Lack of platforms at locks

[ditchcrawler]

9 hours ago, GuyBarry said:

I worked that out a very long time ago, thanks very much!

 

The problem is though, what happens when they ask me to do something that I know is completely stupid?  Am I obliged to follow their instructions even when I know it might put the boat in danger?

No, you do what Maureen at Wardle use to do and just disappear for a short while .

 

[Iain_S]

11 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Our boat is 59’ and we sit very near the back of such locks. Far enough in front of the bottom gate so the boat doesn’t quite bump the bottom gate with the initial surge, but remaining well back in the lock to limit the forward pull. As soon as the nose pitches down, and before the boat want to start going forward, reverse is engaged. Provided the boat is kept near the back, only just above idle in reverse is needed. I guess it might be tricky with a longer boat that sits further into the “suction zone”. But then again a full length boat hasn’t got any space to build up any speed.

Our T&M technique going up usually involves two people on the paddles, and none on the boat, so engaging reverse isn't an option. One paddle half up, pause for a second or so as the boat moves off the top cill, then full up as it starts to come forward. The other paddle goes up along with the second half of the first one. Probably quicker than doing one then the other, but I doubt there's much difference in time. Whatever works is right!

[GuyBarry]

10 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

No you're not obliged to follow their instructions. You have the option to courteously say something like "Oh I really don't think that is a good idea, I'll let you do that yourselves and bow out gracefully". But find your own words for this.

Had that today actually.  There was a bunch of rather cheeky young lads on a motor boat who I'd seen before.  They raced up the river to the weir and came back down again.  Then they decided to come up through the lock.

 

They started bantering with me, though not in an unpleasant way.  I'm not sure if they knew what they were doing or not.  When the boat was in the lock they started whacking up the paddles like nobody's business.  I told them that might not be a good idea but they said "when we were kids we used to jump in here and try to swim against the tide", so I let them get on with it.  Then they castigated me for not helping at the upper end.  Eventually I gave in to them.

 

I saw them again on the way down and they were quite nice to me, so I assume it was just high spirits.

 

 

[nicknorman]

Just now, Iain_S said:

Our T&M technique going up usually involves two people on the paddles, and none on the boat, so engaging reverse isn't an option. One paddle half up, pause for a second or so as the boat moves off the top cill, then full up as it starts to come forward. The other paddle goes up along with the second half of the first one. Probably quicker than doing one then the other, but I doubt there's much difference in time. Whatever works is right!

I think my reticence for top gate riding stems from when we started boating 45 years ago. There were just too many top gates with “things” that would catch a bow fender or worse, the bow itself. These days I think such hazards have been eliminated but I still would be nervous to have the bow on a gate that I wasn’t familiar with. Of course Alan Fincher himself had a “nasty” with his bow up against a lock at Hilmorton a couple of years ago, so hazards are not entirely eliminated. I don’t see the point of taking that risk (albeit a small risk) when there are other ways of achieving the same thing with less risk.

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, GuyBarry said:

 

I saw them again on the way down and they were quite nice to me, so I assume it was just high spirits.

 

Which one, vodka?

[GuyBarry]

7 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Which one, vodka?

Well yeah.  All these rules about "ask for permission first" go out of the window when you're dealing with drunks.

[MtB]

20 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

Well yeah.  All these rules about "ask for permission first" go out of the window when you're dealing with drunks.

 

When locking drunks through, you just take charge and tell them what to do.

 

Or don't get involved.

[alan_fincher]

12 hours ago, nicknorman said:

I think my reticence for top gate riding stems from when we started boating 45 years ago. There were just too many top gates with “things” that would catch a bow fender or worse, the bow itself. These days I think such hazards have been eliminated but I still would be nervous to have the bow on a gate that I wasn’t familiar with. Of course Alan Fincher himself had a “nasty” with his bow up against a lock at Hilmorton a couple of years ago, so hazards are not entirely eliminated. I don’t see the point of taking that risk (albeit a small risk) when there are other ways of achieving the same thing with less risk.

To be fair the problem we had would not have been a serious one, had a volunteer lock keeper not repeatedly refused our request to drop the paddles as soon as we were aware that it was happening.  The issue was the volunteer, not our mode of working, which we have no choice about anyway.

 

With a 71' 8" boat in a lock like Hillmorton, there simply aren't "other ways of achieving the same thing with less risk".  To attempt to not have the bow riding the bottom gate would put you in very great risk of ending up on the cill, because there really is very little margin at all.

 

I realise with a shorter boat you can chose not to, but I still reckon once at "sixty feet plus", it's easiest just to be on the gate.  Generally there will then need to be no use of engine or gearbox at any point where the lock is actually emptying, which just makes life more relaxed all round, and saves both fuel and wear and tear.

 

 

[GuyBarry]

Well it's been an interesting day today.  At one point I ended up having to negotiate between a bunch of kids who wanted the lock filled up because they wanted to go swimming in it, and a bunch of pissed-up lads in motorized dinghies who wanted to come up through the lock.  I let the dinghies through, of course, but then it turned out that the kids belonged to the guy who lives in the adjoining house and wanted to go swimming himself.

 

I'm not sure if any of you boaters realize how much happens at locks when boats aren't passing through.

[zenataomm]

What licence do motorised dinghies need on your stretch of the water?

[mayalld]

On ‎06‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 20:24, GuyBarry said:

What I find interesting about this discussion is that the errors an "inexperienced lockie" might make pale into insignificance beyond the errors made by boaters themselves.  These are all things I've witnessed or tried to prevent:

 

Opening the paddles at both ends at once

Coming up into the lock correctly, then going back and re-opening the paddles at the lower end

Trying to come through on one gate at the wrong angle and hitting the side of the gate

Whacking the paddles up at the lower end too fast and washing the boat out

Not securing the boat in the lock, then whacking the paddles up at the top end and causing the boat to hit the sides of the lock

Trying to wind the paddle the wrong way (apparently K & A paddles work differently from most other canals)

Not pulling the ratchet out when trying to wind the paddle down

Not noticing that someone has left the upper gate paddles open and opening the lower paddles

Trying to force the gate open when it's obviously nowhere near ready

 

I could go on and on.  Surely inexperienced boaters are a far greater danger than inexperienced lockies?

Inexperienced boaters can indeed cause dangers for themselves, but a well meaning intermeddler doing something unexpected creates dangers for others.

 

How many of the examples above caused actual danger?

 

How many required immediate action from you to prevent that danger?

 

How many could you have dealt with simply by saying "excuse me, but you may not have noticed"?

 

[mayalld]

On ‎07‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 01:22, nicknorman said:

We always wind both paddles fully up on the Cheshire locks (by which I mean one after the other in the time it takes to cross the gate). Why is it we are able to get on with it, using full paddle, whilst you dawdle, only capable of coping with 1/2 paddle? I would recommend some additional training in boat handling in locks, so you become competent to use the paddles as they were intended.

I trust that you aren't offering to provide the training.

 

Clearly with your inability to see that others may adopt different but equally efficient methods to your own your competence to provide training to others would be highly suspect.

 

I never dawdle!

 

Drawing the paddles more rapidly doesn't seem to fill the lock any sooner, and I do wonder whether the excessively turbulent flow creates a resistance in the culverts.

 

My experience is that my generally efficient working of a lock means that any seconds lost are in any case more than made up for by the other efficiencies.

 

One of the beauties of the Cheshire locks is that they are parallel, and that gives a really good measure of efficient working.

 

I recall once coming up alongside another boat. I was behind, and his crew were playing macramé on the lock landing. We both entered the locks at about the same time (I was about half a length behind). I was positioned in the lock with gates closed first, then did my usual routine (half paddle, cross, half paddle, wait for boat to rest back onto riding board, full paddle, cross, wait again, full paddle.

 

He is going hell for leather, paddles up full, boat smashing around, wife screaming at him.

 

I was not racing him, but I exited the lock first.

 

He was in a foul temper behind me, which didn't seem to improve when I immediately moored up for lunch.

[mayalld]

11 hours ago, GuyBarry said:

Well it's been an interesting day today.  At one point I ended up having to negotiate between a bunch of kids who wanted the lock filled up because they wanted to go swimming in it, and a bunch of pissed-up lads in motorized dinghies who wanted to come up through the lock.  I let the dinghies through, of course, but then it turned out that the kids belonged to the guy who lives in the adjoining house and wanted to go swimming himself.

 

I'm not sure if any of you boaters realize how much happens at locks when boats aren't passing through.

You "let the dinghies through"

 

I really don't think it's your place to let them through or not.

[nicknorman]

1 hour ago, mayalld said:

I trust that you aren't offering to provide the training.

 

Clearly with your inability to see that others may adopt different but equally efficient methods to your own your competence to provide training to others would be highly suspect.

 

I never dawdle!

 

Drawing the paddles more rapidly doesn't seem to fill the lock any sooner, and I do wonder whether the excessively turbulent flow creates a resistance in the culverts.

 

My experience is that my generally efficient working of a lock means that any seconds lost are in any case more than made up for by the other efficiencies.

 

One of the beauties of the Cheshire locks is that they are parallel, and that gives a really good measure of efficient working.

 

I recall once coming up alongside another boat. I was behind, and his crew were playing macramé on the lock landing. We both entered the locks at about the same time (I was about half a length behind). I was positioned in the lock with gates closed first, then did my usual routine (half paddle, cross, half paddle, wait for boat to rest back onto riding board, full paddle, cross, wait again, full paddle.

 

He is going hell for leather, paddles up full, boat smashing around, wife screaming at him.

 

I was not racing him, but I exited the lock first.

 

He was in a foul temper behind me, which didn't seem to improve when I immediately moored up for lunch.

I’ve no doubt there are people slower than you. Some people are incredibly slow and inefficient. But by trying to suggest that 1/2 paddle fills the lock faster than full paddle, whilst disturbing the boat less, you are clearly clutching at straws and demonstrating irrationality.

 

Anyway it is true that using 1/2 paddle for the first minute or so doesn’t make a massive difference to overall lock time, however it is just faffery and making a meal of things, over-complicating the procedure and all quite unnecessary.

 

Oh and reading you post again, you cross the top twice to our once. Twice the work, twice the risk of falling and all for no point.

Edited July 9, 2018 by nicknorman

[GuyBarry]

11 hours ago, zenataomm said:

What licence do motorised dinghies need on your stretch of the water?

I don't know, but I suspect none.

[RLWP]

11 hours ago, zenataomm said:

What licence do motorised dinghies need on your stretch of the water?

Based on this:

 

https://www.waterways.org.uk/avonandwilts/a_picture_the_current_situation_on_bristol_avon

 

and this:

 

https://canalplan.org.uk/place/gpdq

 

I think it's the same as for any C&RT navigation

 

Richard

[GuyBarry]

1 hour ago, mayalld said:

Inexperienced boaters can indeed cause dangers for themselves, but a well meaning intermeddler doing something unexpected creates dangers for others.

 

How many of the examples above caused actual danger?

 

How many required immediate action from you to prevent that danger?

 

How many could you have dealt with simply by saying "excuse me, but you may not have noticed"?

 

The only one that caused actual danger was when a hire boat came through, didn't tie up in the lock and then one of the crew whacked one of the top paddles straight up - he'd probably have done the same to the other one if I hadn't been standing there.  I did go and have a quiet word with the crew on the boat suggesting this might not be a good idea.

 

As I said previously, the boat crew are in control and I'm simply there to provide help and guidance if needed.  I often say the equivalent of "excuse me, but you may not have noticed" if I think they're making an error.  I'm trying to cooperate with them, not take over from them.

 

Another error I didn't mention was pulling the ratchet out when winding the paddle up.  One of the ratchets has got stuck a few times because of this, causing quite an inconvenience to other crews coming through.  It's quite a difficult thing to prevent though.

[GuyBarry]

1 hour ago, mayalld said:

You "let the dinghies through"

 

I really don't think it's your place to let them through or not.

It probably isn't.  Sometimes, however, it's possible to end up in situations like that willy-nilly and then I have to use my judgement.  Seems better than letting them fight it out themselves.

 

It brings me back to the earlier question about "who is in charge of the lock?"  Although I still maintain that the correct answer is "the C&RT", the actual answer in practical terms is "no one".  It's completely open to the public and they use it for all sorts of purposes for which it wasn't designed.  No one polices it and there are almost no signs about what you should or shouldn't do there.  I went to my local councillor last week because I was concerned about groups of children swimming just below the lock, which I think is incredibly dangerous since if the paddles opened unexpectedly they could be swept into the river.  The council's going to contact the C&RT about putting a sign up, but to be honest I think the only competely safe thing would be to fence the lock off from the general public completely.

[Jerra]

13 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

but to be honest I think the only competely safe thing would be to fence the lock off from the general public completely.

Heaven forbid, do that to one lock and somebody will want it done to all locks.   It would also rather reduce you activities as you are part of the general public.

[GuyBarry]

10 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Heaven forbid, do that to one lock and somebody will want it done to all locks.   It would also rather reduce you activities as you are part of the general public.

Well I'd have to train as a C&RT volunteer, which is what a lot of people here have recommended (and which I probably will do in due course).

 

Is there any reason why locks like that one should be open to the general public, though?  On the canal flight you need access to the towpath to get from one lock to the next, I suppose, but Weston Lock is entirely self-contained and access to the towpath is not required for any aspect of operation of the lock.

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

Is there any reason why locks like that one should be open to the general public, though? 

 

The general public pay for the canals through taxes, and use them for recreation with the encouragement and blessing of the government. 

 

Back in the day when canals were working thoroughfares for goods transport, they were fenced off to keep the public out. On restoration for leisure use, it was considered a Good Idea to let the public have full access to the towpaths.

 

Boaters only contribute about 10% of the total CRT budget. 

Edited July 9, 2018 by Mike the Boilerman

[GuyBarry]

3 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Back in the day when canals were working thoroughfares for goods transport, they were fenced off to keep the public out. On restoration for leisure use, it was considered a Good Idea to let the public have full access to the towpaths.

 

 

Fencing off Weston Lock wouldn't block access to the towpath in any way.  You walk from one end of the lock to the other without using the towpath.

 

Someone fell in a couple of weeks ago.  There's a deceptive gap between the upper lock mooring and the water's edge which is mainly hidden by vegetation.  I wasn't there, but I heard that some drunk was making his way along the towpath and slipped down it.  The emergency services had to be called. 

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

Fencing off Weston Lock wouldn't block access to the towpath in any way.  You walk from one end of the lock to the other without using the towpath.

 

Even so, it is the thin end of a very big wedge. 

 

It WILL lead to calls for other locks to be fenced off, then sections of towpath, and other 'risky' p[laces. Pretty soon all the fencing will interfere quite badly with boating, ropes, mooring, picking up crew etc.

 

Along similar lines, there should be a fence along both sides of all roads separating the pedestrian path from the cars before there is an accident, do you not think?

[Jerra]

8 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

Fencing off Weston Lock wouldn't block access to the towpath in any way.  You walk from one end of the lock to the other without using the towpath.

 

Someone fell in a couple of weeks ago.  There's a deceptive gap between the upper lock mooring and the water's edge which is mainly hidden by vegetation.  I wasn't there, but I heard that some drunk was making his way along the towpath and slipped down it.  The emergency services had to be called. 

Fencing is already being proposed for canals and rivers in cities this would just make the wedge bigger.

 

A couple of points.  I seem to remember that earlier in the thread you slightly resisted the idea of being a CRT volunteer as they wouldn't put you on the lock of your choice.  What makes you think that fencing would make it any more likely.

 

Follow that with the thought you want to restrict public access but have a method of allowing your own access.   What about all the other members of the public who began (or want to) like you watching slowly taking part and learning.  Your proposal seems a little self centred to me.

[GuyBarry]

You've got a valid point there.  If it had been fenced off then I wouldn't have started watching in the first place, wouldn't have learned about lock operation, and wouldn't be considering becoming a volunteer.  And yes, it's quite likely I wouldn't be able to help out at Weston Lock at all.

 

But if it's left open to the public, surely there should be signs warning the public of the dangers?  There's absolutely nothing at the moment.  The general public is educated in road safety but not generally in waterways safety.  I'm sure most people know to keep away from the water's edge but are they aware of the strong currents caused by the gate paddles, for instance?