Martin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> We passed a boat going the
>other way at a lock on the Calder and Hebble today. The lock was empty
>so we waited for the other boat rather than turn it. After the other
>boat came up through the lock, we went down. The next lock, that the
>other boat had just come up through, was in sight. By the time we got to
>the next lock it was empty. The entire lockful had drained through leaky
>bottom gates. Had the other crew seen us and left the top gates open,
>the whole pound would have been draining away and would have been
>completely empty in under half an hour. Shutting the gates can save a
>lot of water in practice.
Only if BW is allowed to get away with not fixing the leaks.
BWB (as was) introduced the gates closing rule just so it *could* get
away with not maintaining the locks properly. If it knew that both
sets of gates were closed, it could worry less that one set leaked
badly. It didn't care that this practice was inconvenient for
boaters, and had many other bad results.
To me, that sort of screw-the-customer approach was not acceptable.
The locks are better maintained now. But not as well as they should
be. I think we should not allow BW to continue to force boaters to
make up for poor maintenance. It is inconsistent with BW's otherwise
much better attitude towards its customers. And if BW knows that only
one set of gates will be closed, it will have to maintain better.
However, I agree that the gates at a lock which is leaking badly
should be left closed. But BW should be notified of the leak by every
boater passing such a lock, until BW puts a notice at that lock saying
it is aware of the leakage there, plans to have it fixed by a stated
date, and apologises for asking boaters to leave the gates closed
until then. I would rather see the available money put into leak
fixing as a priority, rather than nonessential stuff like building
ever more elaborate sani stations.
>>So, no reasons against leaving them open, and no reasons for closing
>>them. Good argument for changing the rule, methinks.
>
>What you mean is no reasons that you like or agree with. What you think
>is not the only thing that matters.
No. What I meant was that I had shown in the part of my posting that
you snipped that the reasons put forward for not leaving gates open
didn't stand up.
"roger_millin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Adrian wrote:
>> In fact, I have a broad beam barge.
>
>Well if that isn't minor word nitpicking then I don't know what it
>is.
Then I guess you *don't* know the difference between broad and wide
beam, or why that difference is important. Briefly -
Broad beam is between 2.2 m and 4.3 m - i.e. wider than one narrow
boat but not wider than a breasted two. Wide beam is wider than that.
A broad craft has an extensive cruising range in Britain, and, once
there is a lift at Watford, will have a national one.
A wide craft is limited to the larger rivers, and a few major canals
such as the Aire & Calder. It will almost certainly never have a
network cruising range in Britain, let alone a national one.
>OK then, lets just take a worst case scenario
<snip of lengthy detail of one way to work locks>
>Now that's 5 operations versus 9 (and a lot of walking) so I can't
>see how you argue that left-open bottom gates cause only slight
>extra work and inconvenience.
That's because, apart from doing the operations in the wrong order
which causes a chunk of avoidable walking, you are not seeing the
bigger picture. Leaving gates open actually reduces the overall
amount of work the boating community does.
If the next boat at the lock is following you, then whether you or the
following boater closes the gates you exit by doesn't matter. The
same amount of work is done in total.
If the next boat comes from ahead of you, and you have shut the gates,
then the other boat has to (re)open them when it reaches the lock.
There have been two additional gate movements that would not have been
required if you had left the gates open. And the other boater has had
to stop, rather than boat straight into the lock.
So, accepting your assumption that there there are equal chances as to
which way the next boat at the lock is going, on average closing the
gates when you leave causes one extra gates movement for each locking
occurring throughout the network. That's thousands per day, all
pointless. Apart from wasting the time and energy of boaters, it is
causing extra wear on the gates.
Closing gates really does make it worse for everyone on average.
>I'm not biased either way, just sticking to the commonly accepted
>rules that seem to work very well in modern boating scenarios and
>with the standards of maintenance that sometimes exist, and are
>likely to become worse as any DEFRA cuts bite deeper.
But your premise is false. They actually don't work well. They are
tedious, inefficient, dangerous, and encourage poor maintenance.
>> I get asked to do a lot of things that I have the good sense not to
>> do.
>And sod everyone else? ;-)
No. As I've shown that leaving 'em open saves boaters time and effort
on average, it is good sense for boaters to do it to benefit "everyone
else" rather than stick to a poor rule which inconveniences "everyone
else".
The more boaters leave 'em open, the more other boaters will be
encouraged to, and the sooner the rule will be abandoned.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
