Is this normal or did we encounter a complete twunt?

[Paul C]

So the most important thing is to do as you are told regardless if what you are told is wrong?

 

If that is the crux of your argument then I am afraid I would never subscribe to that and so your point is meaningless to me.

 

I believe it is much more important to look at the facts and reach a conclusion as to how I will behave rather than blindly follow the herd.

 

The leaky gates argument is appropriate in a very few cases (which could be signed as the exception to the sensible rule of leaving gates open) and becomes even less appropriate when you are leaving a lock with a fast flowing bywash.

 

Why should the opinion of someone whose judgement is flawed be of any interest to me?

 

Nope, not at all - I don't know how you've extrapolated to that conclusion!

 

I'd certainly pay regard to the wrongness or rightness of the issue at hand. (I've looked at the facts just as much as you have). Its a minor issue, this one (you've not quantified the minutes and seconds of time saving involved, or the energy saving). I'm saying that either argument is, on balance, approximately, more or less, with a little bit of give and take, equally valid. There's not much in it.

 

Since this ISN'T the crux of my argument, I'll not worry about the rest of the quoted text and what you said after that.

[carlt]

Since this ISN'T the crux of my argument, I'll not worry about the rest of the quoted text and what you said after that.

Interesting since the rest of my post deals with the practical benefits of leaving gates open, and the pointlessness of closing them, which is the crux of my argument, rather than the misguided protocol.

Edited May 10, 2013 by carlt

[Ex- Member]

 

When you drive your car and stop at a traffic light on red, you can clearly see there is nothing coming from your right, does your logic tell you it is safe for you to turn left and the law is an ass so you do so. No you stay put. That’s because the law says so,

So what law are you referring to with regard to lock gates

 

 

Canals can't be policed as the roads are so we have guidelines. Who’s to say they are right or wrong?

People who use them possibly???

The trustees have asked us to close Gates then that is what we should do. Nothing to do with as Carl said Sheep etc etc. The Trust have taken a huge responsibility with our Canals so we should help them by adhering to their guidelines

 

Well by adhering to the guidelines clearly is detrimental to both boaters and the canals and equipment. Opening and closing lock gates because someone wrote it in a guide line is un-necessary wear & tear. I'm sure if brought to the trusties attention this would be changed and logic prevail. Clearly should they indeed change the advice, then my stance along with others of a logical & common sense approach might be considered pioneers.

With top Gate open, if the gate at the bottom of the lock leaks then water will constantly drain through. If the top gate was closed then this theoretically should help to stop water draining away or at least minimise the loss.

If the top Gate is the leaky one and the bottom gate is sound then the lock would stay full whether the gate was left open or not.

 

But clearly from your replies you will continue to leave gates open no matter what anyone says on this forum. Happy sailing.

 

No great water loss is caused for the many reasons already pointed out, worn out locks though will leak water and are expensive to repair, so why use them when it clearly isn't necessary.

[nb Innisfree]

A close friend of ours has just been diagnosed with cancer.

[Terence]

Sorry Terence but if the guide book is wrong but we should follow them regardless then it has everything to do with "Sheep".

 

The water wastage argument, except for a few locations, is based on the 70s and early 80s when the system was falling apart and locks didn't hold water.

 

The locks are not in such a poor condition and the torrents of water flowing down the bywashes are testament to this.

 

By all means close gates where lock leakage remains a problem but elsewhere it just makes no sense and I'm afraid I don't do "nonsense".

 

Why do you feel the need to get personal? It merely devalues your argument.

 

This isn't about "self-righteousness" it is a simple mathematical and engineering problem that has one solution.

 

Bringing personal insults into it is irrelevant.

In your opinion the Guide book is wrong. I'd like to think the locks are better now due to the hard work of the maintenance crew and the diligent closing of lock gates by the users. Problems occure less when a gate is shut that left open.

 

To Norman. bit if advise DON'T GO THERE.

[Jerra]

If that were the case then I am sure they would attempt to introduce rules rather than a guide book.

Not necessarily As I remember it when I was in teaching there was guidance on area for pupils etc but if you ignored it and anything went wrong you were in the proverbial sh1t. As a result they were treated as rules but were and were headed as guidance.

[carlt]

A close friend of ours has just been diagnosed with cancer.

Whilst sympathising I really don't understand why that news should be relevant to this particular discussion.

 

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be entertaining ourselves with trivial discussion because more solemn things are happening?

 

My sons are watching Takeshi's Castle....Shall I turn it off because it is distracting them from the wars and famine elsewhere in the World?

 

Not necessarily As I remember it when I was in teaching there was guidance on area for pupils etc....

However, this is not a school and the guide book is exactly that, unless you can cite some examples of boaters being in trouble for not following its advice.

 

In your opinion the Guide book is wrong.

It is not an opinion, it is a fact that extra work is involved and extra wear on the lock structure occurs if we all close the gates behind us.

 

The advice is wrong. That is a fact not an opinion.

[Paul C]

However, this is not a school and the guide book is exactly that, unless you can cite some examples of boaters being in trouble for not following its advice.

 

"Keep forward of the cill" is in the guidebook too.

 

http://www.lep.co.uk/webimage/1.4800307.1343988568!/image/3607189445.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_595/3607189445.jpg

 

http://www.shropshirestar.com/wpmvc/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/SD4133162@hit29boat1-USED.thumb.jpg

 

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00529/SNN1237ANN_682_529587a.jpg

[nb Innisfree]

Whilst sympathising I really don't understand why that news should be relevant to this particular discussion.

 

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be entertaining ourselves with trivial discussion because more solemn things are happening?

 

My sons are watching Takeshi's Castle....Shall I turn it off because it is distracting them from the wars and famine elsewhere in the World?

 

Just trying (clumsily) to put a bit of perspective on things.

[carlt]

"Keep forward of the cill" is in the guidebook too.

Why is that relevant?

 

I have said that the guide book is wrong to suggest that the lock gates should always be shut behind us but I have not said it is completely wrong.

 

Just because you have found something in it that is correct (and I am sure most of its content is good advice) does not change the fact that it is wrong about what we are discussing.

 

Just trying (clumsily) to put a bit of perspective on things.

I don't think it was necessary.

 

The discussion is amicable and on topic(ish).

Edited May 10, 2013 by carlt

[Terence]

You seem to have a reasonable and logical argument and I commend you, well done

 

[Paul C]

Ok no worries carlt, you're putting forwards a convincing argument here.

 

Have you quantified the benefit of leaving lock gates open?

[carlt]

Have you quantified the benefit of leaving lock gates open?

To my satisfaction, yes I have.

[nb Innisfree]

Why is that relevant?

 

I don't think it was necessary.

 

The discussion is amicable and on topic(ish).

I don't think any of this is 'necessary', it's my contribution despite what you may think. I see parts of this discussion veering away from being amicable. Edited May 10, 2013 by nb Innisfree

[Paul C]

To my satisfaction, yes I have.

 

Can you share it with us please?

[Ex- Member]

I don't think any of this is 'necessary', it's my contribution despite what you may think. I see parts of this discussion veering away from being amicable.

 

Well clearly the people contributing do.

I see parts of this discussion veering away from being amicable

 

And where you get that impression from is a mystery. Is it not you trying to inflame the debate by any chance with Off Topic crass inconsequential postings????

 

[nb Innisfree]

 

Well clearly the people contributing do.

 

And where you get that impression from is a mystery. Is it not you trying to inflame the debate by any chance with Off Topic crass inconsequential postings????

 

Possibly.

[carlt]

Can you share it with us please?

Okay.

 

If the gates are left open then, statistically, 50% of the time you will arrive at a lock set for you, and 50% not, whereas if you close gates you will find 100% of gates are closed against you.

 

This means that old, worn out equipment is being used when it doesn't have to be so it is both less work for the boater and less wear on the lock equipment if the gates are left open.

Edited May 10, 2013 by carlt

[Tesla]

I think most people agree that leaving the gates open for a boat coming in the opposite direction is the polite thing to do? By the same token shutting the gate would be the polite thing to do if you knew there was another boat traveling in the same direction? If you do not know which direction the next boat is travelling in then there is a 50% chance that it is travelling in the same direction as you and therefore by leaving the gate open you are creating more work for the crew? So wouldn't the polite thing be to shut the gate?

[carlt]

If you do not know which direction the next boat is travelling in then there is a 50% chance that it is travelling in the same direction as you and therefore by leaving the gate open you are creating more work for the crew? So wouldn't the polite thing be to shut the gate?

No because if the person behind you is being sensible and leaving the gate open then they have saved themselves one "gate's worth" already, cancelling out the extra work at the other end so a boat following would do no extra work whereas a boat coming from the other direction would save one "gate's worth".

[Ex- Member]

Can you share it with us please?

 

Just read what's been posted, it's not rocket science.

 

Briefly though

 

Less wear & tear to locks

Less wear & tear to lock moorings

Less churning up the canal whilst hovering and waiting for the gates to be opened.

Much quicker passage for single handed boaters, and they won't need to hog a lock mooring or leave their boat unattended (engine running) whilst opening closed locks, which is also generally safer.

Energy & time efficient for every user who benefits from an open lock.

Many more would benefit just from basic ease of passage.

 

So now can you give the benefits of closing lock gates other than "it's in the handbook"

[Terence]

Okay.

 

If the gates are left open then, statistically, 50% of the time you will arrive at a lock set for you, and 50% not, whereas if you close gates you will find 100% of locks are against you.

 

This means that old, worn out equipment is being used when it doesn't have to be so it is both less work for the boater and less wear on the lock equipment if the gates are left open.

 

Water will always find the easiest path though. So if only one gate is holding back the water pressure as opposed to two and a gap is found then the water will exploit that gap. So surly closing both gates is the right thing to do irrespective of what extra labour this will course. So closing both worn gates is better than leaving one to suffer.

[Paul C]

Just read what's been posted, it's not rocket science.

 

Briefly though

 

Less wear & tear to locks

Less wear & tear to lock moorings

Less churning up the canal whilst hovering and waiting for the gates to be opened.

Much quicker passage for single handed boaters, and they won't need to hog a lock mooring or leave their boat unattended (engine running) whilst opening closed locks, which is also generally safer.

Energy & time efficient for every user who benefits from an open lock.

Many more would benefit just from basic ease of passage.

 

So now can you give the benefits of closing lock gates other than "it's in the handbook"

 

Great answer - however it doesn't QUANTIFY anything! I think you need to look up the meaning of the word.....

[Tesla]

No because if the person behind you is being sensible and leaving the gate open then they have saved themselves one "gate's worth" already, cancelling out the extra work at the other end so a boat following would do no extra work whereas a boat coming from the other direction would save one "gate's worth".

Hmm, fine if everyone did it, but a pain in the arse for the person following you and following the guidelines...

 

I assume most of the wear and tear on locks comes from the paddle gear rather than opening and shutting gates, or is this not the case?

[carlt]

Water will always find the easiest path though. So if only one gate is holding back the water pressure as opposed to two and a gap is found then the water will exploit that gap. So surly closing both gates is the right thing to do irrespective of what extra labour this will course. So closing both worn gates is better than leaving one to suffer.

Once upon a time this argument would have held water but the majority of the system does not require such water conservation practices any more.

 

These days it is far more common to see running bywashes than leaky lock gates and, for the ones that are still not water tight then it is far more sensible to provide signs instructing gates to be closed than hanging on to an archaic convention.