Hillmorton

[alan_fincher]

25 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

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.

The problem is that nobody has put up a good explanation why taking one set of locks out of action will save water, assuming that all the boats that would have gone through still do.

 

I have fully accepted that if it actually deters people using the locks at all, that it will save water.  However on that basis CRT could permanently chain up every lock on the system, and the water saving will be even greater - that's hardly the point - it is supposed to be a navigation, and unless there are valid reasons for deliberatey holding people up, they should not do it.

 

If someone can present a reasoned argument why actually reducing the chances you will find a lock set in your favour reduces water wastage, I'll be happy to consider it, but I don't believe anybody has.

I have certainly in the past had conversations with people in the operational side of running that section who have agreed such measures are counter-productive.  At the moment I still believe they are.

It is a valid thing to debate, because year on year these locks have more traffic than any others anywhere on the entire CRT network.

[MtB]

2 hours ago, rowland al said:

“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

 

The most probable explanation is Alan’s comment never disappeared, you just couldn’t find it.  

2 hours ago, rowland al said:

“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

 

The most probable explanation is Alan’s comment never disappeared, you just couldn’t find it. 

[rowland al]

1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:

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).

I think the problem with some people is that they don’t want to read explanations because they know it all! 

[George and Dragon]

25 minutes ago, rowland al said:

I think the problem with some people is that they don’t want to read explanations because they know it all! 

I hope Alan takes that as a criticism rather than an insult although I suspect is it intended as such.

[alan_fincher]

4 hours ago, rowland al said:

I think the problem with some people is that they don’t want to read explanations because they know it all! 

I think the other problem is that most of the explanations being given as to why what CRT have done is a good idea are flawed.

I notice you have still avoided giving one that stands up to close scrutiny.

4 hours ago, George and Dragon said:

I hope Alan takes that as a criticism rather than an insult although I suspect is it intended as such.

Oh don't worry - I'm sure I know who 'rowland al' is, and what most of  his former identities have been.  He is not saying anything unexpected!

Edited August 29, 2018 by alan_fincher
Typo

[Captain Pegg]

5 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

The problem is that nobody has put up a good explanation why taking one set of locks out of action will save water, assuming that all the boats that would have gone through still do.

 

I have fully accepted that if it actually deters people using the locks at all, that it will save water.  However on that basis CRT could permanently chain up every lock on the system, and the water saving will be even greater - that's hardly the point - it is supposed to be a navigation, and unless there are valid reasons for deliberatey holding people up, they should not do it.

 

If someone can present a reasoned argument why actually reducing the chances you will find a lock set in your favour reduces water wastage, I'll be happy to consider it, but I don't believe anybody has.

I have certainly in the past had conversations with people in the operational side of running that section who have agreed such measures are counter-productive.  At the moment I still believe they are.

It is a valid thing to debate, because year on year these locks have more traffic than any others anywhere on the entire CRT network.

Think of it as a system and the objective is to reduce the volume of water from that used by a fixed number of boats per day when they are allowed to randomly operate the parallel locks in unrestricted fashion. The aim should be something that tends toward one lock full of water per boat which is the theoretical minimum volume that can be achieved.

 

One lock full per boat will be achieved when there is always a boat waiting to go in the opposite direction to the one that has just used the lock. Hence minimum water is used if lock usage can be regulated to make this happen. Logically, providing we accept there is a level of inefficiency of water usage when allowing boaters to operate the locks randomly a water saving will be achieved when a sufficient proportion of boats are regulated to ensure that one follows another in use opposing direction. While this can be achieved with either one or both of the parallel locks in operation the advantage of using only one of the locks is that by slowing down the rate boats passing through at times of peak usage the overall length of time during the day that there will be a boat available to make an opposing move will be extended, thus making it more likely that water will be saved.

 

A further advantage of having only one set of locks available is that once a queue has built up there isn't actually any need to supervise the operation with lock keepers since the taking in turns up and down will happen naturally. This means the system is still being regulated after they have gone home until such time as there are insufficient boats to keep taking it in turns. The impact of this is - or could be - controlled by restricting the overall hours the locks are open (I'm not sure if this is happening or not).

 

So it really all comes down to how many boats use the locks outside of the times that there are boats queued waiting for passage and whether the result of those boats using only one set of locks is more inefficient than that of a whole days random usage of the parallel locks. What is certain in my mind is that it is possible to save water by regulating the use of the locks and that using only one of the locks is part of that equation. What no one knows is whether it actually does save water, that would require measurement to confirm the reality.

 

My gut feeling is that the system in operation probably does save water albeit perhaps not that much. Similarly I suspect the water saved by having parallel locks and therefore less turning of locks also isn't that significant. Ultimately it's the same amount of work that needs to be done to get the same number of boats up and down the same rise/fall.

 

What puzzles me most is that with a short flight with very long pounds above and below, a probable net inflow to the pound above, and the availability of back pumps that there is really much of an issue at all. So while I expect CRT have the ability to both model and measure the impact of different methods of operation at Hillmorton I think it's entirely possible the operations and engineering teams haven't discussed the issue and the restrictions are possibly an over zealous middle management decision to appear to be doing something.

 

JP

Edited August 29, 2018 by Captain Pegg

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

The aim should be something that tends toward one lock full of water per boat which is the theoretical minimum volume that can be achieved.

 

I'd have thought one lock full of water can transit TWO boats through the lock. One in each direction. 

 

4 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

My gut feeling is that the system in operation probably does save water albeit perhaps not that much.

 

And I'd like to find out what you, or perhaps CRT mean by 'save' water. Do you mean save having to pump it back up to the top of the flight again? Or do you mean you consider that water used to work a lock is lost forever, and is somehow 'saved' by making the boats go through the lock more slowly? I don't think the latter is true.

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I'd have thought one lock full of water can transit TWO boats through the lock. One in each direction. 

 

 

And I'd like to find out what you, or perhaps CRT mean by 'save' water. Do you mean save having to pump it back up to the top of the flight again? Or do you mean you consider that water used to work a lock is lost forever, and is somehow 'saved' by making the boats go through the lock more slowly? I don't think the latter is true.

Yes, one lock full does transit one boat in each direction. 

 

I was simply referring to the amount of water that passes through the flight irrespective of pumping. Maybe CRT want to save money on pumping or perhaps the system hasn't been coping.

 

JP

[alan_fincher]

Captain Pegg,

A very reasoned argument.

 

One thing we almost certainly agree on is your final paragraph!

As you suggest, if there were always a queue for every lock, and in both directions, then I accept that having introduced that situation might achieve some water savings.

My personal experience so far this year is that probably much of the time there will not be a queue in each direction for every lock.  However I have no statistical information for how much of the day there is guaranteed queuing, and how much not.

I rather suspect CRT don't actually know either.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:

As you suggest, if there were always a queue for every lock, and in both directions, then I accept that having introduced that situation might achieve some water savings.

 

Well I asked that nice Capt Pegg and he doesn't know, but maybe you do Alan. What happens to the water that is 'wasted' by boaters operating the locks in a less than efficient manner? Does it vanish, or what?

 

Once we establish the answer, in what way does it get 'saved' by closing one of a pair of Hillmorton locks? I think it just hangs around in the lower pound waiting to be pumped backup again but maybe this is wrong and you (or CRT) know what really happens to the 'wasted' water. Just wondering really as this concept of 'saving' water strikes me as flawed and fails to stand up to analysis.

 

And another thought. If the paddles joining the Hillmorton locks together were recommissioned, managing the cross paddles would give the vollies there a genuinely useful task to carry out on the flight as yer average boater would probably not really grasp how they work on firt encountering them.

[alan_fincher]

10 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Well I asked that nice Capt Pegg and he doesn't know, but maybe you do Alan. What happens to the water that is 'wasted' by boaters operating the locks in a less than efficient manner? Does it vanish, or what?

 

Once we establish the answer, in what way does it get 'saved' by closing one of a pair of Hillmorton locks? I think it just hangs around in the lower pound waiting to be pumped backup again but maybe this is wrong and you (or CRT) know what really happens to the 'wasted' water. Just wondering really as this concept of 'saving' water strikes me as flawed and fails to stand up to analysis.

 

Well you would have to think, (hope?). that if there were back-pumps at Hillmorton that have the capacity to pump the total usage of all 6 locks for the day back to the top of the flight, that CRT would simply use those pumps as required, and it would be a non-issue.

I have therefore assumed that whatever pumps are there do not have sufficient capacity to guarantee that everything always gets pumped back to the top, as I'm very much hoping even in it's odder moments CRT are not seeking to address a non-problem.

 

But, no, I don't actually know how much of the water run down through the locks on a peak day CRT is actually able to return to the top.

As you say that would be a very interesting piece of information.  If you could always recover all of it, why would you ever bring in restrictions, other than to keep the electricity bill down?  It would make no sense.

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

I have therefore assumed that whatever pumps are there do not have sufficient capacity to guarantee that everything always gets pumped back to the top,

 

Ah now you may have put your finger on the problem here. 

 

If the pumps are NOT capable of pumping that much water back up overnight, then if lots boats go through in a day then northern pound just gets fuller and fuller and the southern pound lower and lower, forcing them to close one side to bring the rate of use of the Hillmorton locks down. 

[rowland al]

9 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

I think the other problem is that most of the explanations being given as to why what CRT have done is a good idea are flawed.

I notice you have still avoided giving one that stands up to close scrutiny.

Oh don't worry - I'm sure I know who 'rowland al' is, and what most of  his former identities have been.  He is not saying anything unexpected!

That explains the prejudice then.

 

Look guys, I’m passionate about the future of our canals. However I do wonder at times what members of the funding  public make of what they read here.

 

Do they see a picture of calm and kindness, or a picture of grumpy old men who can’t tolerate anyone? 

 

If we want to pass on this amazing heritage to the next generation we need to dump our prejudices and work together to protect the navigation.

 

 

[David Mack]

4 hours ago, rowland al said:

However I do wonder at times what members of the funding  public make of what they read here.

 

When they read this they probably think they've come across a grumpy old man who has lost the argument and resorted to shouting.

[rowland al]

7 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

When they read this they probably think they've come across a grumpy old man who has lost the argument and resorted to shouting.

I’d agree with you except that I have given a plausible explanation. For someone to conclude that it’s not plausuble they would need to come up with a decent counter argument rather than make subtle snide personal attacks. 

 

By thr way, I’ve just seen what happens when you compose text in the Apple Notes app and cut and paste it directly here. Quite impressive! :D

 

Mods - feel free to reduce the text size. 

 

[MtB]

11 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Mods - feel free to reduce the text size. 

 

Why don’t you reduce it yourself? You posted it! 

[rowland al]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Why don’t you reduce it yourself? You posted it! 

No edit button. ?

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, rowland al said:

No edit button. ?

 

This is puzzling. My edit button stays for about 24 hours. I wonder why the difference.

 

 

[alan_fincher]

3 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

This is puzzling. My edit button stays for about 24 hours. I wonder why the difference.

 

 

Mine doesn't - they have greatly reduced the tine you can edit for - possibly now only an hour or two.

 

Unless it works differently for different members?

[rowland al]

10 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

This is puzzling. My edit button stays for about 24 hours. I wonder why the difference.

 

 

Anyway, putting the amusement about the large text behind us for a sec, has C&RT been officially been asked why they think shutting one side down saves water. 

 

You never know. they might open that side up again if they agree with some of you.

 

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by rowland al

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

 

Unless it works differently for different members?

 

Well obviously it works differently for different members, I was wondering why!

 

[Dr Bob]

19 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Well obviously it works differently for different members, I was wondering why!

 

My edit button goes awol after an hour or so.

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

My edit button goes awol after an hour or so.

 

Yes it is well known that the life of the edit button varies according to the member. I was wondering why this should be. 

 

Possibly connected to length of time the poster has been a registered member?

 

Looking back through some of my posts it appears my edit button stays for 24 hours. How long does your stay for?

[rowland al]

4 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes it is well known that the life of the edit button varies according to the member. I was wondering why this should be. 

 

Possibly connected to length of time the poster has been a registered member?

 

 

Maybe device dependant? I’m using an older iPhone. 

 

Quite often you get different settings for mobile devices, maybe that constant isn’t shared between mobile and laptop devices. 

[Dr Bob]

10 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes it is well known that the life of the edit button varies according to the member. I was wondering why this should be. 

 

Possibly connected to length of time the poster has been a registered member?

 

Looking back through some of my posts it appears my edit button stays for 24 hours. How long does your stay for?

Please leave my member out of this. 

Ill get my coat.