Steve Haywood wrote... >On 15/05/07, Mack, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Steve Haywood wrote: >> >The amount of water >> > coming over the top gates when you've closed the bottom ones, >> > draws the boat forward. If you have any sort of a well deck, >> > even one covered by a cratch, you would sink in seconds if >> > you got under the flow. Indeed, I am surprised it hasn't >> > happened yet. Perhaps when it does BW will think it >> > worthwhile replacing the by-weirs. >> >> "Replacing the by-weirs"?? Are you suggesting they existed in the past >> and have since been removed? I thought the Rochdale Canal didn't have >> them originally, and that excess water always passed either over the >> gates, or over weirs into the ground paddle culverts. >> >> Are you suggesting that an original historic feature should be destroyed >> in the interests of health and safety? :-) > >I think Martin's the man here. But I seem to recall that sometime in the >70's (?) the land on which the by-wiers were sited was sold to developers >for offices by the old Rochdale Canal Company. > >Far from advocating the destruction of an historical feature, I'm arguing >for its restoration. > Sorry, Steve. Martin's not the man in this instance. There are plenty of folk (Bill Holmes, Pete Stockdale, etc) who will know much more than I do about this!
What it needs is a modification along the lines of the method used on the Shannon-Erne Waterway in Ireland, where there are spouts at the wall end of each gate, to allow water to flow over the gate into the lock with less danger of it swamping a boat. http://www.auluk.freeserve.co.uk/pictures/kilclarelock.jpg -- Martin Clark Internet Boaters' Database http://www.boaterweb.co.uk Pennine Waterways Website http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk
