Why does CART want us to leave locks empty?

[MtB]

 

No, it is not called irony.

 

I thought that too.

 

'Irony' is, for example, is "like rain on your wedding day" apparently, according to Ms Morissette

 

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/alanismorissette/ironic.html

 

So Americans don't geddit either. Or is she Canadian...?

 

Hang on, what were we talking about?

 

 

MtB

[Hawkmoth]

BW even cut the beams off some lock gates.They wanted to shut the system down. Just read about some of the early IWA campaign cruises

Surely you don't believe that C&RT would contemplate any vandalism.

Bob

[Coelum Ruat]

So, perhaps CRT are creating stability problems in locks so that, when disaster strikes, they can heroically save the day and be loved by us all.

I wonder, wouldn't it be ironic if they only brought about their own collapse?

This is all, of course, just nonsense.

But less nonsense than some of the above, IMO.

[DHutch]

I thought that too.

'Irony' is, for example, is "like rain on your wedding day" apparently, according to Ms Morissette

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/alanismorissette/ironic.html

So Americans don't geddit either. Or is she Canadian...?

Hang on, what were we talking about?

 

MtB

This one:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT1TVSTkAXg

[mayalld]

 

No, it is not called irony.

 

A dictionary definition of irony is "a situation in which something which was intended to have a particular result has the opposite or a very different result"

 

"Wondering" is in no way ironic. But it IS very similar to saying "IMO". It is a way of making an accusation without ANY foundation, and then hoping the anti CART brigade on here will chime in with a similar view, or hoping that no one will question the nonsense they are spouting.

 

George "wondered" whether CART were sabotaging locks in order to bring about collapse. And that's OK?

 

So if I say that I "wonder" if you are a supercilious idiot with the IQ of a tree, you'd be happy with that? Obviously, my allusion to your sanity doesn't mean that I mean it!

 

It seems to me that CART are trying, at the moment, to build dialogue with "boaters", but if the sentiments expressed by many on this board are anything to go on, they are plainly wasting their time.

 

I am more than happy to be described as having the IQ of a tree, if personal attack make you feel better about yourself.

 

When I posted, I did wonder whether I was wasting my time, as the few posts that you have made here don't give rise to any great hope that you are capable of taking on board anything that doesn't conform to you preconceptions.

 

Perhaps in time, with more experience of the world, you will come to understand Irony, hyperbole and sarcasm in posts.

 

Saying "I wonder if X is trying to achieve Y" is a fairly common device employed by people with a modicum of intelligence to indicate that whilst it is clearly NOT the intention to achieve Y, the speaker believes that X is doing something that will so obviously lead to Y that it beggars belief.

[adam1uk]

Or you could just point out that George himself has said he WAS being ironic. And he should know.

[furnessvale]

Or you could just point out that George himself has said he WAS being ironic. And he should know.

Apparently I wasn't because I failed to look it up in a dictionary first. Let's just say I was taking the wee-wee.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Mike Todd]

'How they were designed' is not always a good argument. In some cases the design was clearly less successful tahn in others and subsequent chnage should seek to apply the best experience to mend the worst.

 

Also, our needs change over time. Locks were not designed to be operated by leisure boaters. We now have lock ladders in each lock, driven by H&S concerns but jolly useful to boaters.

 

 

Flooding of, or atleast damp, the cellar of lockside cottages is a valid reason. As is leaking walls causing material behind them to wash away.

 

However; leaking gates is tosh as the best option is clearly to have both closed as above. Locks not having by-washes is basically tosh as they are designed that way. And unless you also leave the gates open animals falling in locks is tosh and probably worse then it being full. The water helping the walls stay up is largely tosh as they have to be able to take cyclic loading and unloading anyway as well as being empty, in normal operation. And as said, having one in the middle of a flight, can also cause water shortage issues.

 

IMO

 

I am largely open to small changes in practice to reflect the fact the use and maintenance of our canals has changed and will continue to do so. But I am also hugely against needlessly or thoughtlessly putting obstacles in the way of boaters using the canals to made good forward progress along them, as part of ill thought out plans, maintenance or otherwise, and for deliberately or otherwise miss-informing people as to why things have been done or asked for and or doing this will a stupid number of signs everywhere.

 

 

Daniel

I think we all agree that there is no single analysis and that conditions vary.

 

What I guess most boaters fail to appreciate is the quantity of water than can flow or escape over time. The immediate flow may be small but the cumulative effect can be large. Hence, in some cases the continual leakage can be the dominant factor when traffic levels are lower.

 

I'm not suggesting that the local CaRT people always get it right and I susepct neither would they and that a process of experiment and change is necessary to see what works best. Such an open and experimental approach is not helped if some boaters deliberately flout it.

 

Mike I broadly agree with most of what you say.

However consider what happens when the "leave empty" condition is applied to a lock that is of "normal" depth, that is located at the 'lower' end of one of the very short pounds, and is located on one of the stretches where there is neither any river water flowing through it, or it is not benefiting from (say) the outfall from a sewage works.

 

Without a "leave empty" sign, if there is a fairly balanced mix of boats going uphill and downhill, then regularly the lock will be left ready for a downhill boat because the last traffic was an uphill one.

 

But if "leave empty" signs are posted, the uphill boats should always empty the lock on departure, so every single downhill boat has to refill it, (unless they arrive in time to stop it!). Hence lock-fulls of water get taken from the short intermediate pound, without an equivalent number of extra emptyings of the next lock up to replenish what is taken.

 

I can't immediately think of a perfect example South of Tring summit, but this effect is regularly suffered in the pound between the two "Lower Marsworth" locks to the North of the summit, because the bottom lock is intended to be, (but not always!), signed "leave empty" whereas the upper one is not.

 

It is further exacerbated here by a fair amount of traffic because of the local company that regularly runs both trip boats and day boats through only a very few locks, of which these are two. If usage was low, as you suggest, it would not be as bad, but as soon as a few boats do it, a short intermediate pound can quickly be well over a foot down in level.

[Mick and Maggie]

Now that the side event has finished, and getting back to the original thread about leaving locks empty. Maybe if you suspect other boats might happen along later in the day, then leave the paddles open a crack so that it will take longer to empty down. Rather than paddle all the way up to drain the lock.

[alan_fincher]

Maybe if you suspect other boats might happen along later in the day, then leave the paddles open a crack so that it will take longer to empty down. Rather than paddle all the way up to drain the lock.

Frankly I would not recommend that.

 

People have too much of a knack of visually inspecting the position of the top of paddle bars, and concluding they are right down, when in fact they are not.

 

Always far better IMO that, if a paddle is to be deliberately left up, it is left far enough up that it is beyond doubt it is up.

[furnessvale]

Now that the side event has finished, and getting back to the original thread about leaving locks empty. Maybe if you suspect other boats might happen along later in the day, then leave the paddles open a crack so that it will take longer to empty down. Rather than paddle all the way up to drain the lock.

Sorry, but that is a recipe for disaster. Paddles need to be fully up or fully down. Anything in between can be missed by the next boat along.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[David Mack]

Not a CRT waterway but on the Basingstoke they wish the locks to be drained (unless there it is known there is a boat coming down and I'm pleased to say that traffic has been increasing since our Easter Cruise).

 

The reasons they offer are:

 

Lock wall leakage (as described above)

Safety for animals (there are a large number of deer adjacent to the waterway). I think an animal falling into a lock will be in trouble whether the lock is full or empty.

 

On a less used waterway I think there is a danger of the lower gates drying out, especially in the late summer when water levels are low but the sun still shining.

Surely to allow animals to get out the gates at one (either) end should be left open, so an animal can swim to a point where the bank is low enough to get out. For human safety, a full lock chamber is easier to get out of than an empty one.

 

And far better for the bottom gates to keep the lock full, particularly on a little used canal. Otherwise they dry out, the planks shrink, and they most certainly leak whenever you use them.

[Dharl]

Sorry, but that is a recipe for disaster. Paddles need to be fully up or fully down. Anything in between can be missed by the next boat along.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

Had been thinking about the leaving a paddle "crack open" as suggested, but makes perfect sense to either fully open or fully close for that reason!

[koukouvagia]

I decided to ask Jeff Whyatt for his comments on why lock gates on the SGU should be kept open. I was impressed by his speedy and detailed reply.

To give you a flavour of what’s going on with this & what proposals are in hand I list comments for the majority of Locks I have deliberately left off the Lock numbers as some are subject to litigation / claims & I do not want to divulge too much.

 

We are moving forward though with some solutions & several as you will see are River fed and the cost of water is more palatable

Lock A - leak into cellar of adjoining property when lock chamber is full house. Identified for contract grouting in 2013/14, price has been received awaiting approval through Minor Works High Priority Notification Major Works Funding.

 

Lock B bottom end gate leakage – programme for winter 2013/14 for reline

 

Lock C bottom end gate leakage – recent issue with bottom gates, will endeavour to address in Spring 2014 gate lining works.

 

Lock D leaks through lock chamber into cottage on towing path side - defect identified and included in nation lock grouting programme, following minor works undertaken by the Waterway failed to fully resolve the issue. Based upon current priorities the works are unlikely to be completed before 2017/18. Canal is River fed at this point so water usage is less of an issue.

 

Lock E Leakage through lock wall no significant impact on adjoining land - defect identified on notification and included in national lock grouting programme but not currently identified for funding. Canal is River fed at this point so water usage is less of an issue.

 

Lock F Leakage through lock wall no significant impact on adjoining land - defect identified on notification and included in national lock grouting programme but not currently identified for funding. Canal is River fed at this point so water usage is less of an issue.

 

Lock G leaks through wall into pools on offside of canal – defect identified on notification and included in national lock grouting programme but not currently identified for funding. Canal is River fed at this point so water usage is less of an issue.

 

Lock H bottom gates are in poor condition and are due for replacement in 2013/14 stoppages

 

Lock I bottom gates are in poor condition and are due for replacement in 2013/14 stoppages

 

Lock J Leakage through lock wall into adjoining lock cottage - defect identified on notification and included in national lock grouting programme but not currently identified for funding. Canal is River fed at this point so water usage is less of an issue.

 

Lock K leaks through wall into house – defect identified on notification and included in national lock grouting programme but not currently identified for funding. Canal is River fed at this point so water usage is less of an issue.

 

[mark99]

Thanks Jim - puts you off buying a lock cottage!

[alan_fincher]

Useful info Jim, but something here does not quite align, I think.

 

If that list is right, I make that 5 locks to receive attention in the 2013/2014 stoppage program.....

 

Grouting -1 lock

Gate Reline - 2 locks

Gate Replacements - 2 locks

I would therefore expect these to all be matched by listed stoppages in the 2013/2014 program.

 

Obviously as you have not divulged which locks, it isn't easy for me to marry the two together, but you presumably easily could check if there are listed stoppages for each of these 5 locks?

Now as an example, I can only see two sets of bottom gate replacements anywhere in the area, and only one of those is at a lock I would currently have thought is on the "leave empty" list, (Nash bottom - Lock 69).

So assuming that Nash 69 is one of "Lock H" or "Lock I", I'm struggling to guess which the other one might be, because I can't see any other gate replacement it could be at a lock that is in my experience "leave empty".

 

Perhaps you could PM me that info for private consumption, as it doesn't look like either is a lock where litigation is likely to be involved?

 

I think it may also be worth suggesting that if they have locks identified as needing to be kept as "leave empty" for which there is currently no plan to do the remedial works, then more permanent, and clear, signs should be put on those locks, and the ones telling you to close all gates and paddles removed from them. At the moment the more permanent signs are those giving a wrong instructions, and the ones they want you to follow regularly go missing because they are just paper or card that has been laminated, and are only attached with tacks or staples, so don't tend to stay there.

[GUMPY]

So with all this water leaking out through the lock walls and taking the backfilling with it is anyone prepared to open a book as to which lock will collapse first?

[furnessvale]

 

I decided to ask Jeff Whyatt for his comments on why lock gates on the SGU should be kept open. I was impressed by his speedy and detailed reply.

 

Without looking at any of the others, I can see no reason to empty B,C,H and I for the reasons stated.

 

Leaking bottom gates are all over the system and these will empty themselves in any case.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[mark99]

Without looking at any of the others, I can see no reason to empty B,C,H and I for the reasons stated.

 

Leaking bottom gates are all over the system and these will empty themselves in any case.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

 

If you empty B,C,H then by definition you're using the top gate to hold back the head of water which may leak less.

[alan_fincher]

Without looking at any of the others, I can see no reason to empty B,C,H and I for the reasons stated.

 

Leaking bottom gates are all over the system and these will empty themselves in any case.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

I'm guessing, but it is only a guess, that the issue could be that even though there is heavy leakage at some of these through bottom gates, that the top gates do not always end up getting properly shut.

 

This may be because people make no, or insufficient, effort to do so, or because even if they do, they tend to re-open as you motor away, even though the lock is leaking badly.

 

Forcing drawing off of the lock ensures the top gates can't be open, so I can kind of see why they suggest it at the very worst locks.

 

I would like to think that the list of locks B,C,H and I includes

 

Seabrook middle (35)

Lower Marsworth bottom (37)

Gas top (51)

 

all of which seem to be on this winter's list for gate relining, I think, (but not replacement).

 

I wonder how that aligns to Jim's list before he made the locks anonymous?

[GUMPY]

GU top gates swing open, I have lost count of the times I have looked back to see them opening after I have closed them. Only way to guarantee them staying shut is to drop water out of the lock.

[koukouvagia]

 

I wonder how that aligns to Jim's list before he made the locks anonymous?

Just to make it clear, it was Jeff, not me that made the list anonymous. Mind you when I wrote to him I made it clear that I was talking about locks south of Cowroast.

[mark99]

Snipped

 

I wonder how that aligns to Jim's list before he made the locks anonymous?

 

The Grand Union Sudoku?

[GUMPY]

Unless he has been clever and jumbled them, start at Cowroast (unless they have fixed that) as lock A and work south from there

[alan_fincher]

Just to make it clear, it was Jeff, not me that made the list anonymous. Mind you when I wrote to him I made it clear that I was talking about locks south of Cowroast.

 

Sorry Jim - my fault.

 

I should have spotted that the words about hiding lock identities were in Italics, and hence not yours.

 

If Jeff Whyatt's answer is restricted to locks South of Cowroast then no way in the world are there enough stoppages on the list to possibly cover the degree of remedial work he lists.

 

I was being generous, and hoped the list above includes Seabrooke and Lower Marsworth, for example.

 

If it doesn't I think I can only see about two stoppages listed at locks I recall as being "leave empty" South of Cowroast.

 

I couldn't say exactly which from Rising Sun, (which someone suggests has just been added) and down through Bourne End and Winkwell is currently marked as "leave empty", but it is quite a few, I'm confident, and there is not a stoppage listed at any of those half a dozen or so locks. In fact I don't recall seeing any lock stoppages planned between "Gas" and Lower Nash.

 

That said, we have not been South since the "Ricky" festival in May, but I doubt much has changed that dramatically since, other than it sounds like the addition of the "Riser" to the list. (As there is no stoppage listed for that lock, I wonder how and when they plan to sort out the issues there that I believe it still has with at least the top gates).

Edited November 15, 2013 by alan_fincher