Hillmorton

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, rowland al said:

No seriously, queues increase the chance of a boat coming down using the water you sent into the lock to go up.  

 

Only if there are approx same numbers up and down at much the same time.  Thus does not seem to ge as frequent as assumed.

[rowland al]

50 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Only if there are approx same numbers up and down at much the same time.  Thus does not seem to ge as frequent as assumed.

Well I agree it may not work sometimes, but creating a bottleneck does increase the chances. Even one boat coming the other way saves more water than having to set a lock with no boat in it. 

[alan_fincher]

2 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Well I agree it may not work sometimes, but creating a bottleneck does increase the chances. Even one boat coming the other way saves more water than having to set a lock with no boat in it. 

 

You have missed the point that at Hillmorton the twinned locks actually make it far more likely that one of a pair will be in your favour as you approach it, and will not need turning.

 

By having two some unbalanced working is more likely to be possible without filling or emptying a lock with no boat in it.

 

If the same number of boats ultimately go through, it is more likely that water will have been wasted if one of each pair of locks is padlocked out of use, not less likely.

 

This subtle nicety seems to be lost on CRT, (but to be fair also seems to be lost on some contributing to this thread........).

 

Locking one of each pair out of use will generally only save water if the resultant queues discourage people from going through at all.  If it doesn't have that effect, then it may very well waste rather than save water.

 

 

[rowland al]

1 minute ago, alan_fincher said:

 

You have missed the point that at Hillmorton the twinned locks actually make it far more likely that one of a pair will be in your favour as you approach it, and will not need turning.

 

By having two some unbalanced working is more likely to be possible without filling or emptying a lock with no boat in it.

 

If the same number of boats ultimately go through, it is more likely that water will have been wasted if one of each pair of locks is padlocked out of use, not less likely.

.

 

 

 

The whole action of restricting movement through Hillmorton (hence the queues) is what’s saving water. Thats why C&RT have also been restricting the hours.

 

Water will still flow down when a boat coming the other way uses yours after you ascend.  

 

As I also said, some peoole may also decide not to cruise due to the inconvenience.

 

I’m glad you removed the insult BTW. 

[alan_fincher]

1 minute ago, rowland al said:

I’m glad you removed the insult BTW. 

From where?

Not the post you have quoted, obviously, as a simple check will show you that it has not been edited.

[rowland al]

5 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

From where?

Not the post you have quoted, obviously, as a simple check will show you that it has not been edited.

Interesting as it’s back in your original post, and no it’s not lost on C&RT or necessarily anyone here. 

 

 

 

[alan_fincher]

11 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Interesting as it’s back in your original post, and no it’s not lost on C&RT or necessarily anyone here.

I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what it is you are talking about.

I don't understand who I am claimed to have insulted, or where I am supposed to have done it.

What have I removed, and from where?

Without that information I can't respond to your claim.

[rowland al]

1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:

 

You have missed the point that at Hillmorton the twinned locks actually make it far more likely that one of a pair will be in your favour as you approach it, and will not need turning.

 

By having two some unbalanced working is more likely to be possible without filling or emptying a lock with no boat in it.

 

If the same number of boats ultimately go through, it is more likely that water will have been wasted if one of each pair of locks is padlocked out of use, not less likely.

 

This subtle nicety seems to be lost on CRT, (but to be fair also seems to be lost on some contributing to this thread........).

 

Locking one of each pair out of use will generally only save water if the resultant queues discourage people from going through at all.  If it doesn't have that effect, then it may very well waste rather than save water.

 

 

Your 4th paragraoh subtily implies that C&RT (and some here) are mistaken (lost) WRT to how the Hillmorton locks work. As I have explained, shutting down one side DOES aave water by restricting the overall flow of boats. That’s the main  benefit/inconvenience!  .  

 

Yes, I agree that when both sides are in operation, it speeds up the flow of boats (which is exactly the reason why they have shut one side down). 

 

Don’t worry about it Alan, it’s getting late! Lol

[nicknorman]

Having one side locked must surely increase water usage at quiet times because it increases the probability of a boatless lock having to be filled or emptied.

[Captain Pegg]

This is all supposition. Whether it saves water or not depends upon the pattern of boat movements. Either of the arguments presented are logical. The only way to find out for certain would be by measurement. That is something CRT are probably able to do.

 

JP

Edited August 29, 2018 by Captain Pegg

[matty40s]

16 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Having one side locked must surely increase water usage at quiet times because it increases the probability of a boatless lock having to be filled or emptied.

Exactly, spot on and CRT or RowlandAl can't see this. 

I can see the logic of locking the whole flight overnight to stop leakage if someone leaves gates open and let the back pumps have a chance of fighting back, but one lock only at this time of year is daft.

[canalboat]

1 hour ago, matty40s said:

I can see the logic of locking the whole flight overnight to stop leakage if someone leaves gates open and let the back pumps have a chance of fighting back, but one lock only at this time of year is daft.

You are the first one to consider the back pumping as an element in saving water.  When one of the pair of locks is shut, the pumps can more easily keep up with demand and effectively re-use the same water but when both locks are open they clearly do not, as evidenced by the drop in pound levels.

[rowland al]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

Having one side locked must surely increase water usage at quiet times because it increases the probability of a boatless lock having to be filled or emptied.

Again this is the point, C&RT are effectively reducing ‘quiet’ times by inducing queues. 

 

Also don’t forget that even if both sides are in operation, there is stil a 25% chance of borh sides being set against you. 

 

If say 10 boats were in a queue to come down when both sides are open and no boats were goung up, only thr first two boats have the possibility of not having to set the locks. However more water will be used in a hour as the queue can get through twice as quick  using both sides. 

 

Anyway, I still reckon the main objective is to piss boaters off! That appears to be working!

 

[Mike Todd]

10 hours ago, rowland al said:

 

The whole action of restricting movement through Hillmorton (hence the queues) is what’s saving water. Thats why C&RT have also been restricting the hours.

 

Water will still flow down when a boat coming the other way uses yours after you ascend.  

 

As I also said, some peoole may also decide not to cruise due to the inconvenience.

 

I’m glad you removed the insult BTW. 

Is there any evidence that the total traffic has been reduced as a consequence? My unscientific observation last week was that few people arrived knowing about the restriction and the hire boats at least, did not have the same options as others. The news has not been that widely publicised so it's impactmust be limited. If there has been less tsaffic than last year then it would be important to jntetview a sample to determine motivation, but how do you find those who did nof come as a result?

 

It would be Interesting go know if CaRT have done any computer modelling. It would, I think, be a very simple task for an expert in simulation as the parameters of the hypothesis are fairly straightforward.

[alan_fincher]

9 hours ago, rowland al said:

Don’t worry about it Alan, it’s getting late! Lol

So having accused me or having removed an insult, you are not actually going to offer evidence that I did?

[MtB]

13 minutes ago, canalboat said:

You are the first one to consider the back pumping as an element in saving water.  When one of the pair of locks is shut, the pumps can more easily keep up with demand and effectively re-use the same water but when both locks are open they clearly do not, as evidenced by the drop in pound levels.

 

Is the water actually wasted or lost though? Surely a drop in the pound above the flight results in a corresponding rise in the pound below. Both are very long pounds and there is at least one thread discussing low levels in the lower pound so the water probably doesnt get wasted over overflow weirs etc, it just gets pumped back up again overnight.  

[dogless]

We're currently on the south Oxford.

On our travels south from Napton we met lots of lovely people who'd popped out of their marinas. 

At least three boats for definite went up Napton flight, returning the next day.

At Claydon we met boats popping to Fenny and back overnight.

Even on the low pound between Kings Sutton and Grants there were boats just popping out and back to and from Banbury and Cropredy.

And why shouldn't they?

Dues all paid, they're entitled surely to use the services they pay for.

Yet all the locks are on restrictions.

I suggest that the restrictions have more to do with a vacuous attempt by an inept C&RT management to demonstrate who's in charge, than any significant water savings.

Other opinions are of course available

Rog

 

[Jerra]

4 minutes ago, dogless said:

.

re to do with a vacuous attempt by an inept C&RT management to demonstrate who's in charge, than any significant water savings.

 

I suspect they do it as PR more than anything else i.e. it looks as if we can do something to save water.   There will be the same number of boat passages no matter the hours.  Yes there may be a slight saving by ensuring a queue so it is one up one down but does this happen on anything other than the most popular locks.

[Tanglewood]

On 25/08/2018 at 14:16, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes. You get into your rhythm, are pulling away satisfyingly, in your 'zone' and working well, then suddenly you see a pesky volly coming down the towpath waving at you telling you to STOP, there is a boat five locks up coming the other way and you must wait as he's just set all the locks against you... Grrrr!!!

 

 

 

 

Yes, why should you be the guilty party - no-one, boater or volunteer should be setting locks so far ahead, unless its Loxton, - and volunteers doing this are setting  a very bad example.  

[rowland al]

1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:

So having accused me or having removed an insult, you are not actually going to offer evidence that I did?

“This subtle nicety seems to be lost on CRT, (but to be fair also seems to be lost on some contributing to this thread........).“ 

 

This patronising comment had been removed when I first quoted it. Then ‘magically’ re-appeared. Ok, maybe Gremlins then...lol

 

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Is the water actually wasted or lost though? Surely a drop in the pound above the flight results in a corresponding rise in the pound below. Both are very long pounds and there is at least one thread discussing low levels in the lower pound so the water probably doesnt get wasted over overflow weirs etc, it just gets pumped back up again overnight.  

The issue is supposedly about water loss due to evaporation, only rain can balance that loss out. Back pumping obviously helps but fixing leaks would help a lot more!

[alan_fincher]

4 minutes ago, rowland al said:

This patronising comment had been removed when I first quoted it. Then ‘magically’ re-appeared. Ok, maybe Gremlins then...lol

And all without the thread having been edited!

I think it is fair comment.  Having both of each pair of locks operational should save water.

If they were really worried about it, rather than just paying lip service to water saving, they could reinstate the paddles that join each pair of chambers and used to allow one lock to be used as a side pond for the other.  With those operational, (but omly if people had the wit to understand them and know how to use them), real water savings could be achieved.

[rowland al]

4 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

And all without the thread having been edited!

I think it is fair comment.  Having both of each pair of locks operational should save water.

If they were really worried about it, rather than just paying lip service to water saving, they could reinstate the paddles that join each pair of chambers and used to allow one lock to be used as a side pond for the other.  With those operational, (but omly if people had the wit to understand them and know how to use them), real water savings could be achieved.

I just think it’s funny that here we are arguing about the subtleness of whether locking one side saves water and yet millions of gallons are being wasted due to lack of maintence. You couldn’t make it up. 

 

BTW, Alan do you,or someone with you, have any admin privalages on this forum. Alternatively maybe a mod intervened and changed their mind?! Looking back I see you’ve managed to have a thread.locked after making an announcement. 

[alan_fincher]

11 minutes ago, rowland al said:

I just think it’s funny that here we are arguing about the subtleness of whether locking one side saves water and yet millions of gallons are being wasted due to lack of maintence. You couldn’t make it up.

Well on that one we agree absolutely 100%.

Whatever CRT claim, things are clearly falling apart increasingly, not only in a water wasting way, but also in a "it's just bloody dangerous" way.

A trip we have just done up to Shardlow has exposed just how much is known about, but no attempt made to fix it.

Edited August 29, 2018 by alan_fincher
Double quote moved.

[alan_fincher]

5 minutes ago, rowland al said:

BTW, Alan do you,or someone with you, have any admin privalages on this forum. Alternatively maybe a mod intervened and changed their mind?! Looking back I see you’ve managed to have a thread.locked after making an announcement. 

No, only people marked as "Moderator", "Site Crew" etc can do admin tasks, and I, (nor anybody "with me"), have ever had those privileges.

Anybody can make a request for moderators or other site crew to intervene in a thread, as you know, but whether they then do so, (or what they do) is their decision.

I can't understand why you think I would want to have invisibly removed, (and then subsequently reinstated!), a comment that I feel is fully justified.  I would call it a criticism, (which was fully intended), not an insult (which wasn't, and which few but you would think it was, I think).

[Captain Pegg]

50 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

Well on that one we agree absolutely 100%.

Whatever CRT claim, things are clearly falling apart increasingly, not only in a water wasting way, but also in a "it's just bloody dangerous" way.

A trip we have just done up to Shardlow has exposed just how much is known about, but no attempt made to fix it.

I don't agree with your view that closing one set of locks absolutely does not save water. Your comment implies that this somehow makes me less able to understand the issue than you. It isn't an insult but neither is it polite or a good debating tactic.

 

On the subject of maintenance I doubt water leakage is a significant factor at Hillmorton. They are the only significant locks between the bottom of Napton and top of Atherstone and apparently have back pumps.

 

An organisation like CRT will always have a significant workbank of repairs and probably have fairly rudimentary methods for prioritisation of workload. The value of their assets and the penalties for asset failure probably don't justify the major expenditure required to move to state of the art tools and techniques. We may not like the result of this - which is a regime of short term repairs rather than a preventive regime - but we as boaters may be even less inclined to pay to change it. Unfortunately conditions that vary from the norm expose the weaknesses in the regime.

 

JP