narrowboatworld

An RSJ just to support a handrail?

Is that faint whirring I hear in the background the sound of a certain Mr Brindley rotating at high RPM in his grave?

Matt_Black

For those who want to peruse the latest sell-off of BW kit, you might like to visit

www.go-dove.com and look at the event on the 24th May

Orph

I wonder whether some bright spark has thought he might be able to kill two birds with one stone (or two boaters with one RSJ) by constructing the handrail support so as to prevent the ends of the lock from collapsing inwards? A case of a good idea going badly wrong because the designer concerned didn't visit the site and/or has never been on a boat?

Swallowman.

Whilst 'people power' is an effective force, it is a slow process to change city-hall.  The topic of this thread was (originally) about the safety to boaters of this design for the handrails. This is an operational issue that needs addressing immediately. Many boaters are, like myself, of the 'grey fraternity'. Unlike me, they are not all internet savvy. They may even be unaware of this issue and the first time they know of it is when they meet it (not literally I hope). These people cannot be expected to correspond with an unknown Boaters Rep about it. I hope this will change in the future and we are all made aware of the role of these Reps and what they can bring about.

In the mean time, BW Operations must sort it out.

As an aside, I only report things to BW that I have direct involvement with and do not report 'hearsay'. Occaisionally I do chat with the odd BW person and pass-on feelings and thoughts but only put on paper what I've seen myself.  Where I am going with is that with fewer boats moving around, certainly around here (Staffs & Worcs) the number of people who will  actually report stuff will decline. This means that any report, even if only one comes in, must be investigated and where a problem (to boaters) exists, must be acted on.

My two points, made in an earlier posting stand.

Orph

Because "We've had hundreds of complaints from boaters" has much more weight than "We don't like this". Don't forget that BW's senior management is infested with arrogant know-nothings who are deluded that they know best. It'll take some time for our representatives to overcome this and it's in all our interests to give them the ammunition (and the chance to prove those who, like me, doubt their effectiveness and independence) wrong.

I am not advocating that we do not complain to the BW (CaRT) operational staff about the RSJs, fences etc. These complaints must be made whenever a safety issue is observed. Complaints to the operational staff MUST be the first point of contact. By all means pass this on to Boaters Reps (when the contact channels are in place). 

What worried me most was that it appeared that Boaters Reps (according to Ray) were already aware of the issue but wouldn't 'take it up' unless lots of boaters contacted them.

My points are -

If Boaters Reps are aware of an issue why do they need more complaints (one should be enough on a specific safety issue) before taking it up?

If Boaters Reps do 'take it up' what can they do about it (bearing in mind that Committee meetings are few and far between) as their leverage power is small? 

Orph

On some locks the gap behind the ladder is about a 2" at best! It's only possible to use the ladder by placing your foot sideways(!) on the rungs. Gailey lock on the S&W is an example and some on the Shroppie are the same. They represent a significant danger to myself, being a single hander.

Glascote top lock  (Coventry Canal)  and Stoke bottom lock (T&M) both leak water onto the steps at the tail of the lock. They are now covered in green slime which is as slippery as ice. They have been like that for years.

BW has a weird attitude to safety. Over zealous one minute, couldn't care less the next.

Perhaps we should offer to take BW's H&S bods for boat cruises in the winter and show them what REAL safety is all about?

Ralph

Orph misses my point. Of course the hazard should be removed (it shopuld never have been installed - for goodness' sake there are enough sensible handrail designs in place on the Staffs & Worcs and adjacent canals! The immediate issue of removing the hazard will be helped by complaining to the local waterways office. The more complaints they get, the more likely their fingers are to be extracted.

THEY WILL ONLY TAKE NOTICE IF THEY GET LOTS OF COMPLAINTS.

The deeper issue of why idiotic decisions like installing dangers to boaters, and the impression thus given that the safety of vandals and trespassers matters more to BW than that of the payiong customers is why the boaters reps need to take it up, as a shining (?) example of how BWs culture needs to change.

THE BOATERS' REPS CAN ONLY TAKE NOTICE IF THEY GET LOTS OF INDIVCIDUAL COMPLAINTS.

Ray,

Unfortunately you have set my 'blue touch paper' aflame! (Please do not take offense but I expected this to raise up sooner or later and my comments below are not aimed at you personally)

This issue of the RSJ is a safety issue and MUST be sorted out immediately. The specific danger of the dangerously low and unannounced headroom must be rectified immediately.  This is not the time to put it to any committee but for the operational staff at BW (CaRT in the future) to rectify immediately.  The trouble with any committee the time taken to convince the majority (of non-boaters) that this is a danger to life will be too long.

Any safety issue. even if reported by only one boater, must be investigated promptly even if, after checking, it proves to be groundless and there is no problem.  To consider that "if sufficient boaters contact them they will take it up" is not good enough!

My worry is that many such issues will never get resolved in a timely manner (if at all) with a labyrinth of committees to get through.

Orph

I've recently seen a near miss in a lock where bow fenders hung up and nearly sunk the boat involved because they were chained on in 4  directions.

Can I ask all readers to make sure that their front fenders are attached only at the top, and that one side has a weak link - small cord or a chain link with a quarter of an inch removed from the top. This will mean that the weak link will break in a hang-up or trapping, leading to the nuisance of re-attaching the fender rather than the major disaster of a sinking. About ten years ago the lack of a weak link caused a holiday boat for people with disabilities to sink, causing 3 or 4 deaths. I don't understand why weak links in bow fenders aren't a BSC requirement.

It's becoming obvious that the management / engineering staff employed at BW/ CART today aren't a patch on those that built the canals in the first place.

To solve a similar problem the canal builders simply used arched brackets made out of cast iron. Elegant and efficient. Some are still around today!

Boaters know where they are but I don't suppose anyone at  BW does?

The problem was solved 230 years ago chaps.....wake up BW; it appears you can't even copy Brindley et al properly now?

Ralph

Latest amendment to this article now says.....

"Quote" Have now discovered the boat came straight to the lock and down without waiting—Ed "Unquote"

So did the boat go down the lock backwards, then, as what is clearly pictured seems to be a boat going up a lock.

Assuming it is actually going uphill, (not as described by 'Ed'), and as it is a lock part way up the flight, we might safely assume that the boat has already worked through the lock below this only shortly before, and knows nobody was around to share at previous locks ?

I don't think BW are anticipating that, once you start a flight with nobody else having turned up, you then add a lengthy wait at every lock in the flight, to see if anybody has managed to catch you up, (and they would need to be working through singly too, or they still aren't going to be able to share, are they ?).

It seems to me this picture taken in isolation, (uphill boat in middle of flight), in no way proves they were not being responsible ?  Does it ??

Yes, signs next....then 'reduced headroom' warnings all over the place.  What next ...safety nets for when the odd urchin tries to walk along the handrails (they do this on the bridge opposite the yard)

This reduction in headroom (literally I think) is so dangerous as it appears without warning in a place where it has never been previously!

I honestly wonder where all the sense resides at BW. 

On a different tack... I wonder what the 9 strong CaRT Heritage Commitee wil think :-)

Orph

The low RSJ now fixed on Fallings Sands Lock gives a new meaning to the word 'guillotine'!

Surely it could have been raised to be level with the actual bridge.  Who put it in?  Or more to the point which BW idiot okayed it?  I bet the next thing will be 'Mind Your Head' notices, as silly notices are BW answers to everything.

James Henry

How stupid!

I have just read Tom's report in NbW about lock bridges on the Staffs & Worcs.

Again we see that those in a position of responsibility have only looked at an issue from everyones point of view EXCEPT boaters!  We had the bollards issues, we've seen needless fences going up at some locks and now we find that structures that have been in service for 200 years without a problem for the actual users, must be made dangerous in the name of 'SAFETY'

The designer of the handrail support RSJ needs taking out in a boat and shown the possible effect of his rash design! (won't happen)

I wonder what the cost of this decapitation device was?

Orph