Leaving gates open

[Tam & Di]

I often get off for the walk when there are no locks so again no great imposition.

 

If you can walk as fast as the boat then you could even walk all the way and lock-leg as an alternative to those who lock-wheel. That does solve the "all gates left shut" issue.

In fact if you walk all the way you can dispense with the boat entirely, relieving pressure on the structures caused by boating.

[Midnight]

Funny thing happening on the way to...

 

There seems to be a lot of single-handers around our neck of the woods this year and setting off down the Calder we followed one who left every bottom gate open - the bar-steward!

 

Coming back a fortnight later met another single hander at Horbury Bridge all of the next four locks had the bottom gates open - what a splendid chap!

Edited September 2, 2016 by Midnight

[john6767]

It's funny, I've always accepted the requirement to leave the pen empty, even in summer when it seems a bit pointless.

It must come as a shock to those used to only having to close a gate (or not) on the canals

Not so much a shock, as I knew that was the deal, but when you are doing it for what seems no good reason it makes you think why do I have to do this.

[Jerra]

 

If you can walk as fast as the boat then you could even walk all the way and lock-leg as an alternative to those who lock-wheel. That does solve the "all gates left shut" issue.

 

I walk faster than the boat!

In fact if you walk all the way you can dispense with the boat entirely, relieving pressure on the structures caused by boating.

 

LOL

[gazza]

Not so much a shock, as I knew that was the deal, but when you are doing it for what seems no good reason it makes you think why do I have to do this.

Sadly, the no good reason bit is caused by the idiots in charge.

 

There WAS a very good reason for leaving the gate up in the past, now not so much the case.

 

When you return take a good look at the section where Brancey Brook joins the river on up to Titchmarsh Mill, it is now very shallow, it freezes in winter a good way from the lock were if never used to.

 

The lock is marginally safer for over length boats, instead of emptying it nd disappearing off up river, tie up above the lock, take a walk upstream to Brancey Brook weir, it's a perfect example of those not knowing what they are doing buggering things up.

It's no longer wide enough to cope with the bypass from the lock. It runs like mad over the weir. The brook is scoured out like hell and is no end wider than it uses to be.

To try and get over this the small sluice adjacent to our mill is opened when there is a bit of flow on, this has sillted our pool up, attempts were made to rectify this but that's a whole other story.

 

Our location is by no means unusual.

[Mike Todd]

In this context I am not advocating either way, I am merely pointing out that any analysis of workload should include walking the length of the lock and not just the number of gate operations.

 

In the overall context, I am of course advocating closing gates on leaving canal locks in accordance with CRT's boater's handbook, the many signs on lock flights reminding us to do it, and the customer and practice of nearly all boaters - with exceptions of course when specifically signed otherwise and on canalised rivers.

It also depends on which canal. The later narrow locks eg Shroppie, benefitted from much better Time and Motion study - just check where the bottom end step is located. Another factor in the calculation has to be the number of times you have to cross gates (and this depends on whether you are willing, on a narrow lock, to step across a half open pair.

 

In the end. the challenge of efficiency (which we very much subscribe to) is to do it within the 'rules', most of which are founded in a commitment to making the system as usable as possible for the maximum number of people, accepting that there will always be those who want to do something different, just for the sake of it. Importing practices from the times when all users were working is not terribly meaningful as we are now in a very different era that reflects the economics of maintaining a strictly leisure facility.

[Horace42]

We shut the gates as a matter of habit. The trouble is it is automatic.

To the point when I have started to shut the gates with a boat waiting to come in.

Senior moments.

[magpie patrick]

I can't see why it would be that hard to shorten if they wanted to do it. I notice that a few have been made taller, with bits bolted on the top.

 

The Nene only has 5 I think with mitre bottom gates, one being the contender for the worst designed lock I have seen so far, Lower Wellingborough.

 

I've had a look at several photos and also recall conversations (about 15 years ago) with the engineers. The guillotine gates are bespoke items for each lock, made to measure, they are not sectional, they have an outer and internal frame to the correct dimensions and plates are bolted onto that, so you can't just take a bit off like removing one plank on a wooden fence for example. I suppose given the will and the money the frame could be altered, but it's money that doesn't need to be spent.

 

Adding a bit is easier, you just bolt a new bit of gate on, and presumably the EA saw need for this rather than simply user convenience.

 

Incidentally, it's not that easy to lower the top plank on a mitre gate either, because of the frames tend to coincide with the top plank, and taking a bit of frame out weakens the gate, much like the internal structure of the guillotine. That's why the bottom gates on the K&A remain too high.

[gazza]

 

I've had a look at several photos and also recall conversations (about 15 years ago) with the engineers. The guillotine gates are bespoke items for each lock, made to measure, they are not sectional, they have an outer and internal frame to the correct dimensions and plates are bolted onto that, so you can't just take a bit off like removing one plank on a wooden fence for example. I suppose given the will and the money the frame could be altered, but it's money that doesn't need to be spent.

 

Adding a bit is easier, you just bolt a new bit of gate on, and presumably the EA saw need for this rather than simply user convenience.

 

Incidentally, it's not that easy to lower the top plank on a mitre gate either, because of the frames tend to coincide with the top plank, and taking a bit of frame out weakens the gate, much like the internal structure of the guillotine. That's why the bottom gates on the K&A remain too high.

The guillotine needs to be higher than the vee gate when lowered or it wouldn't serve its function of a sluice during times of flood.

 

If you look at the locks that are reversed they have paint marks every foot above the lowered level of the gate - this is so the operators know how much they have lifted the gate by when it is reversed.

 

The vee gates have had lintels fitted by bolting them thru the steel frame.

[Tacet]

In the overall context, I am of course advocating closing gates on leaving canal locks in accordance with CRT's boater's handbook, the many signs on lock flights reminding us to do it, and the customer and practice of nearly all boaters - with exceptions of course when specifically signed otherwise and on canalised rivers.

 

 

It also depends on which canal. The later narrow locks eg Shroppie, benefitted from much better Time and Motion study - just check where the bottom end step is located. Another factor in the calculation has to be the number of times you have to cross gates (and this depends on whether you are willing, on a narrow lock, to step across a half open pair.

 

 

But stepping across a half open gate is not in accordance with CRT's boaters handbook either.

[Tam & Di]

 

But stepping across a half open gate is not in accordance with CRT's boaters handbook either.

 

In my younger (and rather fitter) days I would often jump from the closed one of a pair of GU top gates to the open one in order to close that as well - having initially covinced myself that a 7' jump was no big deal. I did once do it across the bottom gates at Denham Deep, but even I could realise that that was probably daft. Kicking gates open on wide locks was the norm of course - stand in the middle facing the one to remain closed and push the other open with the ball of your foot, then walk over to open the one you stood on. I guess none of this is in this boaters handbook you mention though.

 

Tam

[magpie patrick]

The guillotine needs to be higher than the vee gate when lowered or it wouldn't serve its function of a sluice during times of flood.

 

If you look at the locks that are reversed they have paint marks every foot above the lowered level of the gate - this is so the operators know how much they have lifted the gate by when it is reversed.

 

The vee gates have had lintels fitted by bolting them thru the steel frame.

 

Okay - I'm stumped. Is the reason for this that, unless the guillotine is higher, the flow through the lock will be too great to get the pointing doors open and reverse the lock?

 

Or is it something more complicated than that?

[Scholar Gypsy]

 

Okay - I'm stumped. Is the reason for this that, unless the guillotine is higher, the flow through the lock will be too great to get the pointing doors open and reverse the lock?

 

Or is it something more complicated than that?

 

also if the top of the guillotine was below the top of the V doors then you might not be able to open them, in normal use.

 

For the same reason on eg the Grand Union the top of the top gates (which sometimes act as a weir) should be a few inches lower than the top of the bottom gates.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Scholar Gypsy

[john6767]

As a final observation in Nene guillotine locks, as I did fine then quite interesting but hard work.

 

Looking closely many of the guillotines have had the top extended come by bolting an extension on and some by welding one on. Therefore to make the top and bottom gates level in many cases you would be removing some of the extension that has at some point been added to the guillotine, not modifying the original guillotine.

 

This is an example of a welded on extension

 

In noticed on one lock it had no extension on it and the top of the guillotine and the top of the mitre gates were the same height above water, so it would not matter which was close in terms of water level.

 

Top gate as we started to open them

 

Guillotine on the same lock at the same point

[gazza]

As a final observation in Nene guillotine locks, as I did fine then quite interesting but hard work.

 

Looking closely many of the guillotines have had the top extended come by bolting an extension on and some by welding one on. Therefore to make the top and bottom gates level in many cases you would be removing some of the extension that has at some point been added to the guillotine, not modifying the original guillotine.

 

This is an example of a welded on extension

image.jpeg

 

In noticed on one lock it had no extension on it and the top of the guillotine and the top of the mitre gates were the same height above water, so it would not matter which was close in terms of water level.

 

Top gate as we started to open them

image.jpeg

 

Guillotine on the same lock at the same point

image.jpeg

Where is that? It's hard to tell from your pictures.

It is a lock that isn't reversed - there are no post's and chains to hold the vee gates back.

 

The addition to the guillotine is due to the ill advised addition to the vee gates....

 

 

Okay - I'm stumped. Is the reason for this that, unless the guillotine is higher, the flow through the lock will be too great to get the pointing doors open and reverse the lock?

 

Or is it something more complicated than that?

No, you are spot on.

 

Simon had also mentioned that when not on SSA and the levels are up you wouldn't get the vee gates open.

 

I have had to winch open Islip lock just prior to SSA to get the gates open as the upstream level was higher than the top of the guillotine.

Edited September 3, 2016 by gazza

[john6767]

I think the one that had top and bottom level was Cogenhoe, and the one with the welded on extension Billing.

[gazza]

I think the one that had top and bottom level was Cogenhoe, and the one with the welded on extension Billing.

Sounds right, all of the flood control is done at washlands in that bit.

Look for locks with posts and chains at the vee gates - these are the ones that are reversed.

 

I have a couple of good photos of titchmarsh with the lock reversed. You wouldn't want to be near it on your boat!

[Jim Riley]

Do bottom gates leak more than top gates because they get damaged when being shoved open, certainly a lot of leakage from such wear visible on the L&L last week.

[Phoenix_V]

On the Wey navigation you leave the gates open when leaving a lock. I think it's to reduce wear on the gates.

The Wey is without a doubt the best run river navigation in this country and if they have decided that he least wear and tear is caused to the system by leaving the lock as you find it then i for one would not disagree with them, canals with short pounds may be different.

On the Lee and Stort too we leave the lock as found unless there is a specific notice that there is a particular lock needs to be different.

As I understand it all gates have to be closed on Thames locks as there is usually a right of way over the gates, the locks should also be left emptying as they are now to lazy to clean the slime off the walls;

[Dave_P]

Excellent summary.

 

Perhaps it should be pinned so that it can be referred to when this subject invariably pops up again?

Thanks.

 

It seems that the argument on here has become confused.

 

There are 2 arguments:

 

1. We should all leave gates open behind us. This is arguable both ways in terms of amount of work required (if that's your main concern). It is quite obviously wrong in terms of water conservation when we have leaky lock gates.

 

2. It's ok to leave gates open even if nobody else does. This is indefensible in both ways.

[cereal tiller]

The Wey is without a doubt the best run river navigation in this country and if they have decided that he least wear and tear is caused to the system by leaving the lock as you find it then i for one would not disagree with them, canals with short pounds may be different.

On the Lee and Stort too we leave the lock as found unless there is a specific notice that there is a particular lock needs to be different.

As I understand it all gates have to be closed on Thames locks as there is usually a right of way over the gates, the locks should also be left emptying as they are now to lazy to clean the slime off the walls;

The Thames Locks are not cleaned as a result of one Lock keeper not wearing Goggles while he was cleaning his lock chamber

 

He had to go to A and E to have the caustic soda solution washed from his eyes

 

Health and safety Bods decided to ban the lock cleaning about 20 years ago

 

Have a greenie for your post

 

CT

[Leo No2]

The Wey is without a doubt the best run river navigation in this country and if they have decided that he least wear and tear is caused to the system by leaving the lock as you find it then i for one would not disagree with them, canals with short pounds may be different.

On the Lee and Stort too we leave the lock as found unless there is a specific notice that there is a particular lock needs to be different.

As I understand it all gates have to be closed on Thames locks as there is usually a right of way over the gates, the locks should also be left emptying as they are now to lazy to clean the slime off the walls;

 

The main reason you can leave the gates on the Wey is because there is quite a considerable 'flow' (from the river) on the canalised sections and there are large bywashes (known as Tumble Bays on the Wey) so there is no danger of wasting water albeit the Environment Agency can divert some of the flow down the river sections (and away from the canalised sections) in times of need.

[Tam & Di]

Thanks.

 

It seems that the argument on here has become confused.

 

There are 2 arguments:

 

1. We should all leave gates open behind us. This is arguable both ways in terms of amount of work required (if that's your main concern). It is quite obviously wrong in terms of water conservation when we have leaky lock gates.

 

2. It's ok to leave gates open even if nobody else does. This is indefensible in both ways.

 

I'm sorry but you have simplified to the point it loses significant things that have been said.

1. We should all leave gates open behind us. Claims have been made as to whether or not this saves effort, but having learned my boating when there was still a fair amount of commercial traffic I can assure you that this is the most efficient way to go on.

1b. It is quite obviously wrong in terms of water conservation when we have leaky lock gates. But only because the statement omits to say that the user should make sure that the entry gates are not leaking when he leaves the lock. If they are then the exit gates should be closed unless otherwise instructed by notices at the lock.

2. It's ok to leave gates open even if nobody else does. Unfortunately an unthinking "nobody else" can be closing all gates willy nilly when there is no reason and when that particular lock or particular canal/river does not require it, or even when there is advice to the contrary.

 

There is no "one size fits all" - people should not be encouraged to do their boating as zombies. They should take account of local circumstances and act accordingly. However I can see that in the absence of lock keepers and lengthsmen on much of the navigable system it does mean that newcomers (either hirers or owners) would not necessarily have the knowledge to make the decision as to leaving a gate open or shutting it, but I'm sure that could be addressed without a blanket rule to shut all gates when you leave.

 

There are already instances quoted where gate are specifically left open.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Tam & Di

[nicknorman]

1b. It is quite obviously wrong in terms of water conservation when we have leaky lock gates. But only because the statement omits to say that the user should make sure that the entry gates are not leaking when he leaves the lock. If they are then the exit gates should be closed unless otherwise instructed by notices at the lock.

 

There is no "one size fits all" - people should not be encouraged to do their boating as zombies. They should take account of local circumstances and act accordingly. However I can see that in the absence of lock keepers and lengthsmen on much of the navigable system it does mean that newcomers (either hirers or owners) would not necessarily have the knowledge to make the decision as to leaving a gate open or shutting it, but I'm sure that could be addressed without a blanket rule to shut all gates when you leave.

sorry but this is cloud cuckoo land. The system is a leisure network populated by people of widely varying intelligence, experience and common sense. And it had to be said, seemingly mostly from the lower end of all those scales!

 

It is not in the slightest bit feasible to have each person deciding on whether, for example, gates are leaking too much or not too much.

 

Smart arses who fail to understand human nature will no doubt continue to leave gates open but they can rest assured that they will be universally despised by the rest of us. But they probably don't care since they are too important.

[magnetman]

One or two of the locks near Cowroast used to have please leave empty signs on them. I believe this is because of leakage into the lock cottage.

I think the lock cottages had been sold off so surely its just tough luck you live by a lock and are affected in one way or another by that lock - do you also want boaters to proceed silently and only in daytime ?

 

Its not up to me to empty the lock after going up it just to prevent a dribble into someone's cellar. IMO

 

Another problem with 'leave a bottom gate paddle up to ensure lock is emptied' is that there will be someone along who doesn't notice it and attempts to fill the lock

 

 

I may be wrong and it may be lock wall stability but that should be explained - by emptying the lock behind me am I protecting a communal amenity which I personally value or someone else's private property ?

Edited September 4, 2016 by magnetman