narrowboatworld

I suspect that there is no perfect system and that circumstances vary from canal to canal and lock to lock. However, at present we do have a system in place that nearly everyone accepts and abides by - any attempt to change it will cause chaos for years and lead to endless "canal rage" stories.

I think we would be better occupied doing all we can to pressure BW into fixing leaks and repairing their back pumps, the latter of which were supposed to have cured the chronic problems on the south Oxford top pound and the Braunston pound - I am still mystified as to what has gone wrong.

David Hymers

The GU thing is, I think, simple to explain and it does not apply to all locks. Some of the locks are in such a bad state of repair they leak into adjoining properties, now probably sold into private ownership, so the cheapest way out for BW is to have the lock left empty.

I think the Birmingham thing is to do with no bywashes and bottom gates that are designed to act as a bywash so leaving the top paddles up the upper pound cannot flood. Now it escapes me as to why BW do not simply say leave the top gates open but if they did and a boat leaves the lock into the lower pound they would have to fill the lock and open the gate so top paddles up is probably the only method that fits both up and down boats. I suspect in working days the levels would be controlled by a lock keeper or three.

Tony Brooks

Thank you Ted for expanding on your thoughts, I can understand your position, now.

As Andy B points out  in his post, there is just as much if not more water lost through the process of having to close and open the gates as to BW's rules.

canalboy1949 obviously ignores the statistic that highlights that there are more boats on the canals today than in the past. However I'll accept that they probably don't don't move so much as the old boats did.

I have got my information from the many excellent history books around and also getting to know some of the old working boat-people. The other difference is that I haven't hired, I was taught my boating by a boat owner who tried to emulate the old boatsmen , as he was a history buff. Also I did most of my boating single handed, and found that the BW rules made the task difficult and dangerous, but working the machinery as it was designed to be used make the job a lot easier.

There is also the ambiguity of the silly BW rules as, on the Grand Union, south of Milton Keynes, towards London, the practice (reinforced by BW notices)  is to leave the lower gates open but with paddles closed, which kills your's and canalboy's argument dead, and to me removes all credibility from BW. On the BCN one frequently comes across BW notices tacked onto gates stating 'Close top gates with paddles open' or 'Close bottom gates with paddles raised'! I'm blowed if it makes any sort of sense (but then I've not been educated at university).

In the old days, as far as I can make out, nearly all top gates had gate paddles, and it is only in comparative recent times that BW have been removing them. It is much easier to open and/or shut a gate when the paddle is open. The effect is akin to stirring ones tea or coffee with a spoon (paddle closed) or fork (paddle open).

In response to Stillwater's post, I have to admit that I did not start boating on canals until 1966, so I have no experience of how locks were operated in the previous 200 years, but one can speculate that in those days, when labour was relatively cheap, the locks would be better maintained than they are today, and hence would leak less.

What I am saying is that, under today's conditions (which we can all agree are far from ideal) it makes sense to close all gates when leaving a lock.

And incidentally, that is what BWB were advising in their publications issued in the 1960's

Ted

The leakage should be minimised through maintenance, but after reading Ted's logical post a couple of times, I can understand the thoughts regarding the lock gate position. Although, I would argue that there is probably more water wasted turning a lock because the gates leak and have either allowed it to fill or empty of it's own accord regardless of the gates being closed.

As for the working boat traffic, I would of thought the wear on the lock gates would of been considerable in times gone by, and leakage would of been greater than it should be in this modern time with the tools and experience at hand.

So what are you saying Ted?

That for over two hundred years boatman didn't know how to work locks, and that they were misusing them!

Are you saying that it is only in the last thirty years, that canalboy, you and BW have discovered the CORRECT way to operate them, Mmmmmmmmmmmm stinks of arrogance to me!

Using machinery in a way it wasn't designed to be used, is a VERY foolish practice!

I think of it this way...

All lock gates leak to some extent.

When the lock is empty, the "head" of water on the top gates is about 4 feet of water at most.

When it is full, the head of water on the bottom gates of a 7 foot deep lock is 7 feet of water.

So the leakage though the bottom gates will usually be quite a lot more than that through the top gates.  Hence, leaving the top gates open will result in more leakage than if the top gates are closed.  With both gates closed the level in the lock will fall until the leakage through both sets of gates is equal, and this is the best that can be achieved.

Closing both sets of gates makes sense to me.

Ted

Read my top line on my post 'canalboy'!  You make the same assumptions as Vida.

Top gates aren't maintained differently to the bottom gates, hence both gates will leak (I didn't make this point clearly in my original post, so I've now edited it correctly). The BW solution only works if the top gates are watertight and the lower gates leak. Today we have power tools that should be used at regular intervals to maintain that we have watertight gates. The 'OLD' companies could do the task with manual tools, surely BW can crack the task with 'POWER' tools!

Try emulating the old (true) working boatmen rather than, self taught ex-hirers. They knew what they were doing, they understood about 'Kinetic Energy','How to save water' and 'Operate locks efficiently'. What BW tell boaters to do, has nothing to do with 'GOOD PRACTICE', but more to do with justifying their individual positions and getting promotion. The remuneration for the 'Top Dogs' makes it a worthwhile past-time.

Several times in the last year I have chatted with BW staff at faulty locks and been given the same explanation;- that it's ignorant boaters causing the damage, when it's obvious that it's lack of or bad maintenance that is at fault. It's obvious that the ground staff are being schooled to use this explanation as the standard excuse when addressing the public. When I worked on the Ambulances, management told us to say that "Control were very busy with 999 calls" if anyone asked why we took a long time to respond to their call. One can't depend on honesty anymore!

P.S. I wish I knew how to send in e-mails to the site rather than go through the forum every time. The link at the top of the page doesn't work on my PC.

What are you saying Vida, that BW maintain one gate better than the other?

In the old days (working days) the water resources were the same as they are today, but today we have the advantage of modern technology, which should give us an advantage! However BW choose to squander that advantage with advice which can't complete the task they see needs addressing.

EXAMPLE;- BOTH GATES SHUT, the bottom gate leaks more than the top gate, so the lock chamber looses water. Boat arrives at the lock needing to go down so needs to refill the partially empty chamber with water in order to open the gate to allow the boat to enter the lock.  LOCK LEAKING = LOSE OF WATER !

TOP GATE OPEN PADDLES UP, the same amount of water leaks out, but the level in the chamber stays full, therefor a boat can go straight into the lock, with no pfaffing around refilling the chamber and having a 'time lag' to opening the top gate.

LOCK STILL LEAKING = SAME LOSE OF WATER but CONSIDERABLE TIME SAVED = WATER SAVED!

Plus the added advantage of closing the gates with the paddles up, makes this operation so much easier and lessens the chance of a back injury!

The procedure is the same for going up the lock/s.

At Claydon top lock, the water level above the lock has not reached the by-wash for ages; imagine this scenario, as the top gate leaks, as most of them do and the bottom gates are left open, the pound above this lock will pass through the lock then down the by-wash of the lock(s) below.

As Claydon Lock is on the summit, then a significant amount of water could be lost overnight. This will not only effect the Claydon locks but at the other end of summit Marston Doles as well.

The Claydon flight, does not have back pumps, whereas the Napton flight including the two at Marston Doles fortunately does have pumps thank goodness although these are powerful pumps so are very costly to run.

Water flows downhill so unless the water is back pumped this lost water is lost for good.

The bottom line is that the source of the water needs to replenished with rain - simples! needs to supply, if it doesn't supply enough, then we're left with insufficient water to go boating on. I know that this is obvoius but people need to think about it none-the-less !

As BW(or whatever it will be called) are the managers of this precious resource, are responsible for maintaining the system then they shouldn't be critised if users make life difficult by letting water go to waste.

If gates are shut at both ends of the lock then water can't flow through it or if it does leak through it, then making sure the gates are shut reduces that flow of water significantly.

Incidentally, Wormleighton reservoir IS used albeit rarely, the main reservoir for the Oxford summit is Boddington, this was down by a good 10 feet or so, I presume that water levels need to be maintained in both these reservoirs to prevent them drying out. Boddington reservoir happens to be Banbury Sailing Club's main boating reservoir.

What worries me is when we go on our main 2 week cruise in September there may not enough water in the system, so......... I'm off now, to do my raindance !!

Vida

I've got to agree with you regarding the 'gates open/ closed' comment and over the years, the mantra has been close them. My early forays on the canals were over 20' ish  years ago. I learnt as I went along by watching others. The gate closing was becoming part of the education. You'd be classed as an irresponsible boater if you left a lock with a gate open. Stories of gate failure, water loss.

I've learnt a bit over the years, water loss if :-

Both gates shut - No, the sluice will carry the water around the lock.

Top gates open - No, the lock is full and the sluice will carry the water around the lock.

Bottom gates open - No, the same volume as the sluice route if the gates are maintained.

Gate failure? The water pressure in a full lock on the bottom gates is huge in comparison to that of the top gates, so the likely hood of a failure must be towards the bottom lock gates. Empty is safer, leave the gates as you leave the lock. It's hardly any safety at all if that's the thought seeing as leaking gates top and bottom all add to the flow  and not to water conservation.

Better still, advise the hire boats/ new boaters to linger a bit before locking, take a walk along the towpath and have a look-see if any other boat is approaching (and not just 100yds away). Hire fleets near locks should add a bit to their induction/ welcome pack to the new boaters.

Last time that I was on the South Oxford Canal, which was April 2010. I was reliably informed that the Wormleighton Reservoir was no longer in use. Which beggars the question whether, this, is a cause of the present shortage of water on the Oxford Canal, or at least is it a significant part of the problem?

The way that BW keeps coming up with 'STUPID' advice, really does make me wonder about the wisdom of employing so many degree qualified (intellectual virgins!) as 'managers(?)'.

Back in 1977 when I was a 'driving instructor', one of my pupils was studying 'The Scriptures' at university. I asked the obvious question to whether he was going to take up the cloth. "No" was his reply "thats to much like hard work", he wanted as much as possible for as little effort from his part, then he said that a degree shows that you are intelligent and knew how to use your brain, it doesn't have to be significant in the job one wanted to do. He wanted to go into city planning, which again makes one question what BW (and indeed any employer) are employing.

The advice which has been in use now for the last two decades, of closing lock gates after use, for instance, can not and never will conserve water, also it adds a significant danger in the lock operation. Locks were never designed to be operated in this way. Indeed the practice can and does waste large quantities of water. The practice is also probably responsible for many bad backs, through struggling to close gates with paddles down.