After 4 Years Of Fighting - C&RT Settle Out Of Court

[Graham Davis]

OK, my maths was wrong.

Apologies.

[Paul C]

It does, but also some of the weight of the boat is taken by the front pivot point, so the effect of the centre of buoyancy moving backwards as the boat is tilted is effectively cancelled out. At the point of hanging up, it goes from a 1 point to a 2 point model of static forces. Narrowboats get launched and retrieved from slipways without sinking, although the back end does dip lower.

[alan_fincher]

I think most narrow boats of 60 feet long can survive having their front end held 2 feet higher than normal, without the back end sinking.

 

Not all of course, it does depend on design. Obviously those built with unusually low hull sides, (and probably hence unusually low counters), would not fare as well, nor might those like Liverpool Boat boats or old Springers that have ventilation holes cut into the side of the hull.

 

Certainly when "Flamingo", (71' 8"), got hung off of a gate in an emptying lock, the lock had had far more water than that drained from underneath it, before the situation was corrected. I would estimate the lock level was at least 4 feet down before the situation was brought under control.

 

Very frightening, and I would never care to repeat, but even then the counter was still a little way short of going under and the boat actually being inundated.

 

Has it actually been explained how this particular boat came to get inundated so quickly, given that I thought posts described the paddles being wound quite cautiously?

I wonder if it is that because some of those L&L paddles actually take in excess of 40 turns to raise, because of excessively silly gearing, they also take an inordinately long time to drop again if things go wrong? Apologies if this has been explained, but if it has, then I missed it.

 

(Paddle gear that cannot be dropped very rapidly often adds another unwanted potential hazard, but BW / CRT have never seemed to see this as a major consideration when coming up with paddle gear that you have to wind almost forever.)

[Chris_marigold]

I think most narrow boats of 60 feet long can survive having their front end held 2 feet higher than normal, without the back end sinking.

 

 

Yes and thinking about it, the critical point on a slipway is going to be similar to a boat being held up at one end if the support under the boat extends to the end. In practice the supports (which are the rotation point) probably wouldn't extend past the three-quarter point.

 

But what is the maximum gradient for slipways?

 

Googling a bit, I see that the small boat slipway at Bristol Harbour has a 1:6 gradient (limit 6m boats) and I'd guess that's not dissimilar to those on the Thames. However the slipway for canal boats at Church Minshull is described as "difficult" and it has a 1:20 gradient. So presumably most slips designed for narrowboats are flatter.

 

4 foot on a 60' boat is 1:15. So if 1:20 is "difficult", 1:15 could be too steep for a narrowboat even without the support being near the end. But in this case the ledge was probably 6' - 8' from the end and I'd guess closer than occurs on a trailer.

 

There are too many unknowns to go further, but it seems to me that a two foot drop would be critical for many boats even if some boats could go down further and survive.

[Rod Bender]

2017 01 14 Ken Trying To Answer Some Questions

Members, I have noted several Posts which need my reply, below in italics. Apologies for not including the names against each posting.

“... how ill-prepared and at error the boat owner was leaving, the front door locked whilst someone was in the boat,

Edit to add : Entirely agree, all exits should be unlocked and available at all times when anyone is on board.”

The cratch door was closed not locked. When my wife entered the boat to remove the child “from a frightening situation” she was not aware that the boat was sinking and led the child aft to the port side hatch. At that time the boat was flooded within two feet of their feet and I lifted the child out of the port side hatch followed by helping my wife to safety. By standing on the port gun-whale – possibly 18 inches below the coping stones – the stern was probably 2 x 18” = 3Ft underwater and taking on water fast. Releasing hold of my Wife I did not have time to turn around and see the boat sink..

“ I think most narrow boats of 60 feet long can survive having their front end held 2 feet higher than normal, without the back end sinking.”

UNTRUE as the scenario above proves.

Quote CRT Recovery Staff “1 inch loss of water at the bows is 10” loss at the stern. You did not stand chance.”

“ a 60ft boat at 2 degrees slope would be about 2ft low at one end.”

True, ditto, with the bows hung-up and before breaking free and sinking. our boat was probably 3ft down by the stern.

“I wonder if it is because some of those L&L paddles actually take in excess of 40 turns to raise .”. (true 44 turns. ).

“Once the water starts pouring in it adds to the moment that is tipping the boat and it will soon be unstoppable even if the water level doesn't go down any more. So you first have to close the bottom sluices and then go to the other end of the lock to open the top gates to start correcting the water level. That takes quite a few seconds or probably rather more than a minute.”

The bottom paddles,no more than six turns open , were immediately closed (44 turns required for wide) followed by a top paddle. At this stage water was pouring over the 'cant' and flooding into the boat through the rear door which could not be closed because my wife and child were inside the boat. Their rescue became paramount. Having walked through the incident many times I can safely say that the whole incident , shout of alarm to sinking, took less than two minutes.

The most important issue I wish to cover is in response to a post regarding rebuilding all lock chamber walls which do not come up to Minimum Safety Standards.

Obviously far too many locks come into this category and the coast would be prohibitive. Many have protrusions, some are out of vertical and only a few have reported boat hang-ups – 24 reported incidents on the Leeds & Liver Pool Canal. Nil on the almost identical Kennet & Avon Canal where they take Health & Safety seriously.

However, Lock 40 is unique, it has both hidden protrusions and a 6” out of vertical area of chamber wall above a hidden protrusion. This area is about five cooping stones long, about 15 ft.

To make Lock 40 safe, in my opinion, the ashlar blocks beneath these coping stones need lifting out, turned 180 degrees and replaced.

A vertical and safe chamber wall is achieved by replacing the coping stones in a straight line.

Cost ? I am told £20,000

Ken Churchill / Rod Bender

[alan_fincher]

 

“ I think most narrow boats of 60 feet long can survive having their front end held 2 feet higher than normal, without the back end sinking.”

 

UNTRUE as the scenario above proves.

Quote CRT Recovery Staff “1 inch loss of water at the bows is 10” loss at the stern. You did not stand chance.”

 

 

Yes, I read that, but didn't understand the point it was trying to make.

 

I suspect most other people reading it would have a similar problem.

 

I've read it again repeatedly, and still don't understand the point it is trying to make.

 

The issue surely is simply if the bows continue to be held up, but the water is falling away under the stern, how low can the stern go before water starts to flow in.

 

I also am not really understanding that if the paddles were genuinely wound no more than 6 turns out of a maximum of 44, (which sounds to be less than 14% open), how it was not possible to halt things before the water was rushing in to the boat.

 

Clearly what has happened to you is very genuine, and happened for a reason, but I wonder if I am the only one re-reading the original description several times over, and really not understanding the chain of events.

 

This isn't meant to sound negative - when things like this occur, I think it is very important to try and understand exactly what happened - my problem at the moment is I'm still struggling with that.....

[Rod Bender]

I've read it again repeatedly, and still don't understand the point it is trying to make.

The issue surely is simply if the bows continue to be held up, but the water is falling away under the stern, how low can the stern go before water starts to flow in.

I also am not really understanding that if the paddles were genuinely wound no more than 6 turns out of a maximum of 44, (which sounds to be less than 14% open), how it was not possible to halt things before the water was rushing in to the boat.

 

The two operators of the bottom paddles opened each paddle two turns alternately. No more than six turns open. The first two turns are not enough to pass water through a paddle. When the alarm was raised both bottom paddles were closed immediately. The boat appeared to be hung-up by the bows. At that stage the lock water level had dropped only a few inches. However, after I ran and opened one top paddle it had dropped enough for water to be pouring over the cant and into the boat. Yes, despite the immediate and correct action of the crew the flooding of my boat happened that fast.

As posted previously, because the lock water level was static and water was pouring into the boat its fate was sealed - to flood up until the bows broke free and sink in the time it takes to say WHOOSH.

 

 

ADDITIONAL TO MY POST LAST NIGHT :

 

However, Lock 40 is unique, it has both hidden protrusions and a 6” out of vertical area of chamber wall above a hidden protrusion. This area is about five cooping stones long, or 15 ft.

 

CRT HAVE ON RECORD AT LEAST SIX BOAT HANG-UPS BEFORE MY BOAT HUNG-UP AND SANK.

 

SINCE MY BOAT SINKING I HAVE VISITED LOCK 40 ON THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS AND TAKEN PHOTOS OF 'FRESH' SCARS ON THE NORTH CHAMBER WALL, PROOF THAT BOATS ARE HANGING UP.

 

THEREFORE LOCK 40 IS UNIQUE AND THE PROBABILiTY OF ANOTHER LOCK 40 BOAT HANG-UP IS HIGH.

 

Ken Churchill

[alan_fincher]

 

The two operators of the bottom paddles opened each paddle two turns alternately. No more than six turns open. The first two turns are not enough to pass water through a paddle. When the alarm was raised both bottom paddles were closed immediately. The boat appeared to be hung-up by the bows. At that stage the lock water level had dropped only a few inches. However, after I ran and opened one top paddle it had dropped enough for water to be pouring over the cant and into the boat. Yes, despite the immediate and correct action of the crew the flooding of my boat happened that fast.

 

Are you able to explain that if the paddles were fully dropped by the time the water in the lock had "dropped only a few inches", how the level then continued to drop as you ran to open a top paddle to the extent that the boat became engulfed.

 

This would imply the level in the lock was still falling dramatically, even though no bottom paddles were open.

 

We are apparently talking about all this further water being lost in short the time it takes to run the length of the lock, and wind a paddle.

 

This is the bit I am not seeing any explanation for so far.

[Mike Todd]

 

Are you able to explain that if the paddles were fully dropped by the time the water in the lock had "dropped only a few inches", how the level then continued to drop as you ran to open a top paddle to the extent that the boat became engulfed.

 

This would imply the level in the lock was still falling dramatically, even though no bottom paddles were open.

 

We are apparently talking about all this further water being lost in short the time it takes to run the length of the lock, and wind a paddle.

 

This is the bit I am not seeing any explanation for so far.

I am a bit puzzled by the phrase water to be pouring over the cant and into the boat - where was that water coming from?

[alan_fincher]

I am a bit puzzled by the phrase water to be pouring over the cant and into the boat - where was that water coming from?

 

I am not exactly clear even what "cant" is referring to.

 

However (perhaps wrongly) I have assumed throughout that the explanation is that the back of the boat has gone sufficiently low, that the hull edge is immersed, and water pouring over it.

 

I remain unclear why if the slightly raised paddles were fully dropped very quickly, how the boat apparently continued to go own further at the back end. The only conceivable explanation I can think of might be that the lower gates were leaking very badly indeed.

 

I do feel uncomfortable in pushing for answers, given the distress the owner of the boat has gone through, both at the time and since.

 

I do also, however, get frustrated when a full and accurate explanation doesn't seem to be forthcoming. If I were to get a boat in distress in this particular lock, I still do not understand why the normal steps you would take to correct the problem don't appear to have been sufficient in this case.

[Chris_marigold]

 

I am not exactly clear even what "cant" is referring to.

 

Cant On a narrowboat, a raised outer section of a deck normally to the fore and counter decks. See here.

 

I wasn't there and with all such accounts it's hard to be able to give exact timings. But I think it's pretty obvious that the existence of a ledge near to the bottom gate almost exactly designed to catch the modern narrow boat (it was I think less than 2 years old) is pretty disastrous. Also this is significantly worse than catching the stern on the cill because of the very low freeeboard of the "cant" and the use of floatable floorboards over the engine. It's also trickier than catching the prow in the bottom gate, which will after all be very obvious to the person winding the sluice.

 

Beyond that I wouldn't like to say more than imo it only took a fall of 2 feet (in a 9'4" fall lock) to start the process off.

 

Chris

[alan_fincher]

 

Beyond that I wouldn't like to say more than imo it only took a fall of 2 feet (in a 9'4" fall lock) to start the process off.

 

What I am not getting is how it got from the water having "dropped only a few inches" by the time it is claimed the paddles were fully wound down, (see post 182) and the 2 feet you are talking about here.

 

Unless you define 2 feet as "only a few inches", (which wouldn't be most people's definition), nobody has explained why the lock level fell from "only a few inches down" to "2 feet down", but with all the paddles closed.

 

I don't imagine anybody is going to now, are they, but this to me seems absolutely key as to why the boat still sank.

 

(I also know what a cant is normally taken to mean, but to apply the term to the top of the hull at the back of a cruiser stern boat is perhaps a bit unusual?)

[Rod Bender]

My final Posting regarding my narrow boat sinking 10 August 2012. In the interest of boaters Lock 40 North Chamber Wall remedial work is what members should be concerned about. The probability of more boat hang-ups at Lock 40 and Bank Newton Flight is high.

 

Members should be pressing CRT to implement their adopted Minimum Safety Standards by making Lock 40 safe for use by CRTs customers.

 

Both bottom paddles were closed immediately.

 

I have no knowledge of how far the water level had dropped as and when I ran to open the top gate paddles..

 

However, it is a fact that the lock water level had dropped sufficient enough for flooding water to pour over the Starboard 'cant' and into the boat.

 

At that time the boat was listing to Starboard, adding to the quick loss of 'freeboard' (16 inches)

 

I do recall that this flow appeared to be no deeper than half an inch.

 

Quote a previous post;

 

“Once the water starts pouring in it adds to the moment that is tipping the boat and it will soon be unstoppable even if the water level doesn't go down any more.

[Sbg]

I'm sorry for the loss of your boat - I know how I would feel. Thanks god no one was hurt (or worse). You are absolutely right in that repeated issues at the same lock should be addressed and there is clearly a duty to be upheld here.

 

However, there is an interesting piece of work here in understanding the dynamics of the event in terms of water level drop and subsequent angle of pitch, plus the heeling effect of being snagged. I've just completed a marine survey diploma and the calculations for this event look to be very similar to loading / heel / crane jib theory. I - like others here I suspect - would like to understand more of the science behind what happened, if for no other reason than to be better informed and perhaps make a small difference to boat(er) safety in the future.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Sbg

[Allan(nb Albert)]

My final Posting regarding my narrow boat sinking 10 August 2012. In the interest of boaters Lock 40 North Chamber Wall remedial work is what members should be concerned about. The probability of more boat hang-ups at Lock 40 and Bank Newton Flight is high.

 

Members should be pressing CRT to implement their adopted Minimum Safety Standards by making Lock 40 safe for use by CRTs customers.

 

Both bottom paddles were closed immediately.

 

I have no knowledge of how far the water level had dropped as and when I ran to open the top gate paddles..

 

However, it is a fact that the lock water level had dropped sufficient enough for flooding water to pour over the Starboard 'cant' and into the boat.

 

At that time the boat was listing to Starboard, adding to the quick loss of 'freeboard' (16 inches)

 

I do recall that this flow appeared to be no deeper than half an inch.

 

Quote a previous post;

 

“Once the water starts pouring in it adds to the moment that is tipping the boat and it will soon be unstoppable even if the water level doesn't go down any more.

I think 'implement' might be the wrong word.

 

BW had a target date of March 2008 to implement the applicable minimum safety standard (now know as 2.d.3). In other words, by March 2008 all work needed to bring locks up to standard should have been completed.

 

What we are talking about here is CaRT making the lock 'compliant' with minimum safety standards.

 

 

[Sbg]

This right ????

 

Tan 2 degrees = 0.0349

 

60ft * 0.0349 = 2.09 ft

 

So a 60ft boat at 2 degrees slope would be about 2ft low at one end.

 

That's true if it were hung up at the point of the prow. In this case (looking at the photos posted earlier) the hang-up occurred further back. If we assume a rough WAG of 10' back, a two feet drop at the stern equates to a 4 degree pitch change (sine theta = 2/50 instead of 2/60).

In addition, the boat is likely to have been sitting higher in the bow than at the stern (as per most boats). The forward / aft trim (water tanks, toilet tanks, fuel load etc) will also have been a factor.

 

Working out the angle of heel is a bit more complicated but suffice to say that the starboard stern cant would have been significantly lower than the port, contributing to freeboard reduction.

[Mike Todd]

 

I am not exactly clear even what "cant" is referring to.

 

However (perhaps wrongly) I have assumed throughout that the explanation is that the back of the boat has gone sufficiently low, that the hull edge is immersed, and water pouring over it.

 

I remain unclear why if the slightly raised paddles were fully dropped very quickly, how the boat apparently continued to go own further at the back end. The only conceivable explanation I can think of might be that the lower gates were leaking very badly indeed.

 

I do feel uncomfortable in pushing for answers, given the distress the owner of the boat has gone through, both at the time and since.

 

I do also, however, get frustrated when a full and accurate explanation doesn't seem to be forthcoming. If I were to get a boat in distress in this particular lock, I still do not understand why the normal steps you would take to correct the problem don't appear to have been sufficient in this case.

I asked because I had only heard the term used for a raised area which on a modern narrowboat is only found at the front. It was not clear (perhaps I lack imagination!) from where the water was pouring.

[Rojo]

I asked because I had only heard the term used for a raised area which on a modern narrowboat is only found at the front. It was not clear (perhaps I lack imagination!) from where the water was pouring.

I wonder if the stern was sufficiently lower than the top gate paddles, allowing water from said paddles to be directed into the rear doors?

[MtB]

My final Posting regarding my narrow boat sinking 10 August 2012.

 

 

That's a great shame because quite a few of us here would like to understand in full detail exactly how your boat came to sadly sink. Properly understanding what happened would add to the body of knowledge here about how boats can sink in locks but your withdrawal from discussion prevents that.

 

Please reconsider...

Edited January 16, 2017 by Mike the Boilerman

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

 

That's a great shame because quite a few of us here would like to understand in full detail exactly how your boat came to sadly sink. Properly understanding what happened would add to the body of knowledge here about how boats can sink in locks but your withdrawal from discussion prevents that.

 

Please reconsider...

In this particular case, both C&RT and Ken Churchill have come to the same conclusion that the boat sank due to hanging up on a lock wall projection. In responding to the incident, it would appear that Ken followed accepted procedure for dealing with the situation and can add little more.

 

It would perhaps be better to ask why, over a two year period, C&RT have never admitted to HSE that they have minimum safety standards related to locks.

[rowland al]

"The flood water was pouring through the legs of the owner of the SECOND BOAT in the lock who was calling support to my wife inside the boat."

 

Does anyone know whether fenders were deployed on the boats? I've seen several boats get jammed in locks due to deployment of fenders over the years. A protrusion in the lock wall would just increase the risk.

Edited January 17, 2017 by rowland al

[MtB]

In this particular case, both C&RT and Ken Churchill have come to the same conclusion that the boat sank due to hanging up on a lock wall projection. In responding to the incident, it would appear that Ken followed accepted procedure for dealing with the situation and can add little more.

 

 

Indeed they have. You may be satisfied with that rather trite conclusion but I don't understand how that can happen, given the photos published. Obviously the boat was tipped up enough for water to flood over the gunwale but I just don't understand HOW that came about given the other information in the thread about cautious opening of paddles, small level differences etc.

 

.

It would perhaps be better to ask why, over a two year period, C&RT have never admitted to HSE that they have minimum safety standards related to locks.

 

 

I agree this is a question that needs answering but I don't understand why you seem so keen to shut down the technical discussion of how the sinking occurred.

[alan_fincher]

In this particular case, both C&RT and Ken Churchill have come to the same conclusion that the boat sank due to hanging up on a lock wall projection. In responding to the incident, it would appear that Ken followed accepted procedure for dealing with the situation and can add little more.

 

It would perhaps be better to ask why, over a two year period, C&RT have never admitted to HSE that they have minimum safety standards related to locks.

 

So it's not important to answer the question "if the level was only down by a few inches by the time all paddles were already down, how come the level in the lock then seems to have continued to go down by a couple of feet to the point that a boat sank?"

 

If CRT were unable or unwilling to answer a direct question like that was put to them, you would be making great mileage out of it, but you seem prepared to accept the failure to answer a direct question by someone else, even though it is highly pertinent to what occurred here.

 

I'm not an apologist for CRT, and have openly said that many years ago I was involved in an ongoing dispute with them after our baseplate had hung on an artificially created ledge in a Grand Union lock. They should never cover up or deny known problems, of course. The difference in my case is we understood what was happening, and it was possible to stop the situation getting worse. In this case we have no explanation for why when all the correct actions were apparently apparently taken quite quickly, the boat was still engulfed. If that explanation were forthcoming, it might just stop the same happening to somebody else in the future.

[Rod Bender]

Quote Alan Ficher "So it's not important to answer the question "if the level was only down by a few inches by the time all paddles were already down, how come the level in the lock then seems to have continued to go down by a couple of feet to the point that a boat sank?"

 

An important question and I trust my reply will suffice. After the boat sinking, near drowning of my wife and the child AND four years agony from CRT I want the nightmares to go away.

 

The bottom paddles were CLOSED.

 

The lock water level only went down a few inches and remained at that level throughout the sinking of my boat. ie the lock water level did not go down further than the few inches.

 

The boats stern went down beyond the 16" freeboard (waterline to the top of the cant ) thus enabling lock water to flood over the cant nd into the boat.

 

Remember the CRT recovery staff quote "With the bows hung-up a 1" loss of lock water level at the bows is 10" at the stern. You did not stand a chance."

 

ie Our 59ft Nboat, angled downwards front to back, was drawing normal water level Forward AND submerged Aft by a multiple of 1 : 10.

[rowland al]

Quote Alan Ficher "So it's not important to answer the question "if the level was only down by a few inches by the time all paddles were already down, how come the level in the lock then seems to have continued to go down by a couple of feet to the point that a boat sank?"

 

An important question and I trust my reply will suffice. After the boat sinking, near drowning of my wife and the child AND four years agony from CRT I want the nightmares to go away.

 

The bottom paddles were CLOSED.

 

The lock water level only went down a few inches and remained at that level throughout the sinking of my boat. ie the lock water level did not go down further than the few inches.

 

The boats stern went down beyond the 16" freeboard (waterline to the top of the cant ) thus enabling lock water to flood over the cant nd into the boat.

 

Remember the CRT recovery staff quote "With the bows hung-up a 1" loss of lock water level at the bows is 10" at the stern. You did not stand a chance."

 

ie Our 59ft Nboat, angled downwards front to back, was drawing normal water level Forward AND submerged Aft by a multiple of 1 : 10.

Rod, did your boat or the one next to yours have fenders deployed?