New paddle spindles at Buckby

[davidg]

I've just brought a boat up the Grand Union from Watford. At Buckby there was a stoppage before Christmas involving new gates and it appears new ground paddle spindles. My windlass which fits happily on every other spindle I tried it on is at best a very sketchy fit on the new spindles fitted to the ground paddles at locks 10/11/12. The spindles on the ground paddles are too large.

 

Before I fire off an email has anyone else been through since the work and found this?

[bastion]

I came through today and noticed the same problem. Also there has been fitted a upstand to the ratchet on some of the bottom gate paddles which makes it very easy to knock the ratchet off when crossing the gates and accidentally dropping the paddles at speed and it appears that there are massive leaks on the gates. Seems to be a very bad outcome from the maintenance stoppage.

I will be sending an email to CRT

.

[jenlyn]

Vince Moran has gone. There is no one at the trust with the experience he had. I suspect maintenance is going to be shoddy for the next couple of years.

[alan_fincher]

[tongue_in_cheek_mode]

Perhaps it is the start of a slow migration back to old GU spindle sizes, before they reduced them all.

[/tongue_in_cheek_mode]

 

Back to serious mode....

 

This does almost seem to be in the "you couldn't make it up category......

 

This is supposed to be a completely standard size, so how on earth do you end up with ones that are not?

Presumably they will have tried them - sounds like they needed to use a grinder on them before they packed everything up and left.

[ditchcrawler]

Vince Moran has gone. There is no one at the trust with the experience he had. I suspect maintenance is going to be shoddy for the next couple of years.

I don't think he use to check all the spindles before they were fitted.

[patty-ann]

Hopefully soon be sorted as Im going that way April.

[tillergirl]

[tongue_in_cheek_mode]

Perhaps it is the start of a slow migration back to old GU spindle sizes, before they reduced them all.

[/tongue_in_cheek_mode]

 

Back to serious mode....

 

This does almost seem to be in the "you couldn't make it up category......

 

This is supposed to be a completely standard size, so how on earth do you end up with ones that are not?

Presumably they will have tried them - sounds like they needed to use a grinder on them before they packed everything up and left.

Ooo we've got an Old GU windlass with a bigger hole. Shall have to look it out

[ChimneyChain]

Uxbridge also has one large ground paddle spindle.

 

Darren

[cuthound]

Hopefully soon be sorted as Im going that way April.

That's very kind of you to offer to repair them Patty-Ann, but you should give CRT an opportunity to put them right first

[Rose Narrowboats]

David - in answer to your original question, it's not just you. My (T&M) windlass goes about half way on to the square. I suspect that a modern (standard?) windlass will fit far enough up the taper to be safe though which is probably why they have not been altered.

 

Anthony

[davidg]

I've just sent an email to C&RT southeast so we'll see what response I get.

I didn't have a tape or a Vernier caliper with me (nor the time to use one) but a visual comparison between the ground paddle spindle and the adjacent gate paddle spindles shows up a quite noticeable difference. You certainly don't need high tech measuring equipment to see it, the mk.1 eyeball is quite enough.

 

Does anyone know what the spec on the standard paddle spindle is?

[bastion]

David - in answer to your original question, it's not just you. My (T&M) windlass goes about half way on to the square. I suspect that a modern (standard?) windlass will fit far enough up the taper to be safe though which is probably why they have not been altered.

 

Anthony

My modern windlass only went on its own depth no room for misplacing, very worrying.

[bassplayer]

We didn't have a problem 2 weeks ago but we do use a Dunton Double sometimes. Can't remember if we used it on those locks at the time though

[alan_fincher]

Does anyone know what the spec on the standard paddle spindle is?

 

David, according to this diagram

 

'

which Chris Deuchar reproduces on his page here, and says is BW drawing No. RY320 Revision B, dated 16-11-88, they should be 0.75" at the small end and 1.25" at the large end, with the taper extending 5", (metric sizes also shown, but appears to have been designed as imperial).

 

Those smaller and larger sizes are the ones I would have come up with, had I not actively gone looking with Google, and sound about right to me.

 

His article doesn't however mention the Ham Baker paddle gear on the GU line to Brum. Was this always the same size as is quoted as the standard for parallel spindles on hydraulic gear. My memory is hazy on this point, but I feel sure in the 1970s I worked it with the same large eye tapered windlass as was then standard for the rest of the GU, (had a bronze one I was rather proud of!). I suspect though I was using tapered windlasses on a parallel spindle. Anybody remember?

[MtB]

There is a lock (or maybe two) around Wootton River on the K&A with new paddle gear having parallel square spindles far too small to fit a conventional windlass. Even using the smaller tapered hole on the windlass, it is a really loose baggy fit with about 4 or 5mm of space around the spindles.

 

I should have taken photos. They are most awkward to use as they are highly geared and need about 30 turns to open or close the paddle.

[davidg]

Interesting find Alan, they don't quote tolerances on the measurements but if my eyes can see the difference on two spindles three feet apart the tolerance must either be huge or they are not both in spec.

 

Your memory of the Ham Baker paddle gear is correct, they are now the only remaining examples of what was the GU standard paddle spindle size, a large taper. The decision to alter the GU paddles south of Braunston was lamentable.

[alan_fincher]

Interesting find Alan, they don't quote tolerances on the measurements but if my eyes can see the difference on two spindles three feet apart the tolerance must either be huge or they are not both in spec.

I don't think tolerance need to be that precise, because there is a full half inch difference expected over just 5" - that is a hell of a taper, and it needs to be quite a long way out to have serious impact on how well the windlass fits.

 

The legend actually says.....

 

"New windlass should fit midway onto tapered spindle"

 

The mid point between 0.75" and 1.25" is (of course), 1.0", so that says to me the average size of the eye of the correct windlass for such a taper should also be 1".

 

I've just measured one of the very standard "Walsh" alloy windlasses that we have on board here now, and I estimate that in the middle of the smaller tapered eye it is as near as damn it 1".

 

So if you have a Walsh windlass, I suggest if it goes half way on the taper, with about 2" sticking out, and 2" that it will not fit on to, then the spindle is about the intended size, (or at least matches that diagram!)

 

If it will not go on that far, then the spindle is larger than specified in that diagram. If it goes on leaving more than about 2" protruding then it is clearly smaller - from memory I think many T&M spindles are like that still, but I may be wrong - happy to be corrected, if I am.

 

Perhaps someone passing through Buckby could jam a Walsh alloy windlass on as far as it will go, and provide a picture, perhaps with a measure laid alongside the protruding spindle?

 

[EDIT] I have since tried that - details in later post. I have pics, but not currently the easy facility to add them here.

 

(As an aside, the allegedly parallel eye on this Walsh windlass doesn't actually seem to be completely parallel, and seems fractionally larger than the 1.1" mentioned in the diagram - but it is close enough to be unlikely to be an issue).

Edited January 13, 2016 by alan_fincher

[X Alan W]

 

David, according to this diagram

 

'

which Chris Deuchar reproduces on his page here, and says is BW drawing No. RY320 Revision B, dated 16-11-88, they should be 0.75" at the small end and 1.25" at the large end, with the taper extending 5", (metric sizes also shown, but appears to have been designed as imperial).

 

Those smaller and larger sizes are the ones I would have come up with, had I not actively gone looking with Google, and sound about right to me.

 

His article doesn't however mention the Ham Baker paddle gear on the GU line to Brum. Was this always the same size as is quoted as the standard for parallel spindles on hydraulic gear. My memory is hazy on this point, but I feel sure in the 1970s I worked it with the same large eye tapered windlass as was then standard for the rest of the GU, (had a bronze one I was rather proud of!). I suspect though I was using tapered windlasses on a parallel spindle. Anybody remember?

Yes correct; the large GU taper eye in the windless was what I used on the Ham Baker parallel spjndles in our hotel boating days 68/72, I don't know if any of the original windless makers produced parallel eyed ones but i never owned or remember seeing one.

[nipper]

We didn't notice any differance when we came up Christmas eve.

 

What was noticable was the fact that some gates were new and some had been rehung, so why the hell couldn't CART get the gates that are a bitch to open and the ones that open on their own sorted and hung properly!

 

A belated Happy New Year to all!

 

Nipper

[alan_fincher]

We have just made today's dog walk a visit to the Buckby flight, so I have had a chance to look at recently changed paddle gear.

 

The two ground paddles changed at lock 10 now have tapered spindles that largely comply with the 1.25" dimension at the "fat" end, but are considerably oversized at the "thin" end, measuring more like 0.875", (7/8"), than the specified 0.75", (3/4"). Dave is correct,of course, that you can visually see they are larger than those on the gates - the difference is big enough.

 

As a result the Walsh alloy windlass I took with me only goes on far enough to leave something less than 1" of spindle protruding on the outside, whereas the above diagram suggests ideally the protruding end would be maybe double that.

 

In my case that 1" is probably adequate to ensure it does not slip off, and I think you would need have a windlass that is somewhat smaller before it became an issue.

 

I would be interested what type of windlass Dave was using, because if it would only sit on the very end of the taper, I think it must be significantly smaller than mine.

 

Two other things do concern me about recent works at Buckby.

 

1) New bottom gate paddles have those extended knobs attached to the pawl, which make it impossible to flick them over and out of the way, meaning you must have one hand tied up holding them clear when lowering a paddle, either normally or in an emergency. I may be wrong but thought the latest consultation on lock gear design settled on this being a bad idea. You cannot possibly have more than one hand on the windlass, should you need to.

 

2) The steel plates now bolted to the lock sides of one of the locks are an abortion, and look appalling, with white foam filler oozing out from behind. There would appear to be every possibility that the edge of a base plate of a descending boat could get caught on them, and get hung up. I saw elsewhere that they are only supposed to be "temporary" until further stoppage in a future stoppage season, but even so they look to have the potential to cause grief in the meantime.

All rather unsatisfactory, in my view, both the above would appear to increase risks to boats and boaters now working these locks.

[davidg]

I retrieved my windlass off the boat today & measured it. The thin end of the taper is 13/16" and the fat end a slightly over 1". Like Anthony's I think it is a T&M size and would only go less than half way on the offending spindles; I bought it off the BCN society stall at what I think was their first Windmill End rally in 1984, it has been used on a great many paddles since then.

 

If the paddles at Buckby conformed to the drawing it should go all the way on with a bit of spindle protruding. Talking to Christine at Rose this morning the ones at Buckby aren't the worst, the bottom lock at Braunston has some too but they were about the only paddles my windlass didn't touch between Cassio Bridge & Braunston.

 

And Alan is correct about the plates and the bolts welded to the pawls on the gate paddles.

Edited January 13, 2016 by davidg

[David Mack]

2) The steel plates now bolted to the lock sides of one of the locks are an abortion, and look appalling, with white foam filler oozing out from behind. There would appear to be every possibility that the edge of a base plate of a descending boat could get caught on them, and get hung up. I saw elsewhere that they are only supposed to be "temporary" until further stoppage in a future stoppage season, but even so they look to have the potential to cause grief in the meantime.

What are these plates for? Any pictures?

[alan_fincher]

What are these plates for? Any pictures?

 

Google reveals some pictures and a CRT response in the blog for Narrow Boat Inca

 

 

PaddyR, occasionally of the forum, has reported elsewhere that there doesn't seem to be a great deal retaining them to the offending bad brickwork, and has expressed the opinion they could become detached. It seems possible - CRT is saying the foam is not attaching them, only filling a void.

Edited January 14, 2016 by alan_fincher

[Bod]

Having just viewed the Buckby plates photos, I hope the bolts do go into sound brickwork.

Would it have been better if the plates had gone top to bottom, then the boats would just have slid up and down, with no chance of catching.

 

Bod

Edited January 14, 2016 by Bod

[DHutch]

The two ground paddles changed at lock 10 now have tapered spindles that largely comply with the 1.25" dimension at the "fat" end, but are considerably oversized at the "thin" end, measuring more like 0.875", (7/8"), than the specified 0.75", (3/4"). Dave is correct,of course, that you can visually see they are larger than those on the gates - the difference is big enough.

I am really genuinely surprised at this. Obviously in the past there would have been regional variation, and its not nessrally feasible to cover every single historic windlass, however now there is a national body running it, with an apparently public specification for the taper, there is no excuse for getting it other the really pretty jolly cock on. Which in time means anything should fit anywhere if it fits at all.

The published spec doesn't have a tolerance, but I am sure there is an engineering drawing somewhere that does and even with the broadest tolerances (lets face it, there are not required to be within 0.01mm) what you describe must be out. its also got too much material, so while it could likely be cheaper to make that way, its not hard to re-work it back to spec. Obviously assuming the length is 'correct' if one end is larger and the other not, even when the windlass fits, the taper will not be the same. Messy.

1) New bottom gate paddles have those extended knobs attached to the pawl, which make it impossible to flick them over and out of the way, meaning you must have one hand tied up holding them clear when lowering a paddle, either normally or in an emergency. I may be wrong but thought the latest consultation on lock gear design settled on this being a bad idea. You cannot possibly have more than one hand on the windlass, should you need to.

I was going to say, I thought we had solve this one? With a large national consultation....?

2) The steel plates now bolted to the lock sides of one of the locks are an abortion, and look appalling, with white foam filler oozing out from behind. There would appear to be every possibility that the edge of a base plate of a descending boat could get caught on them, and get hung up. I saw elsewhere that they are only supposed to be "temporary" until further stoppage in a future stoppage season, but even so they look to have the potential to cause grief in the meantime.

Im not against practical/pragmatic temporary options, perhaps with temporary signage warnings if required, and we dont know how long these plates are to be there. But equally it would not hard to run a 6m chamfer round the plate with a nibbler, which presuming it something like 8-12mm thick) with at least 'take the edge off' so so speak. Again I dont know who or where made these plates, but any fab shop doing a lot of welding should have kit to put a 6mm weld prep on a plate edge in seconds.

 

 

Daniel