Vandalism on the Leeds Liverpool

[TheBiscuits]

 

The lock flights at Wigan (locks 65 to 85), Johnsons Hillocks (58 to 64), Blackburn Flight (locks 52 to 57), Barrowford Locks (45 to 51), Greenberfield Locks (42 to 44), Bank Newton Locks (36 to 41) and Gargrave (locks 35 to 30) will be padlocked closed and the gates will be ashed up to reduce leakage.  To prevent unauthorised access though vandalism, measures will be taken to make the locks inoperable.

 

Ground paddle shafts removed and gate paddle shafts cut off is vandalism!

[PaulJ]

CaRT certainly werent messing about when they said they were going to make the locks inoperable..

[TheBiscuits]

Oh, and the tail gates are chained open too, so the locks are empty. 

That worked well at Marple - what could possibly go wrong?

[Boater Sam]

Can someone explain the logic about leaving locks empty please?

It was never done in the working days.

Marple flight has been severely damaged by doing this. 

Is it a new CRT strategy to publicise the waterways? Come to an open lock and dive in?

[Robbo]

7 minutes ago, Boater Sam said:

Can someone explain the logic about leaving locks empty please?

It was never done in the working days.

Marple flight has been severely damaged by doing this. 

Is it a new CRT strategy to publicise the waterways? Come to an open lock and dive in?

Guessing they shoved the ash at the top gates as these probably don’t leak as much as the bottom ones.   Perhaps the pressure of the water keeps the ash in place as well, where if the lock was full the pressure wouldn’t be there?

[Jerra]

28 minutes ago, Boater Sam said:

Can someone explain the logic about leaving locks empty please?

It was never done in the working days.

Marple flight has been severely damaged by doing this. 

Is it a new CRT strategy to publicise the waterways? Come to an open lock and dive in?

A couple of questions/points.

 

Not being near the flight how has leaving the gates open damaged the flight?

 

I thought (and many argue) that leaving gates open should be the norm and was the norm in the days of working boats.

[frangar]

17 minutes ago, Jerra said:

A couple of questions/points.

 

Not being near the flight how has leaving the gates open damaged the flight?

 

I thought (and many argue) that leaving gates open should be the norm and was the norm in the days of working boats.

Leaving the Lock empty for long periods could cause the Lock to bow in as there isn’t any water pressure on the walls. This is what is thought may have happened to the second failed Lock on the marple flight. 

 

 

[TheBiscuits]

16 minutes ago, Jerra said:

A couple of questions/points.

 

Not being near the flight how has leaving the gates open damaged the flight?

 

I thought (and many argue) that leaving gates open should be the norm and was the norm in the days of working boats.

When CRT surveyed Marple last Autumn, lock 11 was fine.  It was left empty all winter, and the current thinking is that the frozen ground pushed the stones toward the empty lock chamber, narrowing the lock to the point it is is unsafe to use.  If the lock was full, the water would have both supported the stonework and kept the stone warmer, so it probably would not have happened.

 

Leaving gates open on a working lock is a different thing - around half the time, the lock would be full of water with the top gates open.

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, frangar said:

Leaving the Lock empty for long periods could cause the Lock to bow in as there isn’t any water pressure on the walls. This is what is thought may have happened to the second failed Lock on the marple flight. 

 

 

So how does that tie in with the suggestion leaving locks empty should be the norm?   They would be empty for more than half the time (Night + between boats) surely the damage would be the same only slower.

[Detling]

18 minutes ago, Jerra said:

So how does that tie in with the suggestion leaving locks empty should be the norm?   They would be empty for more than half the time (Night + between boats) surely the damage would be the same only slower.

You are assuming the last boat was going down, there is a 50% chance the lock was full overnight.

[NB Esk]

Also, what about the ones permanently signed "leave lock empty after use" there's a couple like that on the HNC.  Can only think there's a problem with leakage through the chamber walls, which would be made worse if left full.  If that's the case they need fixing and if not, does anyone know?

 

 

[Robbo]

5 minutes ago, NB Esk said:

Also, what about the ones permanently signed "leave lock empty after use" there's a couple like that on the HNC.  Can only think there's a problem with leakage through the chamber walls, which would be made worse if left full.  If that's the case they need fixing and if not, does anyone know?

 

 

Leaks into the nearest house basement probably.

[TheBiscuits]

5 minutes ago, NB Esk said:

Also, what about the ones permanently signed "leave lock empty after use" there's a couple like that on the HNC.  Can only think there's a problem with leakage through the chamber walls, which would be made worse if left full.  If that's the case they need fixing and if not, does anyone know?

 

Most of the locks I know that have "Leave Empty" signs on them leak into other buildings - ex-lockies cottage cellars for example.   Yes, they need fixing, but it's all down to money and time - what don't they fix to fix that one.

[NB Esk]

13 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Leaks into the nearest house basement probably.

 

11 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Most of the locks I know that have "Leave Empty" signs on them leak into other buildings - ex-lockies cottage cellars for example.   Yes, they need fixing, but it's all down to money and time - what don't they fix to fix that one.

Both probably true but with a canal that's "Aqually challenged" ? such as HNC, a full lock of water goes to waste if the next boat is a following one.

Edited August 1, 2018 by NB Esk
Cos I don't know my following from my opposite to following, lol....

[Nightwatch]

I was going to come up with a great suggestion, but I was beaten to it. Anyway I 'was' going to suggest why not repair the leaking gates to stop leakage? 

Is there still some 'old time' expertise within CRT. Shirley they know potential damage from leaving a Lock empty. I'm not experienced enough to advise CRT on such matters, but this forum has enough knowledge to send off a letter of advice.

[billh]

44 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

When CRT surveyed Marple last Autumn, lock 11 was fine.  It was left empty all winter, and the current thinking is that the frozen ground pushed the stones toward the empty lock chamber, narrowing the lock to the point it is is unsafe to use.  If the lock was full, the water would have both supported the stonework and kept the stone warmer, so it probably would not have happened.

 

Leaving gates open on a working lock is a different thing - around half the time, the lock would be full of water with the top gates open.

This is not correct! Lock 11  towpath side wall has been bulging in for several years. More than one user reported problems with 7ft wide boats at 11 to CRT in 2017, the reports were acknowledged, so they were aware of it. This was before the fiasco at Lock 15 closed the canal . So CRT had all last winter to monitor lock 11 and correct the problem(which may well have got worse during the winter). At the  very brief opening of the flight in May I was laughed at when  I pointed out to an official that 11  was going to be a problem, 24 hours later,it was.

CRT have spent 2.5million at Marple in the last 12 months, 300k of that went on a useless stainless steel fence on the aqueduct, plenty more on towpath improvements etc. Yet the canal remains unusable for  boats. Really good performance that isn't it?

[Jerra]

53 minutes ago, Detling said:

You are assuming the last boat was going down, there is a 50% chance the lock was full overnight.

So OK, but surely the damage is going to occur just even more slowly.

 

I am struggling with the concept that locks need to be full or they are damaged.  I feel existing is enough to damage them e.g. standing full must have a detrimental effect on the bits under water.

[TheBiscuits]

4 minutes ago, billh said:

This is not correct! Lock 11  towpath side wall has been bulging in for several years. More than one user reported problems with 7ft wide boats at 11 to CRT in 2017, the reports were acknowledged, so they were aware of it.

Apologies - I should have been more specific.  Lock 11 was fine for 6'10" beam boats, which is the current standard of maintenance.  I know that must be infuriating for those with 7' 1/2" boats, but that is where we are currently. 

[Ace 01]

We are on the K and A and some locks are signed as to be left empty. These are the ones without by wash weirs and the excess water goes over the top paddle culvert into the lock chamber then exits via the open bottom paddles or gates. These can cause water loss if anyone going down goes to fill a lock without noticing the bottom paddles have been left open by a previous boater.

 

Cheers

 

David

[TheBiscuits]

2 minutes ago, Jerra said:

So OK, but surely the damage is going to occur just even more slowly.

 

I am struggling with the concept that locks need to be full or they are damaged.  I feel existing is enough to damage them e.g. standing full must have a detrimental effect on the bits under water.

It depends what sort of damage you are talking about.  Locks do get damaged by using them, whether full or empty, and need maintaining.  Any lock that has a "pisser" in it is already damaged - the voids behind the walls fill and empty causing more damage every time the lock is used.

 

The damage caused by leaving locks empty for months on end is far more sudden than years of gradually getting worse - it just fails when they reopen the flight/lock.

[David Mack]

On wide locks, regular use off a single gate by narrowboats results in wear of the mitre post sealing face at the level of boat rubbing strips - about 2-3 feet above water level. On the GU you can see every pair of bottom gates leaks at this level. On top gates the corresponding damage occurs above water level so does not cause leakage. Leave a GU lock full with the top gates open or just ajar and the leakage through the bottom gates overnight is substantial - enough to our boats on the bottom in shorter pounds. Leave the same lock empty, the top gates seal, and leakage is much much less. 

3 minutes ago, Ace 01 said:

We are on the K and A and some locks are signed as to be left empty. These are the ones without by wash weirs and the excess water goes over the top paddle culvert into the lock chamber then exits via the open bottom paddles or gates. These can cause water loss if anyone going down goes to fill a lock without noticing the bottom paddles have been left open by a previous boater.

 

Such locks used to be arranged that water running over the top paddle culvert weirs would fill the lock, but the bottom gate planking stopped below the level of the lockside, so the excess water just weired over the bottom gates if the paddles were closed.

[billh]

8 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Apologies - I should have been more specific.  Lock 11 was fine for 6'10" beam boats, which is the current standard of maintenance.  I know that must be infuriating for those with 7' 1/2" boats, but that is where we are currently. 

Since when was 6ft 10ins  a standard? Are you saying all those boats over that width will be barred from using the narrow canals because CRT can't be bothered  with proper maintenance? Have they rebuilt Marple Lock 15 to this new standard? Most historic NBs are over this "standard" ,looks like they may be consigned to museums then?

[AndrewIC]

12 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

The lock flights at Wigan (locks 65 to 85), Johnsons Hillocks (58 to 64), Blackburn Flight (locks 52 to 57), Barrowford Locks (45 to 51), Greenberfield Locks (42 to 44), Bank Newton Locks (36 to 41) and Gargrave (locks 35 to 30) will be padlocked closed and the gates will be ashed up to reduce leakage.  To prevent unauthorised access though vandalism, measures will be taken to make the locks inoperable.

 

Ground paddle shafts removed and gate paddle shafts cut off is vandalism!

Has the gate paddle rack been unbolted from the rod, or actually cut? Why such destruction for a "temporary" closure?

[Midnight]

16 minutes ago, David Mack said:

On wide locks, regular use off a single gate by narrowboats results in wear of the mitre post sealing face at the level of boat rubbing strips - about 2-3 feet above water level. On the GU you can see every pair of bottom gates leaks at this level. On top gates the corresponding damage occurs above water level so does not cause leakage. Leave a GU lock full with the top gates open or just ajar and the leakage through the bottom gates overnight is substantial - enough to our boats on the bottom in shorter pounds. Leave the same lock empty, the top gates seal, and leakage is much much less. 

Such locks used to be arranged that water running over the top paddle culvert weirs would fill the lock, but the bottom gate planking stopped below the level of the lockside, so the excess water just weired over the bottom gates if the paddles were closed.

If boaters played their part by opening 1 gate fully and the other about half this damage could be avoided. Anyone who says they can enter/exit through 1 gate without touching every time is dreaming

Edited August 1, 2018 by Midnight

[Jerra]

5 minutes ago, Midnight said:

If boaters played their part by opening 1 gate fully and the other about half this damage could be avoided. Anyone who says they can enter/exit through 1 gate without touching every time is dreaming

If you are going to the trouble of half opening the second gate why not fully open it.