Nobody hurt thankfully

[phill]

 

 

A typo I hope.

 

yes, I think that is a boater's worst nightmare, no amount of vigilance or action will prevent something like that once it happens. If CRT aren't going to fix the gates then what they have done, with depth markers is the best solution.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

My boat will always be clear of the cill because the bow will be on the bottom gate and it's easy to check this before opening the paddles.

 

.

 

 

.

Earlier on you said this about cill notices -- " I think they are in the right place, on the top balance beams."

[Tony Dunkley]

 

 

 

 

And if you are saying a boater will check the leakage in the bottom gate before proceeding out of the lock uphill, you are, in my experience, wrong. I have never seen a professional boatman go to the other side of the bottom gate and look down before leaving the lock and don't believe this happens.

 

Have you been pleasure boating for long enough to have ever seen any of what I mean by "professional boatmen" ? . . . . the ones that finished working narrowboats and vanished from the Cut a long time ago.

Just to correct your assumption about going to "the other side of the bottom gate" . . . nobody did that, it wasn't necessary, you just glanced over the gate to see if there was any noticeable turbulence in the lock tail, such as would be caused by a fouled or damaged cill, or a paddle not right down. Of course you would already have a good idea of whether or not there was any serious leakage, by the amount of time the lock was taking to fill and level off.

Edited October 2, 2014 by tony dunkley

[Tony Dunkley]

 

On the contrary. I find that it is top gates that usually swing open. leakage at the other would cause them to slam shut.

 

So if there isn't any leakage at the other end of the lock, what is the purpose of closing gates behind you?

[John V]

 

So if there isn't any leakage at the other end of the lock, what is the purpose of closing gates behind you?

 

because you don't normally go and check, so if you don't try and close them you won't know if there is leakage?

 

incidentally started my canal boating (proper) on the Lee and Stort where you do leave the gates open

Edited October 2, 2014 by John V

[Felshampo]

As a novice I have learnt a lot about locking from this thread. Well done you lot.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

.

Disagree completely. The person best suited to tell when the boat is clear of the cill is the steer'er, or somebody near the top gate. who should signal to the person at the bottom gate that it is clear to wind up the paddles. A person at the bottom holding on to a windlass "ready to go" will not have a clue where the arse-end of the boat is in relation to the cill.

 

I think you'll find that without exception the stern end of every boat will be the overall length of the boat away from the forward edge of the stem . . which should be right up to the bottom gates before drawing up.

 

PS. You may find that a useful bit of information to have at hand when filling in Boat Safety Certificates.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

because you don't normally go and check, so if you don't try and close them you won't know if there is leakage?

 

incidentally started my canal boating (proper) on the Lee and Stort where you do leave the gates open

 

Well, you should check . . . . it's a lot quicker and easier than stopping your boat clear of the lock and then closing the gate(s) you've come out of, just to see if they'll stay shut.

[Barry]

.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Bazza2

[John V]

 

Well, you should check . . . . it's a lot quicker and easier than stopping your boat clear of the lock and then closing the gate(s) you've come out of, just to see if they'll stay shut.

 

Hmm! don't think I agree Tony...by the time you've walked to the other end of the lock to check you might as well have closed the gates on your way ?

[pomkitanner]

In my experience (OK a few years back) the training at Wyvern is pretty good and they do at least take hirers through the first lock or two (more than those bases nowhere near a lock)

On my first experience as a new hirer, we rented from Ashby Boats at Stoke Golding . Miles from any lock. We were terrified of making a hash of things approaching the first one. So you can imagine the relief when we arrived at Hawksbury junction.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Hmm! don't think I agree Tony...by the time you've walked to the other end of the lock to check you might as well have closed the gates on your way ?

Check for leakage through the gates behind you while still in the lock, just before it levels off, whether going up or down. If there is no significant leakage then closing the gate(s) behind you at the other end is completely pointless. Leaving gates open gives the next boat along a 50/50 chance of finding the lock ready for them. Closing gates for no good reason only ensures that nobody ever has a lock ready.

Edited October 2, 2014 by tony dunkley

[John V]

Check for leakage through the gates behind you while still in the lock, just before it levels off, whether going up or down. If there is no significant leakage then closing the gate(s) behind you at the other end is completely pointless. Leaving gates open gives the next boat along a 50/50 chance of finding the lock ready for them. Closing gates for no good reason only ensures that nobody ever has a lock ready.

 

ok ok you win!

[ditchcrawler]

 

 

 

Checking that the boat is clear of the cill when going downhill is the last thing to do before drawing the bottom paddles, and the person best placed to do that is whoever happens to be at the bottom gates to draw up.

Now that I do agree with

Closing gates for no good reason only ensures that nobody ever has a lock ready.

That is also very true

[Tony Dunkley]

I may be mistaken (but I don't think so) but I believe that in the lower of these two photos used to illustrate 'cillings', the boaters themselves were totally blameless. It looks like the cilling that took place on the Leeds Liverpool Canal at Johnsons Hillock bottom lock (64) and the cause of the cilling was the fact that as the boater tried to exit the lock the paddle on the bottom gate blew out causing the lock to drain. If anyone knows of a defence to this sort of occurrence I'd certainly like to hear it!

Something that would help . . . convince Parry to spend the £2.7 million p.a. 'Enforcement' budget on maintenance and repairs instead.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Something that would help . . . convince Parry to spend the £2.7 million p.a. 'Enforcement' budget on maintenance and repairs instead.

I think that you'll find find that if the Trust had no Enforcement Policy or Budget the £29.3 million pound DEFRA grant funding would probably evaporate (bit of austerity going on around here I believe so the government would love to have grounds to cut funding to finance tax cuts for their mates). Save £2.7 million and potentially lose £29.3 million, doesn't sound like a good deal to me!

[Tony Dunkley]

I think that you'll find find that if the Trust had no Enforcement Policy or Budget the £29.3 million pound DEFRA grant funding would probably evaporate (bit of austerity going on around here I believe so the government would love to have grounds to cut funding to finance tax cuts for their mates). Save £2.7 million and potentially lose £29.3 million, doesn't sound like a good deal to me!

 

Is that a factual statement or a plausible sounding supposition?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

Is that a factual statement or a plausible sounding supposition?

Take it as a supposition if you like but I would suggest that the approach of Whitehall would be that if CRT as an organisation, can't be arsed to collect monies owed to them (thereby having an Enforcement Policy) they would feel no real inclination to continue to pay the DEFRA grant (why should they?). In fact, without an enforcement policy (or budget) why should I bother to pay my licence fee either?

[Tony Dunkley]

Take it as a supposition if you like but I would suggest that the approach of Whitehall would be that if CRT as an organisation, can't be arsed to collect monies owed to them (thereby having an Enforcement Policy) they would feel no real inclination to continue to pay the DEFRA grant (why should they?). In fact, without an enforcement policy (or budget) why should I bother to pay my licence fee either?

The trouble with all that is they don't "collect monies owing to them" . . . they waste money taking people to Court and seizing their boats, more often than not with no hope of recovering the cost. Appropriate, and legally correct remedies to punish and collect money from Licence dodgers exist, but C&RT and the Enforcement Gang choose to apply their favoured draconian, and expensive, measures instead. As a measure of their current level of success against Licence evasion, there is, on C&RT's own figures, one unlicenced boat for approximately every one and a half miles of waterway under their control.

[mayalld]

Something that would help . . . convince Parry to spend the £2.7 million p.a. 'Enforcement' budget on maintenance and repairs instead.

 

Like a broken record.

[Naughty Cal]

 

Like a broken record.

Makes you wonder why Tony is so desperate for CRT to spend their enforcement budget elsewhere

[bizzard]

The low water levels on the Uddersfield canal might be due to all the local cows drinking from it.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

The trouble with all that is they don't "collect monies owing to them" . . . they waste money taking people to Court and seizing their boats, more often than not with no hope of recovering the cost. Appropriate, and legally correct remedies to punish and collect money from Licence dodgers exist, but C&RT and the Enforcement Gang choose to apply their favoured draconian, and expensive, measures instead. As a measure of their current level of success against Licence evasion, there is, on C&RT's own figures, one unlicenced boat for approximately every one and a half miles of waterway under their control.

So if I understand what you are saying, they should pursue, "..Appropriate, and legally correct remedies to punish and collect money from Licence dodgers..." but without any budget to do so. If that is a correct interpretation of your position, how is that going to work? With no budget there will be no enforcement and with no enforcement why should anyone pay for a licence?

[Tony Dunkley]

So if I understand what you are saying, they should pursue, "..Appropriate, and legally correct remedies to punish and collect money from Licence dodgers..." but without any budget to do so. If that is a correct interpretation of your position, how is that going to work? With no budget there will be no enforcement and with no enforcement why should anyone pay for a licence?

Lockeepers and lengsthsmen, if reintroduced as one of the measures needed to turn round the present decline in repairs and maintenance, could combine boat Licence checking with their other duties, passing on details of unlicenced boats to a small administrative staff for appropriate legal action. Unlicenced boats are not hard to spot. On C&RT's own admission there is at present one unlicenced boat for approximately every one and a half miles of waterway under their control.

[Graham Davis]

And who is going to pay for all these lock keepers and additional lengthsmen?

 

Let me guess, the licence payers with increased licence fees.

 

Well done Tony making everyone pay extra.