waiting at locks

[Ray T]

I have waited in a lock going down when there is a strong wind blowing, waiting for boat(s) coming up from the lock in front.

 

This means I don't get blown all over the pound. When the other boat(s) coming up exit I do as well.

By doing this both boats get a run at their next lock without having to wait in a blustery area.

 

 

Did exactly this coming down Calcutt Locks on Easter Monday. Worked a treat! Anyone who was out that day will know how strong the wind was.

 

If you don't know Calcutt locks there is a lot of boats belonging to the boat yard and moored boats in the pounds not leaving much room to manouvre.

 

One boat came out the middle lock coming up before the top lock had emptied (us and another boat) coming down and was immediately blown into the tow path side, then had a struggle to get the boat off the side.

[GeoffS]

I was surprised and annoyed on the Marsworth flight at the weekend where there was an occasion where a boat deliberately went ahead on its own despite being specifically told there was another boat on its way which could share the lock with them. I try to go out of my way to wait and share locks to save water and hate to see those savings squandered by inconsiderate people.

[Ynot]

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.

So its ok to put other boaters under pressure and its ok to overtake without consideration to the boat in front? That's not the way I understand it is supposed to work, perhaps I'm too polite.

[mayalld]

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.

 

It isn't so much that some of them may have to put up with a bit of a wait as that dawdling excessively may mean that the total number of boats that can transit the canal may be reduced.

 

Let us assume, for the sake of argument that on long summers days, few boats move before 7am or after 8pm. Individual boats will not move for the whole 13 hours, and a few boats may move earlier or later, but for that 13 hour window, the canal is alive.

 

Now, for the sake of simplicity, let us consider a single lock;

 

Assuming that it takes 15 minutes for each boat to complete its passage of a lock, then over the course of that 13 hours, 52 boats will be able to pass through the lock.

 

If every boat that goes through prats about getting granny and the dog, and the kids off the boat and back on again, and as a consequence the time taken increases to 20 minutes per boat, the total number of boats that can pass will be 39. It isn't just that some boats are going to have to queue, it is that 13 boats are not going to get through that lock at all on that day unless they get up very early or cruise very late. Indeed, if the same 52 boats are to pass through the lock that day, then it is going to have to be in continuous operation for an extra 4 hours.

 

If, on the other hand, the boaters all set to with a will to work smartly (which means that when the gates open, the boat in the lock exits promptly, and that the boat waiting anticipates this, and is ready to push off so as to enter the lock as soon as practicable, or that the waiting boat holds off waiting), perhaps the time can be reduced to 12 minutes. At that rate, we could get 65 boats through in the day (or get our originat 52 boats through in only 10.5 hours.

 

If they are all really on the ball, and can do it in 10 minutes (perfectly possible to do safely), we can get all 52 boats through in a little over 8.5 hours (or get 78 boats through in the day).

 

Dawdling in locks doesn't just make things go slowly, it actually reduces the number of boats that can use a canal.

[Speedwheel]

So its ok to put other boaters under pressure and its ok to overtake without consideration to the boat in front?

 

So it's ok to hold other boats up without any consideration for those behind you?

 

The number of people you see going at their own pace (which is fine) and purposefully refusing to look behind them. If they want to go at their pace, then let others past.

 

I'm not saying you were in the wrong. I can't comment on your particular example as I wasn't there. Just saying there are always two points of view.

[NB Alnwick]

It isn't so much that some of them may have to put up with a bit of a wait as that dawdling excessively may mean that the total number of boats that can transit the canal may be reduced.

 

Let us assume, for the sake of argument that on long summers days, few boats move before 7am or after 8pm. Individual boats will not move for the whole 13 hours, and a few boats may move earlier or later, but for that 13 hour window, the canal is alive.

 

Now, for the sake of simplicity, let us consider a single lock;

 

Assuming that it takes 15 minutes for each boat to complete its passage of a lock, then over the course of that 13 hours, 52 boats will be able to pass through the lock.

 

If every boat that goes through prats about getting granny and the dog, and the kids off the boat and back on again, and as a consequence the time taken increases to 20 minutes per boat, the total number of boats that can pass will be 39. It isn't just that some boats are going to have to queue, it is that 13 boats are not going to get through that lock at all on that day unless they get up very early or cruise very late. Indeed, if the same 52 boats are to pass through the lock that day, then it is going to have to be in continuous operation for an extra 4 hours.

 

If, on the other hand, the boaters all set to with a will to work smartly (which means that when the gates open, the boat in the lock exits promptly, and that the boat waiting anticipates this, and is ready to push off so as to enter the lock as soon as practicable, or that the waiting boat holds off waiting), perhaps the time can be reduced to 12 minutes. At that rate, we could get 65 boats through in the day (or get our originat 52 boats through in only 10.5 hours.

 

If they are all really on the ball, and can do it in 10 minutes (perfectly possible to do safely), we can get all 52 boats through in a little over 8.5 hours (or get 78 boats through in the day).

 

Dawdling in locks doesn't just make things go slowly, it actually reduces the number of boats that can use a canal.

 

That is all very well but not all boaters are the same nor should we expect them to be - at the extremes there will be experienced boaters who manage the locks smartly and inexperienced that appear to be taking their time. There will be lots more that fit somewhere in between and the overall result will be an average. If I get held up once or twice by one of the slower ones it will make very little difference to me but if I find myself following someone who always takes an extra ten minutes at each lock, and there are several more locks to negotiate, I may just decide to moor up and set off a bit earlier on another day.

[mayalld]

That is all very well but not all boaters are the same nor should we expect them to be - at the extremes there will be experienced boaters who manage the locks smartly and inexperienced that appear to be taking their time. There will be lots more that fit somewhere in between and the overall result will be an average. If I get held up once or twice by one of the slower ones it will make very little difference to me but if I find myself following someone who always takes an extra ten minutes at each lock, and there are several more locks to negotiate, I may just decide to moor up and set off a bit earlier on another day.

 

Indeed, and nothing that I said should be taken as implying that everybody should be able to achieve 10 minute lock passages.

 

Due allowance has to be made for those who are inexperienced, and will take 20 minutes to negotiate their first locks.

 

However, that does not mean that it is OK for people to continue to take 20 minutes as they develop more experience. There is a need for appreciation of the simple fact that by taking 20 minutes, a boat is halving the capacity of the canal.

 

In order to ensure that others can enjoy the canal, users should (as they gain experience) strive to avoid taking longer than necessary in locks, and save faffing about with unnecessary macrame, and embarking and disembarking their more decrepit ancestors for other occasions.

[Ynot]

So it's ok to hold other boats up without any consideration for those behind you?

 

The number of people you see going at their own pace (which is fine) and purposefully refusing to look behind them. If they want to go at their pace, then let others past.

 

I'm not saying you were in the wrong. I can't comment on your particular example as I wasn't there. Just saying there are always two points of view.

Indeed there are. In this case I thought he was being a prat, clearly he thought the same of us, but he was wrong

[NB Alnwick]

Indeed, and nothing that I said should be taken as implying that everybody should be able to achieve 10 minute lock passages.

 

Due allowance has to be made for those who are inexperienced, and will take 20 minutes to negotiate their first locks.

 

However, that does not mean that it is OK for people to continue to take 20 minutes as they develop more experience. There is a need for appreciation of the simple fact that by taking 20 minutes, a boat is halving the capacity of the canal.

 

In order to ensure that others can enjoy the canal, users should (as they gain experience) strive to avoid taking longer than necessary in locks, and save faffing about with unnecessary macrame, and embarking and disembarking their more decrepit ancestors for other occasions.

 

I have come across boaters who insist on only winding up just one paddle (and even then only half way) when filling a lock because (in their words) letting too much water in makes the boat bang about too much and their boat is their home with precious items inside that might get damaged or broken. To some this would be seen as unnecessary faffing about - but what could be done? Surely if they have concerns and that is how they want to go through the locks, it is their decision . . .

[Tam & Di]

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?

 

Are you suggesting that the whole world of canal users can only travel at the same dawdle speed as the slowest, or inefficient and inept user? It would doubtless please BW - if each boat took 30 minutes to pass a lock that would severely restrict the number of boats on the move, the wear and tear on the lock, and the amount of water used.

 

On the 30-12 many moons ago I did go up to a boater who had spent an inordinate amount of time in a lock which had its exit gates open and told him I'd come to collect his mooring fees for tying there. His "excuse" was he was tired and was now waiting for the lock keeper to come and do the locks for him!

[Tam & Di]

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.

 

Exactly so. We regained a freight of grain from Tilbury to Coxe's Mill on the R. Wey in the late 70s. There was a rail branch into the mill, but wagons went from Tilbury to a shunting yard near Southampton before returning to Weybridge and took several days. Our barges did the trip direct from door to door in a day. It was easy for them to revert to water transport as the large Lister pumping engine was still in situ and working, and the guy who understood its maintenance too. The traffic eventually ended as Mrs Thatcher gave firms relocating to Corby where the steel industry collapsed financial incentives. The grain then went by road.

 

Thatcher probably gained a few votes in Corby without losing any in Weybridge, but of course she did not believe in social engineering, did she!

 

At least we did not have to pfaff about behind boaters insisting on moving at 2 miles an hour and 30 minutes a lock - how things have changed in a generation.

[Speedwheel]

but he was wrong

[mayalld]

I have come across boaters who insist on only winding up just one paddle (and even then only half way) when filling a lock because (in their words) letting too much water in makes the boat bang about too much and their boat is their home with precious items inside that might get damaged or broken. To some this would be seen as unnecessary faffing about - but what could be done? Surely if they have concerns and that is how they want to go through the locks, it is their decision . . .

 

It is reasonable to wind only half a paddle to start with, and to gradually increase until all paddles are up. If others are waiting to use the lock, it is unreasonable to keep at half a paddle.

 

We start with half a paddle on many locks, but we still transit a lock rapidly.

 

At the time when this is happening, I would agree that other boaters cannot insist that the boater does it differently. However, BW as navigation authority can be asked to remind the boater that they are not entitled to take as long as they like, and that if they insist on deliberately going more slowly than necessary through locks, action may be taken.

[CV32]

Having recently moved our first boat from Whilton marina to Brinklow i can say that we did experience at one point a little 'aggravation' at Hillmorton locks - we were locking down and i had opened one paddle. The gentleman behind us who was clearly getting agitated came past me, making pains not to make any eye contact and just opened the other paddle. Being a newbie own boater i was unsure what to do ... i know that if it occurs again i will be politely requesting they leave things alone until its their turn.

[mayalld]

Having recently moved our first boat from Whilton marina to Brinklow i can say that we did experience at one point a little 'aggravation' at Hillmorton locks - we were locking down and i had opened one paddle. The gentleman behind us who was clearly getting agitated came past me, making pains not to make any eye contact and just opened the other paddle. Being a newbie own boater i was unsure what to do ... i know that if it occurs again i will be politely requesting they leave things alone until its their turn.

 

And you would be entirely correct to do so.

 

The flip-side is, of course that whilst it is not acceptable for him to open paddles on you without a by-your-leave, it isn't acceptable for you to unreasonably slow down the process of locking through by failing to open both paddles.

 

If you had only opened one paddle, and were stood there showing no inclination to open the other, I would have approached and asked "would you like me to do the other paddle for you"

 

If you were single handed, I would also have offered to finish the rest of the lock for you, opening gates, and closing up, because those are operations that don't have the capacity to cause you any problems, and because me doing it means that you are in a position to exit the lock most efficiently, so that I can turn it back or a boat coming the other way can start locking up at the earliest opportunity.

[ValandPete]

Do you mean when there is a short pound? There is an etiquette about that, the boat with the open pound on their right usually moves into it so that you pass on the right side.

 

I did not know that - thanks. I will do this from now on.

 

 

If we are in a flight and there is a boat in the next lock we usually wait in the lock till the other gates start to open, then we start to move as they come out.

 

Especially if it is windy staying in the locks means we don't move about, and if we pass the other boat both under way then we both have steering and more control.

 

Obviously if there is a boat in the pound waiting to come in we will come straight out, but if no one else is about we stay in the lock till we can get into the next one,

 

 

I have waited in a lock going down when there is a strong wind blowing, waiting for boat(s) coming up from the lock in front.

 

This means I don't get blown all over the pound. When the other boat(s) coming up exit I do as well.

By doing this both boats get a run at their next lock without having to wait in a blustery area.

 

 

Did exactly this coming down Calcutt Locks on Easter Monday. Worked a treat! Anyone who was out that day will know how strong the wind was.

 

If you don't know Calcutt locks there is a lot of boats belonging to the boat yard and moored boats in the pounds not leaving much room to manouvre.

 

One boat came out the middle lock coming up before the top lock had emptied (us and another boat) coming down and was immediately blown into the tow path side, then had a struggle to get the boat off the side.

 

 

 

I have been doing this for some time now - waiting for the other boat to move, when I am going up or down, before I move out of the lock. It saves time for both boats as neither has to pull over to the towpath side, and as has been said above both boats can line up for their lock easily.

 

I was fed up with being the first out all the time and I started doing this on a windy day down a flight of locks when boats were being blown and pinned against the bank. It worked so well I now do it all the time, I also now wait in front of the closed gates behind me when going down while waiting for the next lock to be ready. I can control the boat more easily, and rarely need to pull over and hold her on a rope, which can be near impossible in a wind.

 

(for me anyway in the absence of usefully positioned bollards! )

 

 

Val

[CV32]

And you would be entirely correct to do so.

 

The flip-side is, of course that whilst it is not acceptable for him to open paddles on you without a by-your-leave, it isn't acceptable for you to unreasonably slow down the process of locking through by failing to open both paddles.

 

If you had only opened one paddle, and were stood there showing no inclination to open the other, I would have approached and asked "would you like me to do the other paddle for you"

 

If you were single handed, I would also have offered to finish the rest of the lock for you, opening gates, and closing up, because those are operations that don't have the capacity to cause you any problems, and because me doing it means that you are in a position to exit the lock most efficiently, so that I can turn it back or a boat coming the other way can start locking up at the earliest opportunity.

 

Point taken on the single paddle - in future i will open both to speed the empty of the lock

[mayalld]

I have been doing this for some time now - waiting for the other boat to move, when I am going up or down, before I move out of the lock. It saves time for both boats as neither has to pull over to the towpath side, and as has been said above both boats can line up for their lock easily.

 

Exactly. With a short pound, both boats should move together to swap, and should execute "the dance" in the short pound.

 

Those who sit in the locks and wait for the other boat to move to give them a clear run whilst the other boat pulls over are taking the piss, and if I encounter one, I will take us half out of the lock and then wait for the other boat to move.

 

The obvious exception to this is some VERY short pounds where it is necessary for boats to pull over to pass. In such cases, I generally hold that the shorter boat should exit first and tuck into the towpath (even if that is the "wrong" side), and that beyond boats with bow thrusters should take the more difficult path.

 

It all comes down to which method of passing is best for both boats, rather than the method that is good for one at the expense of the other

[RLWP]

Having recently moved our first boat from Whilton marina to Brinklow i can say that we did experience at one point a little 'aggravation' at Hillmorton locks - we were locking down and i had opened one paddle. The gentleman behind us who was clearly getting agitated came past me, making pains not to make any eye contact and just opened the other paddle. Being a newbie own boater i was unsure what to do ... i know that if it occurs again i will be politely requesting they leave things alone until its their turn.

 

Why are you only opening one paddle when going down?

 

Richard

[mayalld]

Why are you only opening one paddle when going down?

 

That was one of my thoughts.

 

Whilst there are often reasons for not opening both paddles going up immediately, there are few reasons for anything othr than two paddles immediately going down.

[NB Alnwick]

Are you suggesting that the whole world of canal users can only travel at the same dawdle speed as the slowest, or inefficient and inept user? It would doubtless please BW - if each boat took 30 minutes to pass a lock that would severely restrict the number of boats on the move, the wear and tear on the lock, and the amount of water used.

 

>snip<

 

The fact is that the main reason for the continued existence of our inland waterways, as we now know them, is because they are used for leisure cruising. If people feel the need to race about and set records for fastest times, there are other leisure pursuits that would be far better suited to their requirements. Conserving and preserving the waterways is a duty taken very seriously by those of us who currently enjoy them.

[dor]

he fact is that the main reason for the continued existence of our inland waterways, as we now know them, is because they are used for leisure cruising. If people feel the need to race about and set records for fastest times, there are other leisure pursuits that would be far better suited to their requirements.

This point of view is often expressed in forums such as this. It is quite true that if you feel you need to rush then you are perhaps persuing the wrong past-time.

 

However, just because you want to go slowly is no reason to unreasonably slow down other people who are not rushing either, but see no point in having to wait unneccessarily to wait for ages whilst someone, either through ignorance or lack of awareness, are going ridiculously slowly.

 

None of us (hopefully) go out on the canals to rush from one place to another. Equally, I see no reason to have to hang around unneccessarily whilst someone fiddles around without any consideration for other canal users. There is a difference between rushing and being efficient, both on the canals and elsewhere. I recently watched someone receiving "training" on a helmsman's course in a lock on the Shroppie with less than 8ft rise. He was being instructed to open one paddle one turn at a time, then eventually to open the other paddle. As a result he took over 15 minutes to rise in a lock which normally takes about 5 minutes at most. Do you want to be bnehind tham going up the Audlem flight?

 

We don't want to rush; we do however want to get on with life. Are you happy to drive behind someone going down a lane at 10 mph (when there is no hazard)? Should we all travel up the motorway at 40 mph?

 

There is slow, then there is ridiculously slow.

 

Please don't accuse everyone who gets a bit frustrated being stuck behind someone going very slowly as being in the wrong place. Same goes for people who travel at tickover and won't let anyone pass them.

[CV32]

Why are you only opening one paddle when going down?

 

Richard

 

It was easier i suppose - i did not consider a single lock would empty much slower with one paddle open ... clearly i had slowed down by then and was just enjoying the experience of locking and general life on the canal

[RLWP]

It was easier i suppose - i did not consider a single lock would empty much slower with one paddle open ... clearly i had slowed down by then and was just enjoying the experience of locking and general life on the canal

 

Almost exactly twice as fast with two paddles.

 

Richard

 

To be fair, we often do the GU locks between Calcutt and Radford bottom on one side only if there are only two of us, but that's to avoid running around the gates and winding each paddle 24 times. We only do this if we are not being followed though

[CV32]

Almost exactly twice as fast with two paddles.

 

Richard

 

To be fair, we often do the GU locks between Calcutt and Radford bottom on one side only if there are only two of us, but that's to avoid running around the gates and winding each paddle 24 times. We only do this if we are not being followed though

 

 

Yes ... obvious really. I did not consider that i was being awkward by not opening both paddles, possibly i was just going at my own pace as the guy was clearly getting annoyed with the other lock in the pair being worked by an older couple who had i think just started - they seemed very unsure about what to do when.