Forth and Clyde Closure

[haggis]

Mr Venus I appreciate that you wouldn't like to do the locks single handed but that is something which is unlikely to happen as SC do not normally allow single handed boating where there are locks. 

A lot of locks down south used to have unprotected gate paddles and the risk of sinking boats with water gushing through them was greatly reduced by putting baffles across them to divert the water to the lock wall. This could have been done up here but as far as I am aware it wasn't even considered. 

 

Not so sure about the hire fleet operators wanting user operation at I have sat in several meetings where the subject was discussed and the response was along the lines of "over my dead body" 

Haggis 

 

[Up-Side-Down]

1 hour ago, Mr Venus said:

Unlike most of the locks on the English network, the locks on the Lowland canals have no by-pass weirs. As the F&C "flows" from its summit, the locks "run" all the time over the top of the gates due to excess water, this being Scotland after all. On top of that, the lock gates themselves have sluices built in above the water level, which means that boats going downhill can get cascaded with water in the stern when the locks are being filled. Going uphill, you are met with a waterfall coming from way above your head at the bow.

Contrary to a previous post, I'm sure the hire fleet would love to have all the locks self operated by the crews, but these locks are not safe, and I speak as one who has done thousands of locks, big and small, often single handed, but I wouldn't do these on my own.

In fact, despite the generally excellent work performed by both the SC and Re-Union lock teams, flooded boats are not as rare as they should be, and an out of control boat caught in the water stream coming from one of the gate sluices is not a pretty sight. Steel narrowboats are one thing, but a plastic yacht out of control would be another.

 

This prompts me to share some words (rather a lot actually – sorry) that I've recently written to bring our local MSP up to speed. I'm glad Mr Venus shares my view re self-operation of locks on the west end of the F&C. Having boated for years south of the border, often on my own, I wouldn't touch locks 21 – 38 with the proverbial barge pole without the assistance of the SC bank staff!

FORTH & CLYDE LOCKS 21 – 40: MARYHILL TO BOWLING HARBOUR

 

The Problem

One of the not inconsiderable operational problems facing SC – one that has significant financial implications – is the need for the locks between Maryhill and Bowling to be operated by SC personnel. Every boat transit therefore has to be booked and the vessel(s) assisted through the locks by three members of the bank staff. Where there are more than two vessels involved in the transit, it is usually necessary to ‘double lock’ which can involve a further three people.

Inexperienced and ill-informed boaters will tell you that this is an example of SC’s philosophy that ‘it’s our trainset and only we’re going to play with it’, citing the fact that, south of the border, boaters operate all their own locks and moveable structures. In reality there’s an important H&S issue bound up with the operation of these locks and the only way to ensure safe passage is via the strategy adopted.

Unlike most of their English counterparts, the locks on the west side of the Forth & Clyde Canal have no ground paddles and no by-washes, all the water being admitted to the chambers via large gate paddles (or sluices) situated in the top gates of the lock. The lack of by-washes results in a continuous flow of surplus water over the top gates in both winter and Summer – Scotland is never short of a drop of water, the canal itself being fed by a network of substantial reservoirs. 

While by-washes are effectively wee becks leading surplus water around the lock – so that the water level is always maintained below the top of the gates – ground paddles are built into the top side of a lock structure and can be lifted to admit water, via a sluice incorporated in the lock wall, calmly into the lock chamber below the level of a boat’s hull.

Indeed, received wisdom suggests that initially only ground paddles (where fitted) are used to commence filling a lock and that the gate paddles are not deployed until they themselves are buried below the rising water level. This is not a luxury available to users of the Forth & Clyde Canal and longer boats are constantly in danger of water ingress, not only from the water continually weiring over the top gates, but also from clumsily operated gate paddles.

What this all adds up to is that a considerable level of skill and – especially where a flight of several closely-spaced locks is encountered – local knowledge is required (together with strength, when water flows over the gates are high) to ensure safe lock operation; the bank staff also having to take account of the length and type of craft involved. In all, there will be a minimum of five people (including the boat’s crew) involved: rather more bodies than is typically found on a transiting vessel!

 

The Solution

Clearly the present situation represents a significant financial drain on SC’s already stretched resources and (with the need to book passage at least 24 hours in advance) discourages boaters from visiting Bowling, spending time (and potentially money) at one of the most attractive locations on the Forth & Clyde Canal with its historic harbour, together with stunning views ‘doon the w’ter.’

As listed structures, interference with the lock chambers themselves (by retro-fitting ground paddles and sluices) is out of the question, but the introduction of by-washes would meet typical conservation parameters by not interfering with the construction of the ‘monument’ itself and, also, by being a reversible intervention.

With the incorporation of by-washes in each lock, water would no longer weir over the top gates and filling the lock would be a far more controllable and less hazardous operation. It would also eliminate a further problem with operation under extreme flow conditions – that of opening the bottom gates when more water is finding its way into the lock chamber than the paddles on the lower gates can let out – resulting in it being impossible to make a level between water inside and outside the chamber, thus allowing the gates to be opened.

With this suggested modification, lock operation would be safer and considerably more predictable for the less experienced boater, meaning that self-operation would become feasible.

Inevitably there is a cost here, but one that could be defrayed (and ultimately profited from) by installing electricity-generating turbines in each by-wash. Then the water that bypasses Lock 21 at the top of the Maryhill flight would be used to produce electricity, going on to repeat the same exercise at the next lock and so on all the way down to Bowling, 18 locks later. Once construction costs had been met, the by-washes would be generating profit although, in eliminating staff input for lock operation ‘profit’ would, in reality, kick in some time before the actual capital costs of turbine installation had been met.

This potential win win situation would undoubtedly benefit from a private partnership to avoid begging the capital from the Scottish Government and, in a climate of alternative energy, partners should not be hard to find. That is certainly the case south of the border where most river weirs on Canal & River Trust navigations have already benefited from a privately funded hydro scheme.

 

Conclusion

Re-opening the Lowland Canals, with Millennium Commission funding, should have been only the start of canal resurgence in Scotland in the early part of this century: a foundation upon which to consolidate and, ultimately, build. 

In some areas this has undoubtedly happen but, in terms of completing key tasks along the navigation and ensuring that assets are directed towards their funding, there is evidence of a woeful shortfall. 

A hydro-driven by-wash scheme for the locks on the western end of the Forth &Clyde Canal is but one example of a project that forward-thinking management could have embraced a decade or more ago, ensuring that unfettered navigation was maintained throughout the Lowland Canals. A bit more imagination, thinking ‘outside the box’, together with a ‘can do’ attitude could easily have produced something more sustainable.

Unfortunately, there is now a situation where, at Board level, there is next to nothing by way of a working knowledge about (or, indeed, understanding of) these canals as navigations. Whilst, operating in tandem, there appears to be minimal interest in directing income – from Government grant in aid and the not inconsiderable SC property portfolio – towards sustaining navigation, as witnessed by the figure of just 15% of budget spent on maintaining the canals themselves. 

As long as the aspirations of the Board are limited to becoming a regeneration agency, there is little hope that the existing possibility of a navigable coast to coast link, ‘twixt The River Clyde and the Firth of Forth, will remain a reality for much longer.

[Mr Venus]

I think the problem with the bridges is that the road routes they serve are too important for traffic (emergency vehicles for example) to be stopped for a boater to operate. Consideration was given to the Lemington lift bridge in Edinburgh, but this has never been followed through on.

Incidentally, there are more moveable bridges on the Leeds Liverpool canal than locks, more than 100 of them, all boat crew operated. If they are designed to be operated by crews, there shouldn't be a problem.

[haggis]

Well said Upside down 

As you say  one of the many things lacking in Scottish Canals is the ability to think outside the box 

I like your idea! 

Haggis 

[Up-Side-Down]

39 minutes ago, haggis said:

Well said Upside down 

As you say  one of the many things lacking in Scottish Canals is the ability to think outside the box 

I like your idea! 

Haggis 

I can't claim that it's original Ann. I've talked it through with Richard Millar and he agreed it was sound ............ but then where's the action? You'll have seen that just about every weir on a navigable river in England now has a turbine in it.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Up-Side-Down

[haggis]

21 minutes ago, Up-Side-Down said:

 

21 minutes ago, Up-Side-Down said:

I can't claim that it's original Ann. I've talked it through with Richard Millar and he agreed it was sound ............ but then were's the action? You'll have I'm seen that just about every weir on a navigable river in England now has a turbine in it.

That's another thing that in my opinion SC isn't good at - looking around and learning from others who have had the same problem. I have lost count of the number of times we have photographed and described anti vandal gear on locks down south but SC still seemed to think their unwieldy solution was best. There have been so many instances where they would have saved money by speaking to BW down south 

Remember the lock ladders which they started installing proud from lock walls? Till it was pointed out that boats would catch on them. 

Haggis 

 

[Iain_S]

Part of the problem with locks 21-38 is that the top gate of 21 is an inch or two (so I'm told) lower than the top gate of lock 20 at the other end of the summit pound. This was apparently done to ensure that pounds near the top of the Falkirk flight (3-16) didn't overflow.

The summit is usually (in my opinion) over filled, with the result that there is often 6" plus running over the tops of the gates on the east side (20-2a).

The summit level cannot be adjusted quickly, due to restrictions on how quickly water can be drawn from the reservoir, but aiming for the level of the top of the gates at lock 20 might help a lot.

It was very noticeable, when Scottish Canals were unable to draw water from the reservoir due to repairs to the sluices, that locking on the Falkirk flight was a LOT easier, due to less water coming down the flight.

Locks 17 - 20, the ones that some boaters were trained to use, have bywashes, but I'm not sure how effective they are. I have seen water flowing around Lock 17, but I think the bywashes on 18-20 are blocked, as I've never seen any flow through them, despite water cascading over the lock gates.

 

[Up-Side-Down]

1 minute ago, Iain_S said:

Part of the problem with locks 21-38 is that the top gate of 21 is an inch or two (so I'm told) lower than the top gate of lock 20 at the other end of the summit pound. This was apparently done to ensure that pounds near the top of the Falkirk flight (3-16) didn't overflow.

The summit is usually (in my opinion) over filled, with the result that there is often 6" plus running over the tops of the gates on the east side (20-2a).

The summit level cannot be adjusted quickly, due to restrictions on how quickly water can be drawn from the reservoir, but aiming for the level of the top of the gates at lock 20 might help a lot.

It was very noticeable, when Scottish Canals were unable to draw water from the reservoir due to repairs to the sluices, that locking on the Falkirk flight was a LOT easier, due to less water coming down the flight.

Locks 17 - 20, the ones that some boaters were trained to use, have bywashes, but I'm not sure how effective they are. I have seen water flowing around Lock 17, but I think the bywashes on 18-20 are blocked, as I've never seen any flow through them, despite water cascading over the lock gates.

 

This is all interesting and relevant stuff Iain and if there was the will for the Lowland Canals to be navigable 365 days of the year it could be taken into account as part of a master plan to ensure safe boater operation of most, if not all, the locks on the F&C.

[Jokar]

Do we know the outcome of the bridge surveys yet?

[ronnietucker]

• Quote

  the bascule bridge at Bard Avenue in Knightswood will be opened on Friday 4^th May 2018 with boats leaving Bowling at 9am sharp

  • Twechar will be opened at 10am on Sunday 6^th May as part of a restricted opening – we hope to deliver monthly openings but will confirm this at a later date
  • Bonnybridge will be opened only once at 2pm on Sunday 6^th May – we will not be able to open it again until funding can be identified for a longer term fix and therefore would encourage customers to consider whether they need to take advantage of this date in order to plan where they need to be in the medium to long term

   

Quote

However, we recognise that restricted navigation has been inconvenient and therefore it is only right that the navigation licence fee is reduced. With this in mind, from the 1st April 2018 all boaters on the Forth & Clyde Canal will see their navigation licence fee reduced to £1 per month (£12p.a.) for the period that these bridges are inoperable.

1

So that's SOME good news. Kinda. Sorta...

[13-10]

46 minutes ago, ronnietucker said:

•  

So that's SOME good news. Kinda. Sorta...

Those on The Union have had 1 whole British Pound per month knocked off their licence fee

[haggis]

7 minutes ago, 13-10 said:

Those on The Union have had 1 whole British Pound per month knocked off their licence fee

Have we? We just got our renewal which asks for £203.47 for the annual licence and on looking at the SC web site the annual licence for the year to 31/3 is £198.12. Can't see any figures for this year and the renewal notice makes no mention of any reduction. 

haggis

[13-10]

1 minute ago, haggis said:

Have we? We just got our renewal which asks for £203.47 for the annual licence and on looking at the SC web site the annual licence for the year to 31/3 is £198.12. Can't see any figures for this year and the renewal notice makes no mention of any reduction. 

haggis

E-mail came through this afternoon including the quote below, and I stand corrected its nearly 2 quid a month

 

'However, we recognise that restricted navigation has been inconvenient and therefore we feel it is only right that the navigation licence fee is reduced. With this in mind, from the 1^st April 2018 all boaters on the Union Canal will see their navigation licence fee reduced by 10% to £183.23 per annum for the period that these bridges are inoperable. You do not need to do anything as we will automatically adjust your monthly direct debit payment for your licence as soon as we can. These reductions will remain in place until both bridges are operable.'

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, ronnietucker said:

•  

So that's SOME good news. Kinda. Sorta...

Sorta!

And next year Scottish Canals will be saying that income from boaters is so low that they can't justify spending limited resources on keeping the canal navigable...

[13-10]

That's a bit cynical Mr Mack. Our safety is their number 1 priority, apparently

[haggis]

6 minutes ago, 13-10 said:

E-mail came through this afternoon including the quote below, and I stand corrected its nearly 2 quid a month

 

'However, we recognise that restricted navigation has been inconvenient and therefore we feel it is only right that the navigation licence fee is reduced. With this in mind, from the 1^st April 2018 all boaters on the Union Canal will see their navigation licence fee reduced by 10% to £183.23 per annum for the period that these bridges are inoperable. You do not need to do anything as we will automatically adjust your monthly direct debit payment for your licence as soon as we can. These reductions will remain in place until both bridges are operable.'

Ah thank you 13-10. The email came in a wee while ago. Not sure what it means for those who pay annually..

haggis

[13-10]

3 minutes ago, haggis said:

Ah thank you 13-10. The email came in a wee while ago. Not sure what it means for those who pay annually..

haggis

It should mean you get a refund. But would imagine you'll need to chase them up for it. Do you get a discount for paying annually

Edited April 26, 2018 by 13-10

[haggis]

22 minutes ago, 13-10 said:

It should mean you get a refund. But would imagine you'll need to chase them up for it. Do you get a discount for paying annually

Nope. I don't know though if something is added on if you pay monthly. I have emailed back suggesting that we pay the mooring fee and wait till the bridges reopen and then they will know how much to charge for our licence. Is this reduction backdated to the date the bridges closed, one wonders? :-). Just re read the email from SC and the licence reduction starts from 1/4/18. When did the bridges stop operating? Thought it was a wee bit earlier....

haggis

Edited April 26, 2018 by haggis

[13-10]

9 minutes ago, haggis said:

Nope. I don't know though if something is added on if you pay monthly. I have emailed back suggesting that we pay the mooring fee and wait till the bridges reopen and then they will know how much to charge for our licence. Is this reduction backdated to the date the bridges closed, one wonders? ?

haggis

 They're saying from 1st April (date is quite apt)

Edited April 26, 2018 by 13-10

[Up-Side-Down]

1 hour ago, 13-10 said:

 They're saying from 1st April (date is quite apt)

Indeed it is ......... given that SC is run by a gang of fools!

[AllanD]

Local newspaper has picked up the story with a local businessman putting forward what could be a very serious and sadly possible future for the Lowland Canals. 

https://www.falkirkherald.co.uk/news/falkirk-council-urged-to-help-stop-dereliction-of-forth-and-clyde-canal-1-4731833

[Up-Side-Down]

Keep Canals Alive!  Press release

 

Lowland canals threatened with closure as 

£79 million Millennium investment goes to waste

 

The Forth & Clyde and Union Canals are facing progressive closure due to mechanical failures and reduced operating hours. 

 

Keep Canals Alive! has sent an open letter to the chief executives and council leaders of the local authorities through which the Lowland canals run, asking that they support the voluntary organisations in persuading the Board of Scottish Canals to meet its statutory obligations.

 

The seven local authorities played a pivotal part in the work to re-open the canals after years of dereliction. Of the £79 million raised on the initial Millennium Link project, £7.2 million was contributed directly from council funds. Each council has seen the benefit from the canal restoration, both social and economic. The councils will be the first to feel the effects of degeneration but without the ability to do anything directly to stop the decline.

 

Ronnie Rusack MBE, well-known canal enthusiast and campaigner and Chair of the Lowland Canal Voluntary Group, says: "After 47 years of campaigning for the Lowland canals I’m not prepared to allow them to deteriorate any further and slip back to becoming remainder waterways. 

 

"The Scottish Lowland Canals are not only part of our heritage but play a vital role in tourism, health and the well-being of the Scottish people and have something for everyone as proved by their usage. I am delighted to have received expressions of support from Councillors of all shades of opinion in three areas already.”

 

The local authorities are: East Dunbartonshire Council, Edinburgh City Council, Falkirk Council, Glasgow City Council, North Lanarkshire Council, West Dunbartonshire Council, and West Lothian Council.

 

Keep Canals Alive! Comprises of eleven voluntary organisations who have joined forces to campaign against and prevent the dereliction of the Lowland canals. These include Bridge 19–40 Canal Society; Capercaille Cruisers; Edinburgh Canal Society; Forth & Clyde Canal Society; Forth Yacht Clubs Association; Linlithgow Union Canal Society; Lowland Canals Association; Lowland Canals Volunteer Group; Re-Union Canal Boats; RYA Scotland and Seagull Trust Cruises

 

For further comment or interviews please contact:

Ronnie Rusack on 07801 430981 or Richard Davies on 0141 775 2990.

 

Email for enquiries: keepcanalsalive@gmail.com

 

 

Open letter from Keep Canals Alive:

 

 

Progressive Closure of the Forth & Clyde, and Union Canals

 

I write on behalf of all of the organisations listed below to draw to your attention to our deep concern about the progressive closure of the Forth & Clyde and Union Canals, upon which so much public money was spent re-opening just a few years ago.

 

The Forth & Clyde Canal is presently closed to through traffic due to mechanical failures, with no date proposed for re-opening. As the Union Canal has fewer locks and opening bridges it remains largely open – but access into the Edinburgh terminus is now restricted to just four periods each week. Long-term implications locally include a threat to the 19 FTE jobs in the hire boat fleet at Falkirk, loss of income to canalside pubs in West Lothian, North Lanarkshire and East Dunbartonshire, and a cessation of weed cutting and floating litter clearance, especially in urban areas.

 

The seven Local Authorities through which the canals run played a pivotal part in the work to re-open the canals after years of dereliction. Of the £79 million raised on the initial Millennium Link project, £7.2 million was contributed directly from Council funds and the political support from Councils was instrumental in unlocking additional funds from Scottish Enterprise and the European Regional Development Fund. In 2011 the Scottish Ministers upgraded the legal status of the Lowland Canals for the express purpose of protecting that expenditure. SSI 2011/118 was explained thus:  

 

"This Instrument will formally safeguard the investment made by government (central and local) and the Millennium Commission by placing a statutory maintenance obligation on British Waterways Board". (BWB is now known as “Scottish Canals”.)

 

Scottish Canals have not maintained the canals adequately. Analysis of their annual reports shows that the proportion of their total budgets spent on their core statutory maintenance obligation has fallen steadily from near 60% to less than 40% over the last ten years. The result is that new opening road bridges, built for the Millennium, have now failed; numerous closures have been caused whilst locks have failed – including one failure that prevented most boats attending the Royal opening of the new canal extension at the Kelpies; and rubbish and weed growth have discouraged sea-going boats from attempting to venture through. The lack of maintenance has driven away existing users; canal staffing has been reduced so that availability of the canal system has been restricted to as little as one day a week in places. As a result, for 2018/19 the canal between Bowling and Glasgow and between Kirkintilloch and Bonnybridge will appear virtually disused again.

 

The Scottish Canals Chairman and Chief Executive paint a glowing picture of the many developments that are taking place alongside the canals. We welcome canalside development as regeneration raises significant revenue to supplement Government grant in aid – but none of the additional £6 million per annum that Scottish Canals earn from property is yet being used to maintain the canals themselves.

 

The enhanced value of canalside property depends on the canal being used by boats. The basic concept of the Millennium Link was that by making the canals useable again, they become interesting and desirable place to live, work and play beside. The Scottish Government’s policy paper "Making the most of Scotland’s Canals" explains the concept clearly:

 

"Boats add colour and interest to the canals. We wish to see further growth in the numbers of boats navigating our canals, and encourage both Scottish Canals, 

boaters and other parties to work together towards exploiting opportunities to achieve this." (See https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/making-the-most-of-scotland-s-canals/)

 

Once large boats stop moving, the waterway silts up, weed growth accelerates and rubbish accumulates. The attached pictures of Ratho, Kirkintilloch and Glasgow were taken less than 10 years after the canal was originally closed in the 1960s. If scenes like that return in a few years’ time it will be Local Authorities that will bear the brunt of complaints from residents of houses and businesses recently built along the banks of an increasingly derelict and dangerous water hazard.

 

 

 

We ask the Local Authorities to back our call for Scottish Canals to adjust their priorities and internal budgets in order to meet their statutory responsibilities: we are not asking for investment in canalside developments to stop – just a re-alignment of their priorities to ensure that the canals themselves do not return to the dreadful state that they were in before the Millennium. Their existing property earnings should be helping to maintain the canals for use. We are asking for a review of new canal developments – some of which include new opening bridges – until Scottish Canals are able to maintain the bridges that they already have.

 

The Millennium Link was a successful co-operation between Central and Local Government, aided significantly by the voluntary sector whose contribution was valued at £2.4 million. Much of that was through the provision of large passenger boats, mainly operated by charities, which take almost 30,000 people on day trips each year. Private companies have produced a fleet of 19 hire boats that enabled 494 family holidays to be taken cruising through central Scotland last year, with an estimated spend of £250,000 by holidaymakers. 

 

Scottish Canals' policy of pursuing property development at the expense of keeping the canals open for navigation risks losing that community spirit and co-operation; it 

risks losing the social and environmental benefits that restoration of the canals brought about; and in the medium future it puts at risk the investment in canalside property.

 

Please will you ask your Council to support the voluntary organisations which have worked so hard to resurrect our canals by lending your weight in persuading the Board of Scottish Canals to meet their statutory obligations.

 

Yours sincerely

Ronnie Rusack MBE

On behalf of Keep Canals Alive!  

Chair of the Lowland Canals Volunteer Group

Telephone 07801 430981

keepcanalsalive@gmail.com

 

 

[13-10]

A good letter. Should also be sent to the the Government Cross Party Committee for Recreational Boating and Marine Tourism. Have heard that hire boat bookings are already down by 20%

If anybody fancies it rattle off an e-mail to the below MSP's who sit on said committee. I've written to the Deputy Convener Liam Kerr

Group Members

• Angus MacDonald
• Clare Adamson
• Jackie Baillie
• Joan McAlpine
• John Finnie
• Kenneth Gibson
• Lewis Macdonald
• Liam McArthur

Edited April 29, 2018 by 13-10

[Dr Bob]

On 13/04/2018 at 08:57, cuthound said:

I'll bet you used the handle "rubber duck 

I was up there a couple of weeks ago and surprised how much weed growth there was in the section of the Union canal to the east of Polmont. There would be all hell to play if it was like that on the GU.

[Jokar]

It would be interesting  to know who sanctions the very generous management  wages too, and what qualified them for their jobs. It certainly  wasn't any knowledge  about boating. Wages should be earned on merit, not on how much you can skim of the budget supplied to maintain the canal.