Nobody hurt thankfully

[Mike Tee]

Where the front (or rear) fender is attached by chain, then one link should be sawn through (on one side if you get my meaning) to create a weak spot which, if caught on the gate, will give way.

[alan_fincher]

It seems fairly reasonable to me to assume that if the crew had made it all the way from Leighton Buzzard to Kegworth (maybe over 100 miles, 75 locks or so, and probably a week at least of boating), that they were already fairly aware of the potential hazards of the cills. Also inexperienced crews don't tend to do multiple week hirings, and venture anything like this far from home.

 

As has been said, Wyvern also tends to be rather better at instruction than many.

 

This looks to me far more like a lack of concentration at this particular lock, than the fact the crew was clueless or ill trained.

 

I was not aware that, as Matty suggests, the cill in this lock projects further than normal, but if it does, maybe that partially at least explains what may have happened?

[GoodGurl]

The cill i would say projects about 4ft from the gate and when the lock is empty the cill stands around 8ft tall.

[ditchcrawler]

 

Another thing, many of the boaters I see doing locks are often playing about about glued to mobile phones and stuff whilst locks are filling or emptying and are oblivious of what's happening around them.

so true

[Tony Dunkley]

Where the front (or rear) fender is attached by chain, then one link should be sawn through (on one side if you get my meaning) to create a weak spot which, if caught on the gate, will give way.

Why mess about like that? Just don't have them chained down, as was invariably the case in working boat days.

It seems fairly reasonable to me to assume that if the crew had made it all the way from Leighton Buzzard to Kegworth (maybe over 100 miles, 75 locks or so, and probably a week at least of boating), that they were already fairly aware of the potential hazards of the cills. Also inexperienced crews don't tend to do multiple week hirings, and venture anything like this far from home.

 

As has been said, Wyvern also tends to be rather better at instruction than many.

 

This looks to me far more like a lack of concentration at this particular lock, than the fact the crew was clueless or ill trained.

 

I was not aware that, as Matty suggests, the cill in this lock projects further than normal, but if it does, maybe that partially at least explains what may have happened?

 

Completely irrelevant if the boat's far enough down the lock to the bottom gates

[Mike Tee]

Why mess about like that? Just don't have them chained down, as was invariably the case in working boat days.

They need to be attached to the boat somehow - floating in midair won't work. The norm is two chains with the weight of the fender holding it in place. If caught under a gate when the lock is filling, a weak chain will just let go and the fender will dangle from the other chain, to be sorted later. I've seen boats drift back in a filling lock so the rear fender gets caught under the gate - again a weak chain would remove any danger of the stern being held underwater.

If you don't want to use chain, then light rope will have the same effect, but you may find both sides snapping and the fender dropping in the lock.

[bostin01]

I went through this lock on Tuesday. The cill can be seen in this video, I took at the time. (excuse the dirty windows).

 

 

 

The bottom gate can be a bugger to get moving from the fully open position, on occasion.

 

Bostin.

Edited September 28, 2014 by bostin01

[Tony Dunkley]

They need to be attached to the boat somehow - floating in midair won't work. The norm is two chains with the weight of the fender holding it in place. If caught under a gate when the lock is filling, a weak chain will just let go and the fender will dangle from the other chain, to be sorted later. I've seen boats drift back in a filling lock so the rear fender gets caught under the gate - again a weak chain would remove any danger of the stern being held underwater.

If you don't want to use chain, then light rope will have the same effect, but you may find both sides snapping and the fender dropping in the lock.

I have noticed that fenders won't float in midair . . . but what I'm saying is don't have chains underneath holding them down, then they can ride up harmlessly if caught on a bottom gate. Not having chains on the underside of stem fenders is something that worked well for the best part of two centuries.

Edited September 28, 2014 by tony dunkley

[Richard T]

Interestingly CRT were going round repainting cill markers on the Soar locks yesterday. We saw them doing Cossington, Sileby, Mountsorrel and Junction were also freshly painted.

[alan_fincher]

 

Completely irrelevant if the boat's far enough down the lock to the bottom gates

Absolutely, but just possibly it was in a position that in another lock it might have got away with it, but not in this one?

 

I don't actually know, as I don't know if it is correct that this lock has a bigger cill.

 

I'm not suggesting being that close is ever good practice, (obviously!), but maybe it's an explanation.

[Tony Dunkley]

Absolutely, but just possibly it was in a position that in another lock it might have got away with it, but not in this one?

 

I don't actually know, as I don't know if it is correct that this lock has a bigger cill.

 

I'm not suggesting being that close is ever good practice, (obviously!), but maybe it's an explanation.

 

Yes, it must be the explanation here, but what I am saying is if people could be educated into dropping this practice of keeping away from bottom gates when going downhill, then they're not going to hang up on the cill (not applicable to two shortish boats one behind the other of course).

 

It occurs to me that maybe C&RT putting those stupid wood blocks between the top of the gate and the beam may also possibly be encouraging some people (particularly those with chained down fenders) to think that getting close up against the gates is not the right thing to do.

Edited September 29, 2014 by tony dunkley

[nb Innisfree]

I think a lack of understanding of the principles of a lock makes people unaware of the extreme danger. How many experienced boaters appreciate the greater danger if exiting top gates when the pound is low? At least with the more usual situation of cilling when going down there is enough water to rectify it, not much chance if getting cilled going uphill into a low pound.

[Guest]

I think a lack of understanding of the principles of a lock makes people unaware of the extreme danger. How many experienced boaters appreciate the greater danger if exiting top gates when the pound is low? At least with the more usual situation of cilling when going down there is enough water to rectify it, not much chance if getting cilled going uphill into a low pound.

Very good point, can be nasty.

[Tony Dunkley]

I think a lack of understanding of the principles of a lock makes people unaware of the extreme danger. How many experienced boaters appreciate the greater danger if exiting top gates when the pound is low? At least with the more usual situation of cilling when going down there is enough water to rectify it, not much chance if getting cilled going uphill into a low pound.

I don't understand any of that. There is no "danger" going uphill with a pound too low to get out of a lock, just the inconvenience of not being able to continue without running water down from the next pound above which ,if you're in luck will be a longish one, if not, and it's a short one, you'll probably be doing the same again at the next lock . . . and so on and so on to the next long pound.

Edited September 29, 2014 by tony dunkley

[Bodkin]

This just got a mention on Radio 2, thanks to the Daily Mail article. Although Sara Cox did refer to the boat as a barge!

[phill]

I don't understand any of that. There is no "danger" going uphill with a pound too low to get out of a lock, just the inconvenience of not being able to continue without running water down from the next pound above which ,if you're in luck will be a longish one, if not, and it's a short one, you'll probably be doing the same again at the next lock . . . and so on and so on to the next long pound.

It's the cause of a few sinkings on the Huddersfield narrow canal.

[mark99]

I don't understand any of that. There is no "danger" going uphill with a pound too low to get out of a lock, just the inconvenience of not being able to continue without running water down from the next pound above which ,if you're in luck will be a longish one, if not, and it's a short one, you'll probably be doing the same again at the next lock . . . and so on and so on to the next long pound.

Boat exits and gets Its baseplate stuck on upper cill as pound is so low. Short pound empties via lower leaking gates and boat tips backwards via the fulcrum of the gate cill and sinks. Not common but has happened.

[mayalld]

I don't understand any of that. There is no "danger" going uphill with a pound too low to get out of a lock, just the inconvenience of not being able to continue without running water down from the next pound above which ,if you're in luck will be a longish one, if not, and it's a short one, you'll probably be doing the same again at the next lock . . . and so on and so on to the next long pound.

 

This exact situation has caused more than one sinking in recent years.

 

If a boat is passing over an upper cill, and grounds, then all that it takes is a leaky bottom gate to ensure that the boat isn't going to get off the cill. Unless the crew is hyper-alert and gets some water down the lock above, this rapidly deteriorates.

[Tim Lewis]

A photo of the incident appeared in the Metro this morning which has meant having to explain to everybody at work how it hapened :-(

 

Tim

[Bee]

I have years of experience and know it all (?) except ........ A while ago I took my boat into a lock backwards, can't remember why, put the fore end nice and close to the gates as I always do 'cos I know it all, let the water out and wondered why the fore end wasn't going down. Prat. sometimes the thinking thing doesn't quite kick in.

[nb Innisfree]

Me and the missus always start to worry a little when things have been going well for a while, that little seed of doubt making us wonder if we're missing something vital.

 

ETA: I think the popular image of canal boating being a slow safe pastime where things happen slowly has a lot to answer for.

Edited September 29, 2014 by nb Innisfree

[Tony Dunkley]

It's the cause of a few sinkings on the Huddersfield narrow canal.

 

You'd have to have one hell of a leak on the bottom gates, coupled with standing about like a spare part and doing nothing about being stuck on the sill halfway out of the lock for that to happen. The struggle there would have been to get the top gate open should also have alerted those working the lock to the bottom end leakage, before even attempting to get the boat out into the pound. No real comparison at all with the speed at which things can get out of hand if you get hung up on the cill going downhill.

Edited September 29, 2014 by tony dunkley

[Tony Dunkley]

 

This exact situation has caused more than one sinking in recent years.

 

If a boat is passing over an upper cill, and grounds, then all that it takes is a leaky bottom gate to ensure that the boat isn't going to get off the cill. Unless the crew is hyper-alert and gets some water down the lock above, this rapidly deteriorates.

 

I don't think "hyper-alert" would be really necessary . . . . not totally gormless and stupid would seem likely to be adequate.

[Sabcat]

 

You'd have to have one hell of a leak on the bottom gates, coupled with standing about like a spare part and doing nothing about being stuck on the sill halfway out of the lock for that to happen. The struggle there would have been to get the top gate open should also have alerted those working the lock to the bottom end leakage, before even attempting to get the boat out into the pound. No real comparison at all with the speed at which things can get out of hand if you get hung up on the cill going downhill.

 

I've been in exactly this situation at Rushall - going uphill into a low pound and getting stuck coming out of the lock - noting bad happened, it was a pain in the arse that involved a lot of walking and letting a lot of water down right enough. With the benefit of hindsight though, it could have been quite bad as I (on my own) buggered off to the top of the flight to get water and left the boat where it was. That said, the way my boat's ballasted (front up) if all of the water had leaked from the lock I think the boat would've tipped forwards out of the lock rather than backwards into into.

[nb Innisfree]

 

You'd have to have one hell of a leak on the bottom gates, coupled with standing about like a spare part and doing nothing about being stuck on the sill halfway out of the lock for that to happen. The struggle there would have been to get the top gate open should also have alerted those working the lock to the bottom end leakage, before even attempting to get the boat out into the pound. No real comparison at all with the speed at which things can get out of hand if you get hung up on the cill going downhill.

It all depends, the pound can be low due to badly leaking bottom gate, water level is dropping all the time so once the bottom plate is on the cill it becomes increasingly difficult to get it off. The only solution then is to let water down from the next pound which would have to be close by to be effective in time.

 

Dismiss the danger at your peril.