Droitwich - Use your horn under the M5?

[Peter Lee]

Me and my family completed the Droitwich Ring last week and I've been thinking a lot about it. Firstly, a big thank you to all who worked over the years to bring the Droitwich Canals back to life. It's a remarkable story of determination and patience that hopefully will inspire many other such projects in the future.

 

One or two points that I remember. As we approached Linacre, the reeds really encroach on the navigable channel, so that for extended distances, only a single boat width is visibly clear. And no where to stop for a cuppa or to lift the weed hatch, except at locks...

 

The M5 culvert itself is an accident waiting to happen, in my opinion. BW originally proposed a traffic light system but this was not installed due to a tight budget.

 

The problem is there is no line of sight through the culvert - Corbetts Bridge, offset at about 10 degrees on the western end prevents a clear view. Sooner or later, two boats are going to hit head on a few feet into the western end of the culvert. And two lots of 15 tons hitting at a closing speed of 1 or 1.5mph is likely to lead to some damage, I think.

 

For boats going west, they can see if the culvert is clear, all through, and have a straight entry into the culvert. For boats going eastwards, they have to do a tricky bit of turning under Corbetts Bridge to line up with the culvert. The steerer at the back has no idea if a boat is about to emerge from the culvert as he sets his boat up.

 

I suggest that what is needed is for westward bound boats to use their horn when around half way down the culvert. This way, the sound should easily carry to a boat near the western portal, but not be loud enough to cause any annoyance to local residents (bearing in mind that the M5 motorway is roaring away a few yards above).

 

I notice that a few boaters use their horn on entering the culvert - but horn use seems to be similar on boats to on our roads: it's "not British" to use the it - but surely here safety should take precedence?

 

What do others think?

[Smelly]

We went through today and, tbh, I can see the sense in a traffic light, however timed entries would be cheaper; 10 mins one way and ten mins the other would do.

 

I can see a lot of people winging it though; it's so short I'd probably think as much if I couldn't fill the time clearing the roof before going through...

[tony collins]

There are many places on the canals where clear through vision is not possible, The Armitage "tunnel" on the Staffs & Worcs for one, people seem to cope and I would suggest the traffic is heavier on that canal than is likely to be the case on the Droitwich. All it needs is a little care and consideration. I will admit that the last time I was on a boat on the Droitwich was in the 1990's.

[Smelly]

The Armitage "tunnel" on the Staffs & Worcs

 

Much like Grub St you can send someone forward in there; there's no towpath under the M5, however it's so short blowing your horn would do!

[stripey]

Sounding the horn would be fine - most boaters don't do it enough at dangerous bends.

Edited August 29, 2011 by stripey

[Ray T]

Sounding the horn would be fine - most boaters don't do it enough at dangerous bends.

 

 

Totally agree, have a greenie.

[Tonka]

Blowing your horn is a waste of time at ANY bridge. It gives you no right to carry on regardless as most people who have blown their horn do so. You do not know

if the other person has heard you and even if they did hear it did they know it was a boat ? Lets bring back consideration to the canals

[alan_fincher]

Sooner or later, two boats are going to hit head on a few feet into the western end of the culvert. And two lots of 15 tons hitting at a closing speed of 1 or 1.5mph is likely to lead to some damage, I think.

I'd not argue at all with the use of horns at blind spots.

 

But surely any boat that manages to have a head on accident in this restricted tube is simply travelling too fast for the conditions, which very clearly demand caution at this location.

 

The bottom is so near the top through this tunnel that it limits the speed you can travel at anyway, and I would have thought it is one location where you could guarantee to stop remarkably quickly if you did have to engage reverse in a hurry.

[john6767]

I believe hearing a horn can give a few extra seconds to react and worthwhile on a blind bridge. If you hear a single long blast it is most likely to be a boat and not a car, and anyway a very high percentage of the blind bridges you come across will be farm accommodation not road ones anyway. To me it is nothing about giving you the right to carry on, it is just a case of saying "I am here". I don't see what is inconsiderate about it.?

 

 

[Ray T]

I believe hearing a horn can give a few extra seconds to react and worthwhile on a blind bridge. If you hear a single long blast it is most likely to be a boat and not a car, and anyway a very high percentage of the blind bridges you come across will be farm accommodation not road ones anyway. To me it is nothing about giving you the right to carry on, it is just a case of saying "I am here". I don't see what is inconsiderate about it.?

 

 

 

Rule 34: Maneuvering and Warning Signals

Colregs > The Collisions Regulations > Part D - Sound and Light Signals > Rule 34: Maneuvering and Warning Signals

 

 

(e) A vessel nearing a bend or an area of a channel or fairway where other vessels may be obscured by an intervening obstruction shall sound one prolonged blast. Such signal shall be answered with a prolonged blast by any approaching vessel that may be within hearing around the bend or behind the intervening obstruction.

 

Tonka I feel this answers your comment.

 

I know essentially COLREGS are for use at sea and navigable rivers but if they show a NB is in the vicinity but out of sight, to me it makes sense to use them, horns that is.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Ray T

[stripey]

Blowing your horn is a waste of time at ANY bridge. It gives you no right to carry on regardless as most people who have blown their horn do so. You do not know

if the other person has heard you and even if they did hear it did they know it was a boat ? Lets bring back consideration to the canals

Consideration rules OK!

 

Sounding the horn on a boat is not done to give the steerer the right to charge through regardless. Just as in the Highway Code, (although generally ignored) you sound your horn to let other canal users know of your presence. It's an extra safety device. Of course boaters should slow down as well as positioning their boat sensibly when visibility is restricted - that's part of the deal combining consideration, courtesy and safety.

[Midnight Rider]

There are many places on the canals where clear through vision is not possible, The Armitage "tunnel" on the Staffs & Worcs for one,

The Trent & Mersey methinks --- I know, 'no one likes a smartarse'

 

Wife & dog go off here, dog to have a piddle & wife to check for boats.

 

Can't this be done at Droitwich?

[alan_fincher]

Can't this be done at Droitwich?

The "Tube" under the M5 is boats only - no tow-path.

 

There may be a nearby way of walkers getting from one side of the M5 to another, I'm not sure, but even if there were another tunnel, you would not know if a boat had been passing through one the other way, whilst you walked through the foot tunnel.

 

This is not like Armitage tunnel - it's not going to be hard to reverse out again if you happen to find someone coming the other way - the "tube" is dead straight, so it would be obvious if someone had entered it before you, and you needed to stop and back out again.....

 

The difficulties here, in my view, are being overstated.

[Laurence Hogg]

There are many places on the canals where clear through vision is not possible, The Armitage "tunnel" on the Staffs & Worcs for one, people seem to cope and I would suggest the traffic is heavier on that canal than is likely to be the case on the Droitwich. All it needs is a little care and consideration. I will admit that the last time I was on a boat on the Droitwich was in the 1990's.

Since when as Armitage been on the S&W?? Its on the Trent and Mersey. Surely you mean the Coven "Rockin!?

 

Blowing your horn is a waste of time at ANY bridge. It gives you no right to carry on regardless as most people who have blown their horn do so. You do not know

if the other person has heard you and even if they did hear it did they know it was a boat ? Lets bring back consideration to the canals

 

What a load of rubbish. There are many bridges where sounding your horn is very sensible, at least you have given warning to an approaching craft should one be there and if you get an "Answer" you take time to find out who is there. Using your horn is being considerate to other boaters and used to be mandatory in certain places in commercial days.

 

The M5 culvert itself is an accident waiting to happen, in my opinion. BW originally proposed a traffic light system but this was not installed due to a tight budget.

 

I totally agree, also the possibilty of level change with grounding or hitting the roof is a problem, we grounded with the lock being drawn behind us whilst passing through, it was 30 minutes of unpleasant boating, there is nothing to push against as the concrete is smooth and the joints small, not nice.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Laurence Hogg

[churchward]

Since when as Armitage been on the S&W?? Its on the Trent and Mersey. Surely you mean the Coven "Rockin!?

 

 

 

What a load of rubbish. There are many bridges where sounding your horn is very sensible, at least you have given warning to an approaching craft should one be there and if you get an "Answer" you take time to find out who is there. Using your horn is being considerate to other boaters and used to be mandatory in certain places in commercial days.

 

 

I totally agree, also the possibilty of level change with grounding or hitting the roof is a problem, we grounded with the lock being drawn behind us whilst passing through, it was 30 minutes of unpleasant boating, there is nothing to push against as the concrete is smooth and the joints small, not nice.

I agree on the use of the boats horn at some bridges. For instance pn the Oxford canal summit there is a bridge just where the canal almost doubles back on itself ( I can't remember the bridge number) but it is useful if boats slow down and sound the horn and listen for a reply. You can't see an oncoming boat there and just going through and hoping could cause trouble as it is a very tight bend. I always sound the horn there and other places. I agree though that just sounding the horn and going through at full speed is at best doing half the job you need to slow down and listen for a reply.

[Capt Ahab]

There are many places on the canals where clear through vision is not possible, The Armitage "tunnel" on the Staffs & Worcs for one, people seem to cope and I would suggest the traffic is heavier on that canal than is likely to be the case on the Droitwich. All it needs is a little care and consideration. I will admit that the last time I was on a boat on the Droitwich was in the 1990's.

Would that the the Armitage on the Trent and Mersey?

[dove]

For anyone who does't know what the M5 tunnel looks like, must admit it is a bit tight.

 

 

Andrew

[DickBrowne]

In my mind, the hooter button and throttle control are always linked. If the view ahead deserves a toot, it also deserves a lower throttle setting. Then again, I'm odd like that - I also slow down to 20mph on any residential road, and any road where there may be children playing.

 

As I said. Odd.

[Peter Lee]

I seem to have stirred up a HORNets' nest! Alan Fincher is quite right - the "tube" is dead straight and you can see right through it FROM THE EAST. However, when approaching from the west, the fact that Corbetts Bridge is offset means that you have to turn just before entering the tunnel. If you are driving a full length boat, like I was, you find that the bow of the boat is just about entering the tunnel while your back end is still coming round to line up. Hence, the steerer cannot see down the tunnel to see if it is clear.

 

Hence, my suggestion for westward bound boats to sound their horns half way down the tunnel. This would give time for an eastward boat to stop and reverse back to allow the westward boat out.

 

Alan also made the point about travelling slowly - I totally agree. But, given the lack of visibility as a boat turns into the tunnel, as some point two boats are bound to be at just the wrong position and may be unable to stop in time. The other problem is that you cannot go so slow that you have no steerage, given that the eastward boat needs to turn quite aggressively into the tunnel from under Corbetts Bridge. The answer is probably to slow almost to a halt under Corbetts Bridge, then put enough power on to turn the boat into the tunnel without picking up too much speed.

 

"Smelly" reckons that a timed system would be better - 10 minutes one way then the other. This would require traffic lights (you can't rely on people reading their watches or setting them accurately). Admittedly, a set of lights on a timer would be cheaper than the full blown "press button" light system. However, I suspect that most of the cost of traffic lights lies in the manpower to install the kit - in particular the cable runs - and also the cost of getting the electricity company to connect it to the grid. So if you're going to put traffic lights in going for the full works would probably not be much more expensive that a simple timed system.

 

Anyway, for cheapness, you can't beat a horn blast!

[mayalld]

Blowing your horn is a waste of time at ANY bridge. It gives you no right to carry on regardless as most people who have blown their horn do so. You do not know

if the other person has heard you and even if they did hear it did they know it was a boat ? Lets bring back consideration to the canals

 

Who has suggested that sounding your horn gives you right of way?

 

Sounding your horn (one prolonged blast) is a signal, warning of your approach into a situation where two boats cannot fit.

 

It is possible that the other boat won't hear you, but assuming he sounds his horn as a warning too, it is unlikely that neither boat will hear the other.

 

If you hear another boats horn, then you may be certain that if you simply press on, you will end up with an impasse, with two boats unable to pass in a narrow section, so the horn signal has imparted information to you to allow you to decide what to do.

 

You have two options. You can decide to give way, in which case, you have ample time to take the way off your vessel, and position yourself to allow the approaching vessel to pass, or you can decide that it would, in fact be difficult for you to give way (perhaps you already signalled, and it wasn't heard), and sound a long blast in return.

 

Sounding your horn ASKS others who are out of sight whether you can take the narrows. Responding with a blast answers that question in the negative.

 

So, yes, let us bring back consideration to the canals. Navigating into narrow bits without clear sight lines without giving a signal is NOT showing consideration.

[Sir Nibble]

And isn't it a sod when you give a long blast, get no reply and then find yourself with a sudden "Situation" head on to another boat the crew of which have no idea why you sounded your horn.

[mayalld]

And isn't it a sod when you give a long blast, get no reply and then find yourself with a sudden "Situation" head on to another boat the crew of which have no idea why you sounded your horn.

 

Ah, that delightful conversation;

 

YOU: "Didn't you hear me sound the horn?"

NUMPTY: "Yes"

YOU: "Didn't you think that you should have either stopped or sounded your horn?"

NUMPTY: "Uuh!"

[Guest]

Who has suggested that sounding your horn gives you right of way?

 

Sounding your horn (one prolonged blast) is a signal, warning of your approach into a situation where two boats cannot fit.

 

It is possible that the other boat won't hear you, but assuming he sounds his horn as a warning too, it is unlikely that neither boat will hear the other.

 

If you hear another boats horn, then you may be certain that if you simply press on, you will end up with an impasse, with two boats unable to pass in a narrow section, so the horn signal has imparted information to you to allow you to decide what to do.

 

You have two options. You can decide to give way, in which case, you have ample time to take the way off your vessel, and position yourself to allow the approaching vessel to pass, or you can decide that it would, in fact be difficult for you to give way (perhaps you already signalled, and it wasn't heard), and sound a long blast in return.

 

Sounding your horn ASKS others who are out of sight whether you can take the narrows. Responding with a blast answers that question in the negative.

 

So, yes, let us bring back consideration to the canals. Navigating into narrow bits without clear sight lines without giving a signal is NOT showing consideration.

 

 

I often envisage a situation where you can't see the other boat - they can't see you but neither moves forward for fear of being seen as arrogant or pushy and two boats sit there all day waiting for somebody to do something.

 

Miracle of miracles last week while out we met a boat in just this situation - waited about 30 secs. and he didn't advance. OK I thought let's see if he understands three short blasts and gave him three and moved back as it was safe for me to do so, lo and behold he then slowly advanced through the bridge hole and as he passed said 'not many folk use the horn for signalling these days'.

 

I didn't have the heart to tell him it's the only one I can remember...

[AJLintern]

You could always get one of those recorded messages that trucks have for reversing: 'Attention: This narrowboat is reversing!' That might give them the right idea

[Jim]

 

"Smelly" reckons that a timed system would be better - 10 minutes one way then the other. This would require traffic lights (you can't rely on people reading their watches or setting them accurately). Admittedly, a set of lights on a timer would be cheaper than the full blown "press button" light system. However, I suspect that most of the cost of traffic lights lies in the manpower to install the kit - in particular the cable runs - and also the cost of getting the electricity company to connect it to the grid. So if you're going to put traffic lights in going for the full works would probably not be much more expensive that a simple timed system.

 

Anyway, for cheapness, you can't beat a horn blast!

 

Preston Brook and Saltersford tunnels on the T&M seem to work OK on a timed system in my (limited) experience.

Jim