Nasty incident on the Huddersfield

[nb Innisfree]

As I see it too much stuff is classed as maintenance, if a tree has been allowed to grow through lack of maintenance it's still thought of as maintenace when it's removed when in fact it's a capital investment. Same with dredging, if it's been neglected until its causing probs with navigation then it's an investment issue to bring it up to maintainable standards. Maintenence prevents problems, investment replaces stuff.

 

Money is earmarked for the wrong reason IMO, things like extra staff to continually keep things running like in the old days is thought of as a luxury nowadays when in fact it should be a priority, typical british thinking, put the cart before the horse.

 

Reminds me of a TV prog years ago in which a british firm was asked where cuts would be made in the event of a downturn and the answer was 'market research', when a Japenese firm was asked the same question they said market research would be the last thing on the list because if they didn't know what folk wanted they wouldn't know what to produce.

[Tacet]

I'm trying to think of something that could be done in this kind of emergency. Something you could do quickly.

 

Maybe a 10' wide plastic tarp, carried rolled up- clip the bottom corners onto a mudweight each and drop it in front of the gates, perhaps.

 

 

 

Run like the clappers to the lock above and draw water down is the answer.

 

If necessary, continue to the next lock and repeat.

 

Other than checking the bottom paddles are fully closed (as they should be, of course) the first, and most important thing, is to draw both top paddles again on this lock. Once a boat is stuck on the cill, it forms a rather effective stopper to water flowing into the lock. So, the back end will continue to drop with the leakage unless you can get some more water behind the boat - just raising the water ahead could make the situation worse. This lock has ground paddles - which will allow water to pass under the boat.

 

Following that, as Dave says draw every paddle ahead you can find. Reversing hard would be a good idea.

 

Whilst the lock is filling, the effects of the leakage are disguised - once the top gate is open it will fall at a certain rate but that rate will increase substantially once the boat is lodged on the cill. It is not an easy problem to avoid - ensuring there is enough water to pass the cill is obviously good advice in principle, but on the HNC you are going to be very occupied checking and continually drawing water down from above if you wish to keep on the safe-side, which will exacerbate the situation for the locks above.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Tacet

[nb Innisfree]

 

That's right, I don't think many of us would have been prepared for cilling at the bow when going uphill. The main things you look for when going uphill are not getting water in the well deck from opening gate paddles too early or quickly and not getting a bow fender caught in the gate. I'd be having a claim-up against CRT for leaving this lock in such hazardous state if it were me.

 

One thing still I don't understand is how it's possible to even partially fill a lock that's leaking so badly to get in, and how would you fill it if going downhill? The answer is probably in one of these posts if only I could be bothered to read them all...

If a pound bottom is level with the top cill there will be no chance of getting into a lock before becoming grounded in the pound, sort of built in safety. If the pound bottom is lower than the cill then it's possible to pass over the cill before being grounded in the pound. I've personally cruised a low pound and come across a lock with the top gates open and due to our shallow draughted and nearly level trimmed boat passed ok over the top cill, if I'd grounded on the cill anywhere behind our centre of gravity we would have been helpless to prevent the boat tipping forward into the lock as the leaking gates emptied it. Leaking gates which contributed to the low pound in the first place.

 

ETA: Coming uphill this still applies.

Edited November 4, 2013 by nb Innisfree

[RichardH]

I appreciate the points about maintenance but there is a chicken and egg thing going on here.

 

I'll wager the HNC is probably the least used canal on the network, so CRT are not going to be prioritising maintenance work when there are scores of issues with lock gates/paddles etc etc elsewhere on the system.

 

On the other hand it may well be that many potential visitors are put off using the canal because of the difficulties of navigation and occasional high profile accidents which are mostly, but not entirely, caused by maintenance problems.

 

Personally I think the HNC, like many of the northern canals, has declined in popularity for reasons other than the standard of maintenance, so I wouldn't be too quick to judge CRT's performance. From our experience the maintenance team there work very hard, even if most of it is reactive. It won't cut it with the insurance companies though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The irony here is that there has been fantastic levels of investment into the HNC in the last couple of years. Nearly every lock on the eastern side has new gates. Having cruised it just after it opened, a couple of times in between and then doing Slaithwaite to Huddersfield last year I can vouch personally as to how good the improvements have been.

 

I wish more people would cruise it as it is certainly worth it, the scenery is stunning.

[nb Innisfree]

I wish more people would cruise it as it is certainly worth it, the scenery is stunning.

Especially from the helm as the back end seesaws upwards!

 

Or from the bow as it goes up...

Edited November 4, 2013 by nb Innisfree

[blackrose]

Reminds me of a TV prog years ago in which a british firm was asked where cuts would be made in the event of a downturn and the answer was 'market research', when a Japenese firm was asked the same question they said market research would be the last thing on the list because if they didn't know what folk wanted they wouldn't know what to produce.

 

Which in turn reminds me of when I worked in Japan. Every week without fail a guy would come into the office for 20 minutes to service the photocopier.

 

One day I said to an American colleague "Why do we have that guy come in to service the copier every week? There's nothing wrong with it" He replied "Why do you think there's nothing wrong with it?" And he was right of course. In the 4 years I worked at that company it never once went wrong.

 

In the UK we'd be much more likely to service a copier once a year perhaps, change the toner cartridge ourselves, until one day it goes wrong and then it would be out of order for a week until we could get someone in to fix it.

Edited November 4, 2013 by blackrose

[Emerald Fox]

Here's an idea: is there a daily updated map of the canals system on the Internet where faults and potential problem sites can be shown? CaRT themselves could be looking at this constantly - anyone who adds a fault (such as a particular lock causing mischief) leaves their details so CaRT can contact them by phone/e-mail/Towpath-Telegraph?

 

Boaters could register, if they like, to a service which sends warnings to their cellphones (these systems already exist, eg. bad weather warnings in the USA, airlines send you texts to tell you it's time to check-in, etc).

 

Any boaters having gone through and experienced a problem could put a sign up with date and time and explanation for the next boat to come along?

 

And now... back to the real world....!

Nice picture of rubbish floating in the HNC on Day 11 of my little cycle tour journal May 2013:

 

http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/?o=1&doc_id=12458&v=I4

[SamKingfisher]

Money is earmarked for the wrong reason IMO, things like extra staff to continually keep things running like in the old days is thought of as a luxury nowadays when in fact it should be a priority, typical british thinking, put the cart before the horse.

 

 

Sounds like people have been raising this problem til blue in the face and sore of throat. Putting the hoarse before the CaRT you might say. Edited November 4, 2013 by SamKingfisher

[Jim Riley]

Sounds like people have been raising this problem til blue in the face and sore of throat. Putting the hoarse before the CaRT you might say.

greenie for pun ishment

[mayalld]

 

That's right, I don't think many of us would have been prepared for cilling at the bow when going uphill. The main things you look for when going uphill are not getting water in the well deck from opening gate paddles too early or quickly and not getting a bow fender caught in the gate. I'd be having a claim-up against CRT for leaving this lock in such hazardous state if it were me.

 

One thing still I don't understand is how it's possible to even partially fill a lock that's leaking so badly to get in, and how would you fill it if going downhill? The answer is probably in one of these posts if only I could be bothered to read them all...

 

I believe that the answer to this is that the lock in question doesn't leak too badly lower down, but leaks more and more as it comes up to the top half.

 

Both top paddles open is enough to slowly reach a level, but in doing so, a huge amount of water is lost, and the level in the upper pound drops.

 

one side effect of this is that the pressure on the head gate reduces, and it forms a less efficient seal, so it starts leaking water into the lock and aids in forming a level (with a half empty pound, it is usually possible to push a head gate open against a good couple of inches of water).

[majorminor]

As a few have mentioned, if the water was exiting the bottom gate fast enough to lower the level to a critical point whilst the boat was leaving through the top gate, then the main issue was the level of the upper pound, which must have been well down, even before the lock was negotiated.

 

Frankly, this does not surprise me in the least. Since my once only (never again!) trip up that canal, around 10 years ago, we refer to it as The Huddersfield Empty!

 

The answer to the problem is simple. Avoid The Huddersfield Narrow!

Edited November 5, 2013 by majorminor

[mayalld]

As a few have mentioned, if the water was exiting the bottom gate fast enough to lower the level to a critical point whilst the boat was leaving through the top gate, then the main issue was the level of the upper pound, which must have been well down, even before the lock was negotiated.

 

The leaks on this lock are such that even starting from a full upper pound, the leakage in use can be enough to drop that pound to almost empty.

[RichardH]

As a few have mentioned, if the water was exiting the bottom gate fast enough to lower the level to a critical point whilst the boat was leaving through the top gate, then the main issue was the level of the upper pound, which must have been well down, even before the lock was negotiated.

 

Frankly, this does not surprise me in the least. Since my once only (never again!) trip up that canal, around 10 years ago, we refer to it as The Huddersfield Empty!

 

The answer to the problem is simple. Avoid The Huddersfield Narrow!

 

What a dismal attitude.

 

10 years ago the canal had only just re-opened from a derelict state.

[Leo No2]

What I fail to understand is how the lock filled in the first place. Experience of failed lower cills (on the Basingstoke) showed that you could never get the lock full enough to open the upper gates. That view doesn't absolve CRT from the need to have repaired the issue but still fail to understand how the upper gates could be opened.

[Neil2]

 

I believe that the answer to this is that the lock in question doesn't leak too badly lower down, but leaks more and more as it comes up to the top half.

 

Both top paddles open is enough to slowly reach a level, but in doing so, a huge amount of water is lost, and the level in the upper pound drops.

 

one side effect of this is that the pressure on the head gate reduces, and it forms a less efficient seal, so it starts leaking water into the lock and aids in forming a level (with a half empty pound, it is usually possible to push a head gate open against a good couple of inches of water).

 

I hadn't thought of it that way, but it makes sense and that's probably how the boater in question managed to get the gates open.

[Paul C]

What I fail to understand is how the lock filled in the first place. Experience of failed lower cills (on the Basingstoke) showed that you could never get the lock full enough to open the upper gates. That view doesn't absolve CRT from the need to have repaired the issue but still fail to understand how the upper gates could be opened.

 

That's an interesting point, and would solve a number of the safety concerns I have (in that potentially you could get into a situation which appears benign but can turn unsafe quickly, with no pragmatic action to resolve it quickly/safely). Possibly the top paddles are big enough, and the top gate leaky enough, to allow its opening but once it is, you're on a timer until your boat grounds (and if its part way over the cill, tips too, and prevents the top gate being closed).

 

Yes, you're still prevented from progress, but being in a lock is a fairly safe place if/when pound levels are varying or emptying.

[mayalld]

What I fail to understand is how the lock filled in the first place. Experience of failed lower cills (on the Basingstoke) showed that you could never get the lock full enough to open the upper gates. That view doesn't absolve CRT from the need to have repaired the issue but still fail to understand how the upper gates could be opened.

 

See my post above

[Mac of Cygnet]

With the stoppages on the Rochdale I would think more people will be travelling along this route over the next few months

 

No they won't. Standedge Tunnel closes for the winter this coming Friday.

 

I agree that it is a pity that more boats don't use the HNC, but a through passage is limited to 9 boats per week each way, although of course a few boats do go 'up and back' on each side of the tunnel. I said as much to Richard Parry a few weeks ago when I came across him wandering along the towpath of the HNC (yes, really!). He made some noises about looking into enabling more tunnel passages, but was concerned that it wouldn't necessarily result in greater usage. I can see his point, if the canal's reputed difficulties (no longer true) continue to deter boaters.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Mac of Cygnet

[majorminor]

 

What a dismal attitude.

 

10 years ago the canal had only just re-opened from a derelict state.

 

Exactly. Just re-opened. So all the work had just been finished in order to achieve that, and so it was probably in the best condition it had been in for years. Since then, it could well have deteriorated.

 

But the issue I refer to is nothing to do with whether it is derelict of not. It is simply the issue of a lack of water. You can polish a turd all you want, but sailing a canal that doesn't have enough water in it on so many occasions is asking for trouble.

 

For a boat to catch on a top cill like that, the pound in front of it has to be short of water by many thousands of gallons - possibly hundreds of thousands. On the Canal I work on, the levels are checked every day. Does it happen on the HN? Obviously not enough..

 

But, hey, if you like taking that risk, my friend - fine, use that Canal - good luck to you

[majorminor]

but still fail to understand how the upper gates could be opened.

 

Simple lock logistics will tell you that the top gates of a lock with such seriously leaking lower gates will never open, as the water will never reach equilibrium inside the lock.

 

Therefore, the leaking lower lock gates could not have been the direct cause of this accident.

 

The only way for equilibrium to be achieved (thus enabling the top gates to open), whilst at the same time not filling the lock enough for the boat to clear the cill - is (as I have already said) if the pound in front was very seriously short of water.

 

The arbiter of low water level in a full lock is the pound above it, not the lock

Edited November 5, 2013 by majorminor

[mayalld]

 

Exactly. Just re-opened. So all the work had just been finished in order to achieve that, and so it was probably in the best condition it had been in for years. Since then, it could well have deteriorated.

 

But the issue I refer to is nothing to do with whether it is derelict of not. It is simply the issue of a lack of water. You can polish a turd all you want, but sailing a canal that doesn't have enough water in it on so many occasions is asking for trouble.

 

For a boat to catch on a top cill like that, the pound in front of it has to be short of water by many thousands of gallons - possibly hundreds of thousands. On the Canal I work on, the levels are checked every day. Does it happen on the HN? Obviously not enough..

 

But, hey, if you like taking that risk, my friend - fine, use that Canal - good luck to you

 

You say that you work on a canal, yet you display a near total lack of awareness about the process of canal restoration, and indeed operation!

 

The canal re-opened to navigation in 2001. It would be entirely wrong to assume that "all the work had just been finished". In 2001, work was completed on several of the most major obstacles to navigation, and significant water supply improvements . Restoration of most of the "easier" bits, including the digging out and re-gating of many of the locks had taken place during the 1980s and early 1990s. At the point when the canal re-opened, Lock 9W had been regated for over 10 years, but not operative during that time. It would not be accurate to describe it as being in good condition when the canal re-opened.

 

The pound from 9W to 10W is short, and narrow. In common with other similar pounds, even normal lock operation will impact on the level of the pound. The leaking gates on the bottom of Lock mean that when filling the lock many thousands of gallons ARE lost through the lock. It is entirely possible to start with the pond full, and still find that the pound is so low as to be impassible when the lock is filled.

[SamKingfisher]

You can check the levels quite easily by eye. I've done it Huddersfield - Slaithwaite and back and it isn't for the faint hearted, but one reservoir is empty for maintenance which can't help.

 

The main barriers to more boats using the HNC I reckon are

 

how hard it is to moor off piste, given the very shallow edges and variable pound levels.

 

There isn't a single community of boats between Huddersfield and the tunnel

 

The fact that you need to know what you're at re levels.

 

You will ground at least once! We did 3 times.

 

Having said that I found some of the scenery to be entirely worth the candle.

[mayalld]

 

Simple lock logistics will tell you that the top gates of a lock with such seriously leaking lower gates will never open, as the water will never reach equilibrium inside the lock.

 

Therefore, the leaking lower lock gates could not have been the direct cause of this accident.

 

The only way for equilibrium to be achieved (thus enabling the top gates to open), whilst at the same time not filling the lock enough for the boat to clear the cill - is (as I have already said) if the pound in front was very seriously short of water.

 

The arbiter of low water level in a full lock is the pound above it, not the lock

 

You are hopelessly wrong on this point.

[majorminor]

 

You are hopelessly wrong on this point.

Elaborate

[nb Innisfree]

Elaborate:D

He already has, post 60.