Incident at Foxton Locks

[colinwilks]

A lady fell into a side pond and was sucked through into the lock. Thankfully she survived, but I wonder what hideous modification may now be deemed necessary to prevent a recurrence?

 

Article here: http://m.leicestermercury.co.uk/Foxton-Locks-Elderly-woman-miracle-escape-sucked/story-27558460-detail/story.html#GGC8dq13Ig61buZz.01

[Heffalump]

Blimey, I wouldn't have even thought that possible

[bottle]

Previous thread: http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=78271&hl=

 

but hey ho, measures will be taken, they already have lots of plastic orange netting.

[MtB]

Blimey, I wouldn't have even thought that possible

 

 

Nor would I.

 

It wouldn't seem unreasonable for CRT to put a fence there though, to stop it happening again. It doesn't need to be hideous, as the OP fears.

 

Although I grant that it probably will be!

[Martin Megson]

Hopefully common sense will prevail and they will simply put bars across the inlet rather than spoil a beautiful flight with unnecessary fences.

[Guest]

Hopefully common sense will prevail and they will simply put bars across the inlet rather than spoil a beautiful flight with unnecessary fences.

I doubt that will be seen to be the answer as the result of doing that would likely be a drowning because the flow would pin them to the bars underwater.

 

On balance better to be flushed into the lock I would imagine (assuming of course as in this case there is room to resurface in the lock)

 

Blimey, I wouldn't have even thought that possible

There are stories of children being flushed into locks like this from 'working boat days' for sure. If the lady concerned is quite small in stature I would imagine it would be perfectly possible.

 

(It's happened with dogs too.)

 

I however would be unlikely to fit through!

Edited August 7, 2015 by MJG

[magpie patrick]

Except on spectacular heritage structures such as Marple Aqueduct I would generally welcome sensible safety features that are well designed. it wouldn't be difficult to prevent falling in near the culvert inlets, which are probably not obvious to the uninitiated (one of the factors to be considered is whether the risk is apparent to any reasonably individual - this is specified in one of the acts from the 1950's identifying land owner responsibilities but I can't remember which one).

 

It ought not be beyond the wit of someone to design an sensitive and effective guard rail that could be replicated 8 times (11 if you include Watford) for these sideponds and would complement the regular pattern of the staircases.

[churchward]

I doubt that will be seen to be the answer as the result of doing that would likely be a drowning because the flow would pin them to the bars underwater.

 

On balance better to be flushed into the lock I would imagine (assuming of course as in this case there is room to resurface in the lock)

 

 

If it was to be just straight bars flush with the opening I would agree but you can fit a circular or square grid which if you are against it won't hold you because the water can still flow around you through the hole rather than ones body blocking the hole.

[WhiteSuit]

I believed the reason they required dogs to be on leads at both Foxton and Watford was so they could not go into the side ponds and be sucked into the locks. This was from a proper lockie pre volunteer days. Maybe all gongoozlers should be on leads!!!!!

[Guest]

If it was to be just straight bars flush with the opening I would agree but you can fit a circular or square grid which if you are against it won't hold you because the water can still flow around you through the hole rather than ones body blocking the hole.

I am struggling to grasp what you are saying to be honest but I don't know enough about the structures at Foxton to agree or disagree.

 

(We have passed through and visited as 'gongoozlers' and fortunately managed not to fall in and get close enough to inspect the sluices from that angle!)

 

I suppose if you were pinned to a guard a lot would also depend on someone realising what was happening and quickly release you from the flow by dropping the paddles.

[zenataomm]

I think if you fit bars that slope from the bottom upwards towards the surface then not only do items not get pinned against the grid but are pushed towards the surface.

 

I am against despoiling historical sites with barriers and railings when none existed before, however I am also against old ladies going through sluices.

[churchward]

I am struggling to grasp what you are saying to be honest but I don't know enough about the structures at Foxton to agree or disagree.

 

(We have passed through and visited as 'gongoozlers' and fortunately managed not to fall in and get close enough to inspect the sluices from that angle!)

 

I suppose if you were pinned to a guard a lot would also depend on someone realising what was happening and quickly release you from the flow by dropping the paddles.

What I mean is rather than a flat 2 dimensional structure you have a grid that is 3 dimensional that either is constructed in a round shape coming out from the opening or a square so that water flows through it top, front and sides.

[Tuscan]

I believed the reason they required dogs to be on leads at both Foxton and Watford was so they could not go into the side ponds and be sucked into the locks. This was from a proper lockie pre volunteer days. Maybe all gongoozlers should be on leads!!!!!

That was definitely the case on the Watford flight where I believe a dog fell in the lock and was found in the side pound a few years ago

[cuthound]

It was at Foxton in 1973 where I saw a dog get sucked through a culvert when it fell into the lock. Fortunately it survived without apparent damage.

 

My own dog fell into Atherstone top lock in the mid 90's, and, as the lock was empty, climbed onto the cill. I climbed down to get her, but couldn't liftvher clear ofvtheclock. Boy was the gate and fill slippery. I went and got help from another boater we were cruising with, and climbed back into the lock, lifted her and he collected her from me. She then promptly thanked him by giving him a nip. After that she was always more careful around locks.

[haggis]

If a grill is put on the culvert in the side ponds, grills will also be needed on the lock end of the sluice otherwise if someone falls into an emptying lock they could get sucked through and get caught on the inside of the grill at the side pond. Presumably the strong pull f water will be close to the culvert in the side pond and it may be sufficient to put guard rails round that area but not round the whole side pond.

 

haggis

[john6767]

I would have said that is is perfectly easy to design a grating to put over the entrance to the cluvert as you see many times. There is quite a big new one recently been installed near our house where a stream goes under the Stratford canal, and this is of a similar shape to this.

 

 

from here

[Guest]

What I mean is rather than a flat 2 dimensional structure you have a grid that is 3 dimensional that either is constructed in a round shape coming out from the opening or a square so that water flows through it top, front and sides.

That's clearer. Thanks.

 

I suppose it would depend on the strength of the flow as to whether you could release your self, but with that arrangement there would less suction effect I can see that.

[bizzard]

A ladder fixed up against the culvert hole would enable a person to climb up and out if they were sucked up against it. It would also enable rescuers to climb down to carry out a rescue if the casualty was unable to.

[Hawkmoth]

I think this is what is being suggested.

Bob

 

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/J8ODL5_kAUKIff5aJihynVNgvuBpAh1keYOr6PRCvCT6=w1034-h775-no

[MtB]

That was definitely the case on the Watford flight where I believe a dog fell in the lock and was found in the side pound a few years ago

 

 

Point of order m'Lud.

 

Is it a side pound or a side pond? Or are both correct?

[Guest]

If a grill is put on the culvert in the side ponds, grills will also be needed on the lock end of the sluice otherwise if someone falls into an emptying lock they could get sucked through and get caught on the inside of the grill at the side pond. Presumably the strong pull f water will be close to the culvert in the side pond and it may be sufficient to put guard rails round that area but not round the whole side pond.

 

haggis

Good point, ISTR seeing bars on culvert entry/exit points in some locks which have been completely emptied but clearly Foxton doesn't have them or this lady would have met a very unpleasant end.

[MoominPapa]

If a grill is put on the culvert in the side ponds, grills will also be needed on the lock end of the sluice otherwise if someone falls into an emptying lock they could get sucked through and get caught on the inside of the grill at the side pond. Presumably the strong pull f water will be close to the culvert in the side pond and it may be sufficient to put guard rails round that area but not round the whole side pond.

 

haggis

There are two culverts for each side-pond. One taking water from the higher lock to the pond, and one taking water from the pond to the lower lock, so this could be solved by only putting a grille over the sidepond-to-lock culvert. Of course if you think falling into a lock is at least as likely as falling into a side pond, then you'd need a grille at the lock end of the lock-to-sidepond culvert.

 

Actually, since it's been demonstrated that going through the culverts is survivable, and being drowned whilst pined against a grille is very possible, I don't think that the grille idea is a go-er. Unless CRT get some balls to stand up to the HSE, it'll be fences.

 

MP.

[Theo]

 

 

Point of order m'Lud.

 

Is it a side pound or a side pond? Or are both correct?

In the case of Foxton and Watford they are side pounds because they are not there to save water but to act as the intervening pound between locks on a flight.

[TheBiscuits]

What a good thing the lady in question was NOT wearing a self-inflating life jacket.

 

This 'elf 'n' safety thing is difficult sometimes isn't it.

[David Mack]

It wouldn't seem unreasonable for CRT to put a fence there though, to stop it happening again. It doesn't need to be hideous, as the OP fears.

 

Although I grant that it probably will be!

 

 

Hopefully common sense will prevail and they will simply put bars across the inlet rather than spoil a beautiful flight with unnecessary fences.

 

 

Except on spectacular heritage structures such as Marple Aqueduct I would generally welcome sensible safety features that are well designed. it wouldn't be difficult to prevent falling in near the culvert inlets, which are probably not obvious to the uninitiated (one of the factors to be considered is whether the risk is apparent to any reasonably individual - this is specified in one of the acts from the 1950's identifying land owner responsibilities but I can't remember which one).

 

It ought not be beyond the wit of someone to design an sensitive and effective guard rail that could be replicated 8 times (11 if you include Watford) for these sideponds and would complement the regular pattern of the staircases.

 

Quite.

 

This picture from the Leicester Mercury article shows just how close the path on the offside is to the side ponds/pounds.

 

 

The hazard of the side ponds is not as apparent as the hazard of the lock chambers, and it would seem reasonable to me to me to be reasonable to put fences around the areas where the culverts end.

 

This Google Streetview image shows just how close you are to bubbling water, and how easy it might be to step back unintentionally.