Jump to content

Lock gates left open

DickBrowne

By DickBrowne
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

Maffi Rising Star

Maffi

Posted
Posted

FEWER!!!!!

 

 

In this case it can be 'less' "Consisting of a smaller number" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/less

 

I didnt look at the lock numbers :blush: - but there was a water treatment works (I could tell by the smell!) on the far bank. It was on the locks to the North of that!

 

 

Was that up above Winkwell There is a lock up there that is signed posted to be left empty due to flooding the lock house basement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaveC Proficient

DaveC

Posted
Posted

We cruised the K&A in 2009 where the guidance varies from lock to lock. Leaving aside the river sections, the locks as built had the bywash weir within the lock chamber thus the top gates and one paddle should remain open to maintain the correct level otherwise water rises to the level of the top of the main body of the gates. Signs were often erected to inform boaters re the protocol at locks and as improvements are made, new bywashes are constructed extracting the water from immediately above the lock per the norm elsewhere. Then both gates and all padels should be closed. However some of the signs with the instruction to leave top gates and a paddle open are now a part of a listed structure and thus require permission to be changed!!!

 

Also, some locks without notices are the older type requiring gates to be left open whilst others are structured such that all gates and paddles should be closed!

 

However, baters having their first expeerience away from the K&A can be excused for leaving gates open???

 

 

There are no notices saying leave top gates and a paddle open - there was one a few years ago when a ground paddle was in danger of collapse and the lock had to be left full and the paddle up to take the pressure off the paddle (I think it was about lock 69 give or take a couple) but that is the only instance of having to leave TOP gates open. Many locks need BOTTOM PADDLES left open to enable a flow to lower pounds or sometimes to prevent flooding of adjacent properties.

 

Hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesWoolcock Proficient

JamesWoolcockDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

Just had a pint with John Jackson who used them last year said the Garrison Locks bottom gates don't all close when the top paddles are drawn. I went down in September and all those did that I recall ( or I used like this? ) But happy to stand corrected. James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maffi Rising Star

Maffi

Posted
Posted

I can think of one situation when you could only leave top gates open, maybe bottom gates- and that's as a butty steerer working down narrow locks with only one other person steering the motor.

 

Why should that be any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MartinClark Experienced

MartinClark

Posted
Posted

FEWER!!!!!

In this case it can be 'less' "Consisting of a smaller number" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/less

 

Sorry, Maffi, but Chertsey is quite correct. In this case it must be 'fewer'. To say "and it is less letters" is incorrect, as is that Free Dictionary definition, I'm afraid. 'Less' means 'consisting of a smaller quantity'. When things are countable, the word to use is 'fewer'.

 

Sorry, what time does the Pedants meeting start?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FadeToScarlet Veteran

FadeToScarlet

Posted
Posted

Sorry, Maffi, but Chertsey is quite correct. In this case it must be 'fewer'. To say "and it is less letters" is incorrect, as is that Free Dictionary definition, I'm afraid. 'Less' means 'consisting of a smaller quantity'. When things are countable, the word to use is 'fewer'.

 

Sorry, what time does the Pedants meeting start?

 

Half an hour after the Pedants'. :P

 

(Here we go....)

 

Why should that be any different?

 

Because in that situation it's almost impossible to close gates after you. T

 

Having said that, it's rare to see a pair being moved by just two people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maffi Rising Star

Maffi

Posted
Posted (edited)

Because in that situation it's almost impossible to close gates after you. T

 

Having said that, it's rare to see a pair being moved by just two people.

 

 

No more difficult than when single handing. Don't say it cant be done, work out how it can be done.

Edited by Maffi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maffi Rising Star

Maffi

Posted
Posted (edited)

Sorry, Maffi, but Chertsey is quite correct. In this case it must be 'fewer'. To say "and it is less letters" is incorrect, as is that Free Dictionary definition, I'm afraid. 'Less' means 'consisting of a smaller quantity'. When things are countable, the word to use is 'fewer'.

 

Sorry, what time does the Pedants meeting start?

 

 

You chosedefinition No 1 and I chose definition No 3

1. Not as great in amount or quantity

 

3. Consisting of asmaller number.

 

The end of the line was referring to the fact that the first two words quoted had "a smaller number" of letters than the second pair of words. This you cannot deny surely?

 

"and it is less letters" is not what was said

 

Even if it is only a "rule of thumb" I tend to say "obey"and "break" rather than "follow" and "notfollow", because I'm lazy and it is less letters. Is what was said.

 

To take "and it is less letters" in isolation and say it is wrong isfolly. In the context of the whole sentence 'it' is correct.

 

You cannot deny that there is a smaller number of letters in 'obey' & 'break' than there are in 'follow' & 'not follow'. Given that that is thecase then definition 3 applies. :)

 

I say that for two reasons

 

1. The vast majority of the population say less. It's the people's language.

 

2. If you insist on saying fewer then you are denying English as a living language (see 1 above) and should therefore accept American as the true English. (American Congress: Language Decision 1805)

Edited by Maffi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MartinClark Experienced

MartinClark

Posted
Posted (edited)

You chose definition No 1 And I chose definition No 3

1. Not as great in amount or quantity

 

3. Consisting of a smaller number.

No! I chose definitions from more reliable dictionaries!

Oxford: "a smaller amount of; not as much" [linky]

Cambridge: "a smaller amount (of); not so much, or to a smaller degree" [linky]

 

The end of the line was refering to the fact that the first two words quoted had "a smaller number" of letters than the second pair of words. This you cannot deny surely?

 

"and it is less letters" is not what was said

 

Even if it is only a "rule of thumb" I tend to say "obey" and "break" rather than "follow" and "not follow", because I'm lazy and it is less letters. Is what was said.

 

To take "and it is less letters" in isolation and say it is wrong is folly. In the context of the whole sentence 'it' is correct.

Now you are being silly! The words I quoted were exactly the words Dave used at the end of his post. The words he used earlier in the sentence make no difference to whether "less" or "fewer" should have been used.

 

You cannot deny that there is a smaller number of letters in 'obey' & 'break' than ther are in 'follow' & 'not follow'. Given that that is the case then deffinition 3 applies. :)

I don't deny that there is a smaller number of letters in those words. That is irrelevant to the argument. A smaller number of letters = fewer letters, not less letters. Your definition 3 is incorrect.

 

I say that for two reasons

 

1. The vast majority of the population say less. It's the peoples language.

 

2. If you insist on saying fewer then you are denying English as a living language (see 1 above) and should therefore accept American as the true English. ( American Congress Language Decision 1805)

Because a lot of people do something that does not mean that it is correct.

The vast majority of drivers sometimes exceed speed limits but that doesn't make it right.

Yes, "standards" slip, but that is all the more reason to make sure that people know what the "standards" are.

 

In any case, I know that Dave knows how to use words correctly and suspect that he used "less" in a joking way.

 

I knew I shouldn't have replied to you, Maffi, as I remember previous prolonged arguments. I will think what I want to think about this and you will think what you want to think, and each of us will know that we are right! :)

Edited by MartinClark
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maffi Rising Star

Maffi

Posted
Posted (edited)

No! I chose definitions from more reliable dictionaries!

Oxford: "a smaller amount of; not as much" [linky]

Cambridge: "a smaller amount (of); not so much, or to a smaller degree" [linky]

 

 

Now you are being silly! The words I quoted were exactly the words Dave used at the end of his post. The words he used earlier in the sentence make no difference to whether "less" or "fewer" should have been used.

 

 

I don't deny that there is a smaller number of letters in those words. That is irrelevant to the argument. A smaller number of letters = fewer letters, not less letters. Your definition 3 is incorrect.

 

 

Because a lot of people do something that does not mean that it is correct.

The vast majority of drivers sometimes exceed speed limits but that doesn't make it right.

Yes, "standards" slip, but that is all the more reason to make sure that people know what the "standards" are.

 

In any case, I know that Dave knows how to use words correctly and suspect that he used "less" in a joking way.

 

I knew I shouldn't have replied to you, Maffi, as I remember previous pointless arguments. I will think what I want to think about this and you will think what you want to think, and each of us will know that we are right! :)

 

 

 

 

Maffi 1 - 0 Martin

Edited by Maffi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maffi Rising Star

Maffi

Posted
Posted

The populace determine the language. Academics only catalogue it and highlight trends.

 

I don't see how Martin got less than Maffi :unsure:

 

Iain

 

 

His argument resorted to insults and put downs and unrelated history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mykaskin Experienced

mykaskin

Posted
Posted

No more difficult than when single handing. Don't say it cant be done, work out how it can be done.

 

It can be done, but doing it with a single motor or with a pair are two completely different things.

 

First, with a single motor, I usually stick Victoria in reverse as it passes the gate, jump off, swing the gate shut, and then jump back on and put it in forward before the rudder hits anything.

 

With a pair, the butty steerer doesn't have as easy access to the back of the boat - usually much higher than a motor's counter (even Victoria's!), and also the motor steerer can't see easily how close the back of the boat is to things so there is a risk of breaking the 'ellum. Bringing a pair to a stop usually means jack knifes and windage problems, and you can't bring the boats into the lock mooring to pick up the crew member because the butty stern will waggle away from the wall. With three, it is usually possible by bringing the pair into the bank, and sometimes by stopping in the lock mouth (with someone on the 'ellum keeping it away from things and giving a warning if it gets too close to anything).

 

Hope that helps with the understanding of the issues.

 

Cheers,

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.