Jump to content

Narrow Boat World Article About Our Incident at Hillmorton on 25th August

alan_fincher

By alan_fincher
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

NilesMI Community Regular

NilesMI

Posted
Posted

If the paddles are opened gently in small increments, the boat can remain fairly settled. Fairly easy to react to movement of the boat by using the ropes. I do not react very kindly to people throwing the paddles full open.

 

This is what I do as a single hander. Quite easy to control the boat with ropes providing the paddles are operated incrementally. In fact I find it much easier, if slower, to work through a lock from the lockside, using ropes, as opposed to trying to position the boat using the engine.

 

Previous to reading this thread I have thought I was being a curmudgeon to insist I should be on the lockside when my boat was in the lock. Now it's quite clear in my mind that as I am responsible for what happens to my boat while it's in the lock, I need to be on the lockside, and in control of what's happening. I will continue to gratefully accept assistance from a VLK or crew from another boat, providing they want to work with me, as opposed to telling me to "Stay on your boat".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alan_fincher Veteran II

alan_fincher

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

Alan I based my comment on watching the Beresford Brothers ascending the GU locks from the film Inland Waterways 1950. Whilst filling the locks one of the brothers is keeping the butty strapped at about 16 mins 51 secs in, until the lock is about half full. I have just remembered you were descending.

 

I am convinced that working boatmen ascending or descending single locks like those at Hillmorton would have kept a motor stem on the bottom gates when going downhill, and allowed the stem to contact the cill, and then go forward onto the top gates as the lock filled when going uphill. In many cases (though not always) they may have left the boat in ahead gear to facilitate this.

 

However, let us be honest, the old working pictures show modes of operation you would not get away with today! For example steerers would get off their loaded motor as they carried forward in ahead gear into an uphill lock, whilst they then legged it to the top end to draw paddles to arrest its progress. Only then with the paddles up and the boat now at rest on the cill, would the bottom gates be given a nudge to allow them to slam shut!

 

Nobody would condone this now, but what has to be accepted as a minimum is that boats like mine (gauged actuakly as 71 feet 8 inches do not have any excess room in suck locks, and that if the front is not firmly against something, then the back may well be at risk, particularly when descending.

 

As an aside, if you consider the workings of the Grand Union then the locks are significantly longer. My understanding is that the design length of the experimental wide beam progress was something like 75 feet, and that was clearly designed to pass through GU locks the whole way from Brentford to Birmingham. Although you don't seem to have heaps of room in a GU lock with a 71' 6" boat, they are actually far more generous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bassplayer Influencer

bassplayer

Posted
Posted (edited)

Good point. BUT...

 

If he knew it regularly happens, he should have warned the crew of a 71ft 6in boat it was likely to happen.

...and the skipper should warn any crew or lockies of potential risks. Maybe nobody knew there was a risk until the hindsight. As the lockie can't defend himself here I think it's a bit harsh to speculate what he was thinking (or not thinking). Edited by bassplayer
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Higgs Influencer

Higgs

Posted
Posted

 

Just had thought was this Volockie used to boats catching on the nut and dropping off. Hence his remark about it sorting itself out.

 

 

Bad case of assumptions and lack of understanding in the common sense fitting of the bolts. VLK's are not in authority and defer to CRT. They assume because the bolts were allowed to remain so, that CRT would have left them that way in some way to mean that the bolts were acceptable. Not noting them as irregularly fitted. They seem to have failed a check list of minimum acceptable build standards, left passed, good enough for service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alan_fincher Veteran II

alan_fincher

Posted
  • Author
Posted

That's why I'm wondering if it was caught on the fender the first time. Maybe the lockie couldn't see the front but expected the stem to slip off.

 

You cannot safely have a fender deployed. A rope fender is not designed to slip down the rubbing plate of lock gates - the elegantly curved stem of a working boat is intended to be able to rub up and down the rubbing plates without catching on anything.

 

On the first, second and third attempts to empty the lock the fender was pulled up and stowed on the front deck, so as to allow metal to metal contact.

 

If we had failed to lift the fender, we would consider we had made an error.

 

This photo was taken minutes before the incident, as we approach the lock in question, ans shows quite clearly that the fender was stowed out of use, (but ready to be deployed once through the flight!).

 

IMG_0189.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alan_fincher Veteran II

alan_fincher

Posted
  • Author
Posted

...and the skipper should warn any crew or lockies of potential risks. Maybe nobody knew there was a risk until the hindsight. As the lockie can't defend himself here I think it's a bit harsh to speculate what he was thinking (or not thinking).

 

You really can't grasp this can you?

 

The key issue is not that the boat hung, but that the correct action was not allowed to be taken when it did.

 

Speculation about whether the VLK may or may not have seen a boat hang before, (or may have seen one start to, but then slip off), is completely immaterial to the main debate.

 

When our boat was clearly hung, and a clear instruction given to drop the paddles, whatever his thinking at the time may have been, he declined for far too long to do so. That is our main concern, not the fact that the boat managed to get caught on an inappropriate nut head in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul C Veteran II

Paul C

Posted
Posted

...and the skipper should warn any crew or lockies of potential risks. Maybe nobody knew there was a risk until the hindsight. As the lockie can't defend himself here I think it's a bit harsh to speculate what he was thinking (or not thinking).

 

Sorry, this is incredibly simplistic, and unrealistic. Are you seriously suggeting the skipper needs to run through the entire list of risks, with every crew, AND the lockkeeper, at every lock? Or just some locks?

 

And then you vaguely suggested they didn't know about a risk - does that make it better or safer?

 

A better approach would be to make those who can positively influence safety, to be more generally aware of all the risks, without getting down to per-lock specifics such as a wrongly-installed bolt, etc. The reason being, its quite possible for a snagging point to develop unbeknown until a boat hangs on it - for example a displaced piece of masonry or loose bolt could move, not be seen (because its underwater, for example) then become a risk.

 

Also.....risks don't necessarily equate to dangerous situations. Its completely possible that the bolt Alan's boat snagged on is a theoretical, tiny risk to the vast majority of boats, but to certain ones is a much larger risk - and I doubt you could come up with a meaningful 2 matrix of risks vs boat details. And its quite possible that even a high risk situation is passed completely safely. Otherwise we'll be forced to close many aqueducts, put railing around locks, etc etc not a good outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bassplayer Influencer

bassplayer

Posted
Posted

Sorry, this is incredibly simplistic, and unrealistic. Are you seriously suggeting the skipper needs to run through the entire list of risks, with every crew, AND the lockkeeper, at every lock? Or just some locks?

 

And then you vaguely suggested they didn't know about a risk - does that make it better or safer?

 

A better approach would be to make those who can positively influence safety, to be more generally aware of all the risks, without getting down to per-lock specifics such as a wrongly-installed bolt, etc. The reason being, its quite possible for a snagging point to develop unbeknown until a boat hangs on it - for example a displaced piece of masonry or loose bolt could move, not be seen (because its underwater, for example) then become a risk.

 

Also.....risks don't necessarily equate to dangerous situations. Its completely possible that the bolt Alan's boat snagged on is a theoretical, tiny risk to the vast majority of boats, but to certain ones is a much larger risk - and I doubt you could come up with a meaningful 2 matrix of risks vs boat details. And its quite possible that even a high risk situation is passed completely safely. Otherwise we'll be forced to close many aqueducts, put railing around locks, etc etc not a good outcome.

You can't fully understand risks until they are communicated. If there is a particular risk at this lock then a warning notice might be useful. Alternatively you can just leave everything to chance.

You really can't grasp this can you?

 

The key issue is not that the boat hung, but that the correct action was not allowed to be taken when it did.

Speculation about whether the VLK may or may not have seen a boat hang before, (or may have seen one start to, but then slip off), is completely immaterial to the main debate.

 

When our boat was clearly hung, and a clear instruction given to drop the paddles, whatever his thinking at the time may have been, he declined for far too long to do so. That is our main concern, not the fact that the boat managed to get caught on an inappropriate nut head in the first place.

I think there is another issue here of a lockie being labeled as incompetent without hearing his side of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Graham.m Rising Star

Graham.m

Posted
Posted

 

 

Bad case of assumptions and lack of understanding in the common sense fitting of the bolts. VLK's are not in authority and defer to CRT. They assume because the bolts were allowed to remain so, that CRT would have left them that way in some way to mean that the bolts were acceptable. Not noting them as irregularly fitted. They seem to have failed a check list of minimum acceptable build standards, left passed, good enough for service.

 

Sorry but don't see how this is a bad assumption

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Higgs Influencer

Higgs

Posted
Posted

You can't fully understand risks until they are communicated. If there is a particular risk at this lock then a warning notice might be useful. Alternatively you can just leave everything to chance.

 

I think there is another issue here of a lockie being labeled as incompetent without hearing his side of the story.

 

 

The lockie may have been as shocked as anybody to realise their training and experience wasn't complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mango Experienced

mango

Posted
Posted

You can't fully understand risks until they are communicated. If there is a particular risk at this lock then a warning notice might be useful. Alternatively you can just leave everything to chance.

 

I think there is another issue here of a lockie being labeled as incompetent without hearing his side of the story.

The same could be said with respect to many things discussed on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul C Veteran II

Paul C

Posted
Posted

You can't fully understand risks until they are communicated. If there is a particular risk at this lock then a warning notice might be useful. Alternatively you can just leave everything to chance.

 

I think there is another issue here of a lockie being labeled as incompetent without hearing his side of the story.

 

Agree on the first bit, seems a sensible thing to do. I'm still keen to hear from Alan himself, what he perceives as a satisfactory outcome in the incident.

 

On the second point, people are free to offer their opinion that the VLK was incompetent, thus I think its fair. The VLK is perfectly free to post and offer his side of the story too - but I doubt he'll be doing that. Others are equally free to offer a counterpoint on his behalf. If anyone can convince me there's a sound reason that the outcome will change with/without discussion, then that changes but I've not heard a reason yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Higgs Influencer

Higgs

Posted
Posted

It's rather strange that given the CRT claim mentioned earlier in the thread that there are now 700 VLKs, that none of them have popped up here with an opinion.

 

 

It's one thing to give an opinion inside an organisation and another to be public with it. In some cases, you're conscience would have to be really rattled, before expressing an opinion in public. I know these people are volunteers, but they could be dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Graham.m Rising Star

Graham.m

Posted
Posted

 

 

They were taking things for granted and hadn't maybe realised something actually was wrong with the fittings. Not questioning, because they were not the authority.

 

Let remember this person is a volunteer trying to help make the system move more smoothly, with a modicum of training. H/she is not an engineer or anyone used to observing boats, angle etc. Not his fault if the training has not been all that it could have been. H/she man a lock say twice a month and over the season has seen several boats get caught on the obstruction and quickly clear themselves. He maybe not even a boater, just someone who like the water. So if other boats have cleared it they all should.

 

As Allan has posted correct action is the key and that should have been in the training, not training how is the Volockie supposed to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alan_fincher Veteran II

alan_fincher

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

I think there is another issue here of a lockie being labeled as incompetent without hearing his side of the story.

 

At no point have I personally labelled the lock keeper as incompetent, and I went to great lengths both when I disclosed the original details, and in the report made to CRT to stress he had been polite throughout, and, once the initial scare was over, worked with us to get the boat safely through the lock.

 

He did however totally refuse to two attempts by Cath to persuade him there was a major problem , and hence did not take the required action. You can either believe that or not - your choice. We genuinely have no idea why he apparently thought all would be OK.

 

We do not know what his version of events is, because we have not been told, (although obviously we would like to be).

Edited by alan_fincher
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MtB Veteran II

MtBDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

 

 

It's one thing to give an opinion inside an organisation and another to be public with it. In some cases, you're conscience would have to be really rattled, before expressing an opinion in public. I know these people are volunteers, but they could be dismissed.

 

 

How could that happen if, like most posters on here, they were to post anonymously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Higgs Influencer

Higgs

Posted
Posted

 

Let remember this person is a volunteer trying to help make the system move more smoothly, with a modicum of training. H/she is not an engineer or anyone used to observing boats, angle etc. Not his fault if the training has not been all that it could have been. H/she man a lock say twice a month and over the season has seen several boats get caught on the obstruction and quickly clear themselves. He maybe not even a boater, just someone who like the water. So if other boats have cleared it they all should.

 

As Allan has posted correct action is the key and that should have been in the training, not training how is the Volockie supposed to know.

 

 

You're not making a very good case for allowing VLK autonomy over control of the locks. Boaters are not going to assume the lockie has precedence over their own decisions in the responsibility for the safety of their crew and vessels, based on ill trained staffing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.