to get through said lock that day then you are restricting capacity. Spend all day moored, but if you are moving, move in a way that lets everyone else do so as well.

 

I do wonder when those conditions ceased to exist. Was it really still economic for the boat people and the 'idle women' to transport goods so slowly during the 40s and even into the 1960's? The more I look into it, the more the whole 'trainee women' thing seems strange. Surely they weren't that short of fuel during the war that it was still economic to transport things slowly by canal? Especially if you read Margaret Cornish's account, where they seemed to spend most of their time stemmed up, or waiting for an engineer to arrive.

 

The multiple handling of some goods must have been even less economic. Where goods were unloaded from lighters, which had themselves been loaded from freighters, and which were then taken somewhere else, only to be unloaded onto lorries.

 

Or was the whole thing a massive cover up? Where some people were actually transporting the crown jewels around the country, but to hide it, they had to have others transporting coal?

Cheers

Cath

 

You are looking through modern eyes, and still thinking motorway timings. Fuel was rationed in the war, and we had no motorways. The canal carrying infrastructure was there, the road infrastructure wasn't. The railways (and everything else) were working flat out. labour was also cheaper comparative to fuel than it is now. In any event, 37 hours Birmingham to London? A train might (then) do it in three but once you add marshalling and waiting around in sidings...

 

Traffic in the 60's was that left over, a vestige of a previous age, it survived because of inertia. It made commercial sense because the industries using it were not geared to road or rail and perhaps didn't have the capital to reinvest. It is significant that most traffics died when the industry they served closed.

[ymu]

The reason I once did that on a series of lights was because I had a bus driver behind me who blasted his horn at me as soon as the lights changed colour, regardless of how quickly I moved away. What he didn't know (but was to find out later when warned about his conduct ) was that I was on my way to stay with the regional manager of the bus company.

You deliberately held him up so that you could report him to his boss?

 

Let me guess at the wage differentials of the three people in this story, and the pressure on one of them to keep to a timetable or lose a bit of his considerably smaller wedge.

 

That ain't right. And it definitely ain't funny.

[Pluto]

I do wonder when those conditions ceased to exist. Was it really still economic for the boat people and the 'idle women' to transport goods so slowly during the 40s and even into the 1960's? The more I look into it, the more the whole 'trainee women' thing seems strange. Surely they weren't that short of fuel during the war that it was still economic to transport things slowly by canal? Especially if you read Margaret Cornish's account, where they seemed to spend most of their time stemmed up, or waiting for an engineer to arrive.

 

The multiple handling of some goods must have been even less economic. Where goods were unloaded from lighters, which had themselves been loaded from freighters, and which were then taken somewhere else, only to be unloaded onto lorries.

 

Or was the whole thing a massive cover up? Where some people were actually transporting the crown jewels around the country, but to hide it, they had to have others transporting coal?

Cheers

Cath

As with the previous war, there was a shortage of boatmen as the younger ones left for the armed services, though canals were, to some extent, a reserved occupation. In the First WW they created a Canal Transport Battalion, with other battalions set up to help at docks and other transport bottlenecks. In the Second WW canal companies tried to get Irish labour. Although initially successful, many of the Irish soon left for better paid work. Quite significant tonnages were carried by canals, and they were useful in getting imports away from docks where they were more likely to be bombed. In Liverpool, a new warehouse was built at Gorsey Lane, Netherton, for goods brought out of the docks by lorry for onward distribution by canal - you can still see the concrete wharf edge. If you are interested, I wrote an article on the subject for the Boat Museum Society's Waterways Journal No 5, which is still available from them, and I have some text at http://www.mikeclarke.myzen.co.uk/Wartimecanals.htm

[Ynot]

Maybe he though you were a prat. Dawdling along and not letting him past. Why didn't you pull to one side and let him by? Two sides to ever story.

Had you read my post a little more slowly, you would have noticed "instead of having the patience to wait until you feel it is safe for them to overtake". I said nothing about dawdling - perhaps it was you in the Sea Otter?

[Natalie Graham]

You deliberately held him up so that you could report him to his boss?

 

Let me guess at the wage differentials of the three people in this story, and the pressure on one of them to keep to a timetable or lose a bit of his considerably smaller wedge.

 

That ain't right. And it definitely ain't funny.

In terms of wage differentials I would be well and truly at the bottom of the three so I think your guess would probably be wrong.

 

After three sets of lights and this guy blasting his horn at me the instant the lights turned green regardless of how quickly I moved off and then creeping right up to my bumper as we waited at the next set, yes I did start to take my time. Partly as a refusal to be bullied by the bus driver and partly so I could be sure I had his bus number and route number. Even if I had screamed away doing wheelies on the amber light we would still only have moved as far as the next set of lights 100 yards so up the road so no-one was holding anyone up.

 

If it was actually good practice for bus drivers to blast their horns at other motorists every time the traffic lights changed then the guy in question would have had nothing to worry about would he? His meeting with his boss would have been to receive his employee of the month award.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Natalie Graham

[magpie patrick]

In terms of wage differentials I would be well and truly at the bottom of the three so I think your guess would probably be wrong.

 

After three sets of lights and this guy blasting his horn at me the instant the lights turned green regardless of how quickly I moved off and then creeping right up to my bumper as we waited at the next set, yes I did start to take my time. Partly as a refusal to be bullied by the bus driver and partly so I could be sure I had his bus number and route number. Even if I had screamed away doing wheelies on the amber light we would still only have moved as far as the next set of lights 100 yards so up the road so no-one was holding anyone up.

 

If it was actually good practice for bus drivers to blast their horns at other motorists every time the traffic lights changed then the guy in question would have had nothing to worry about would he? His meeting with his boss would have been to receive his employee of the month award.

 

Having worked in the bus industry on and off I'm with Natalie. Assuming her report is correct the driver was behaving not just boorishly but dangerously. The green signal means "go if it is safe to do so" which means the driver (NG in this case) still has a responsibility to check it is safe before proceeding, blowing the horn in this way may result in the driver in front not using their judgement.

 

NG's report would have been taken seriously, but would not, on it's own, cost the driver his job. If there were already similar reports on file it might.

 

even further there are good and bad bus drivers around, and most companies have some idea which is which. The worst example of a bad driver I heard of was from a firm in Cambridgeshire, who on the last bus of the night decided he couldn't be bothered finishing the route and turfed his sole passenger, an elderly lady, off five miles from the end. When the letter of complaint came in, he then tried to justify it by saying it was a waste of company money to go to the end of the route with just one passenger. He was fired on the spot. (Heard this from the MD of the company)

[NB Alnwick]

I do wonder when those conditions ceased to exist. Was it really still economic for the boat people and the 'idle women' to transport goods so slowly during the 40s and even into the 1960's? The more I look into it, the more the whole 'trainee women' thing seems strange. Surely they weren't that short of fuel during the war that it was still economic to transport things slowly by canal? Especially if you read Margaret Cornish's account, where they seemed to spend most of their time stemmed up, or waiting for an engineer to arrive.

 

The multiple handling of some goods must have been even less economic. Where goods were unloaded from lighters, which had themselves been loaded from freighters, and which were then taken somewhere else, only to be unloaded onto lorries.

 

Or was the whole thing a massive cover up? Where some people were actually transporting the crown jewels around the country, but to hide it, they had to have others transporting coal?

Cheers

Cath

 

As others have said, wartime conditions were critical and the railways (in particular) were being pushed to their limits. Under these circumstances, it made sense to use whatever means of transport that may have been available - the canals were in navigable condition (just) and there were plenty of boats - so presumably there was plenty of capacity - a luxury not enjoyed by the traditional competitors of canal transport.

 

After the war, the country was 'broken' in many ways and several firms clung on to their traditions because they just couldn't afford to change - those firms that failed to embrace change barely lasted much more than a decade or two after the war ended. As examples, you cannot buy jam or marmalade made by Kearley & Tonge (International Stores) any more and the producers of Roses Lime Juice were swallowed up by a larger concern and it is now made overseas.

 

Nationalisation brought a temporary reprieve for both rail freight and commercial canal carrying but a change of government soon brought about the de-nationalisation and de-restriction of road transport which meant that neither the railways or canals would be able to compete during the years of change and re-construction that followed. Personally, I doubt if canal carrying could have survived long after 1948 if the waterways had not been nationalised - they were all but finished after the war but, for sure, we can never really know . . .

[Speedwheel]

Had you read my post a little more slowly, you would have noticed "instead of having the patience to wait until you feel it is safe for them to overtake". I said nothing about dawdling - perhaps it was you in the Sea Otter?

 

I never said you did. But clearly you were going slower than the other boat so they may have thought you were dawdling.

 

You said he was waiting for his opportunity (patience) and eventually overtook (opportunity) - all be it at a time which you thought was unsuitable.

 

As before if you had thought he was to close - you could just have let him past. Problem solved.

 

You would have know if it was me behind you. I'm slightly more imposing than a Sea Otter.

[NB Alnwick]

Alnwick, I thought I knew you better than either of these comments suggest

 

As for the first comment, there are many answers, including Carlt's. But in logistics it isn't the quickest but the most cost effective solution that usually gets the contract, and even if a barge is slower than a train, speeding it up makes it more cost effective. Speed is one of many cost factors.

 

No one in the OP (or most subsequent Ps) was suggesting damaging or dangerous short cuts, but today's LEISURE canals are busy. It;s all very well to lean on the tiller, have a chat to the local, smoke a pipe and quietly finish your pint while in the lock, but if forty boats wish to get through said lock that day then you are restricting capacity. Spend all day moored, but if you are moving, move in a way that lets everyone else do so as well.

 

Obviously, I do not condone holding people up unnecessarily or deliberately restricting the capacity of the waterway but, with most hirers restricted to daylight cruising, there will not be many locations where forty boats can pass through a lock in a day without some of them having to put up with a bit of a wait.

 

What I feel is wrong, is where individual boaters imagine themselves to be one the working boatmen of old and behave as if they have an urgent cargo to deliver. In truth and irrespective of the experience they have or the type of boat they are steering, their status on the waterway is no different to that of any other boater.

 

Most waterways are now used as a leisure facility and for that reason boating ought to be leisurely and peaceful. If another boater is slowing me down by going about things a little more carefully than I might, does it really matter? What difference will it really make?