Sunk boat K&A

[Guest]

 

Some are. This is Tuel Lane lock on the Rochdale Canal

 

Which of course is a relatively new addition BUT it does beg the question why they haven't all been built like that.

 

Good picture BTW.

Edited March 22, 2014 by The Dog House

[alan_fincher]

Following them turning partial immersion into total immersion, how did they get it out?

Normally

 

1) Put stop panks in at tail of lock.

2) Start to pump out lock

3) When water level is below gunwales, or other holes in hull, shift pipe from lock chamber to boat, and keep pumping.

4) When most of water is out of boat, gently refill lock to lower pound level

5) Remove stop planks.

Which of course is a relatively new addition BUT it does beg the question why they haven't all been built like that.

 

Good picture BTW.

Well. because they were built for commercial boat traffic, and the people operating working boats seldom made this kind of mistake, it probably was very seldom an issue until "leisure" use of canals.

 

But also the fact that 200 years, or so ago, building with largely brick, (often made to a fairly low grade in fairly temporarybrickworks), and timber, you needed a lot more substance there than you might now if it is built in high grade concretes, with a lot of steel reinforcement.

 

If you look at old pictures and videos, despite what people claim, some working boatmen were more than happy to have all paddles fully drawn at the foot of a lock, before any serious attempts were made to shut the gates at te top. When this is done, and its a broad lock, the first gate to slam to is stopped by just one thing - the cill. The forces must be immmense.

[Peter Reed]

How much were they paid?

You know everything,why don't you enlighten us?

[Guest]

You know everything,why don't you enlighten us?

Actually I don't, no more than you do.

 

You made a statement that they were overpaid, based on that it was reasonable to ask if you knew how much the amount they were paid was.

[Jerra]

Very easy to laugh and joke when it's not your own boat that's sinking . Bloody Sods! That could have been someones home.

Having watched the clip for a second time I get the impression that it is the spectators laughing rather than as suggested earlier in the thread the people trying to raise the boat.

 

Still not what you would expect from reasonable people.but certainly not as bad as those trying to raise the boat laughing when it sank.

[tony collins]

How much were they paid?

One assumes that the inference "overpaid" was used because they hadn't successfully completed the task they were being paid to carry out. Or that they carried it out in such a cag-handed manner that the boat sunk, again on the understanding that they weren't actually trying to sink the vessel.

I seem to recall that boats have been recovered from this very lock before without all this drama.

[Guest]

One assumes that the inference "overpaid" was used because they hadn't successfully completed the task they were being paid to carry out. Or that they carried it out in such a cag-handed manner that the boat sunk, again on the understanding that they weren't actually trying to sink the vessel.

I seem to recall that boats have been recovered from this very lock before without all this drama.

Possibly....unless they only were paid on results. As in if the recovery fails you don't get paid...

[solitude2]

There was an old lady called Lil

Who kept getting stuck on the cill

With her stern in the air

She just didn't care

'twas the nearest she got to a thrill

[Peter X]

The chance of some plan was remote

When they tried to rescue that boat.

If they'd given some thought

To the need to support

The bow it would now be afloat

[bigcol]

Can you imagine that it was your mistake, Your home,!
Ringing insurance company
Getting salvage rescue services to salvage your boat

Then watching the professionals at work!!!!!!
Listening to t###s laughing whilst all this is happening in front of you.

I'm wondering also on the claim form, who or what you write down what or who caused the sinking.
This video clearly shows the rescue gone wrong by the savage team,rescue services.

Who sank the boat??

To know you fcuk up, getting professionals via insurance company, and being there whilst this savage was going on, listening to t###s laughing would be horrific, something I would never forget, can't put it into words.!!!!!!!

There are folks on this forum that salvage boats, surely their posts show that they care and know what their doing
Pity they or the forum masters can have phone numbers stickies so that if this happened whether through cock up, or flood, we can pick up the phone and have people that know what their doing??

Again. On the insurance claim form, what would you put down as the reason for sinking and subquent loss of boat??

Col

Edited February 1, 2016 by DHutch
lanuage

[Ray T]

Which of course is a relatively new addition BUT it does beg the question why they haven't all been built like that.

 

Good picture BTW.

I would imagine that when locks were originally built, being a financial venture, it would be much quicker, cheaper and easier to erect right angle shuttering than at 45 degrees.

Possibly the concrete at the time would not be steel reinforced so a right angle structure would be stronger to enable it to withstand the pressure of water against the gates and hence part of that pressure transferred to the cill.

Also a 45 degree cill would intrude more into the lock, meaning a longer lock and more expense?

From memory i think the end of Tuel Lane Lock is steel? Difficult to tell.

 

 

It would be interesting to know if the construction company at the time would have been on penalty clauses.

 

Again from memory some of the locks on the Ashton / Trent and Mersey canal had metal plates supported by chains across the cill. Though I imagine these were more to protect the cill than to stop boats from becoming jammed on the cill.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Ray T

[thorne lass]

All that was needed was good ratchet straps or ropes from the stern dollies and rails on the boat, and/or around the rudder strock under the counter, back to the top gate rails and/or around the balance beams to stop the boat slipping forward. The boat was levelling out and rising nicely at the bow but simply slipped forward off the sill.

 

I guess that the problem here was H&S and nobody wanted to go near the stern of the boat, or perhaps a worry about risk of damage to the gates, which latter would not have happened if properly done. Also there seems to be a part understandable desire on behalf of C&RT to clear the navigation as soon as possible, but it is the case that the boat could have been recovered quickly without damage to the structures and without significant water damage to the aft end (engine, batteries, inverter etc.) given just a little bit of thought and expertise. Was this RCR doing the recovery??

[Hawkmoth]

Possibly....unless they only were paid on results. As in if the recovery fails you don't get paid...

What ever they were paid it was too much! What an inept shambles.

Bob

[magpie patrick]

I would imagine that when locks were originally built, being a financial venture, it would be much quicker, cheaper and easier to erect right angle shuttering than at 45 degrees.

Possibly the concrete at the time would not be steel reinforced so a right angle structure would be stronger to enable it to withstand the pressure of water against the gates and hence part of that pressure transferred to the cill.

Also a 45 degree cill would intrude more into the lock, meaning a longer lock and more expense?

 

 

When most canals were first built, poured concrete wasn't an option, the cill (the sticky out bit which one report referred to as the "gate ledge") would have been brick or masonry. Also, whilst canal builders didn't go out of their way to create hazards, they did take the attitude that the boat was supposed to fit and it was the master's responsibility if for some reason it didn't!

 

The earliest locks I know of using poured concrete were the locks on the Trent, built in the 1920's, and they are mass concrete not steel reinforced concrete. The Northern Grand Union locks are slightly later

 

Extra lock length is as much an issue of water consumption as it is of expense of construction

[luctor et emergo]

Whilst the recovery may not have been as elegant as could have been, I do find the avalanche of abuse that is directed towards the CRT bods a bit OTT. Especially the self professed 'experten', one of whom has raised so many sunken boats from locks, that he can't remember :

 

(Quote from faceboek)

 

James Gillmore

Even so at the bottom of a drained lock they could of pumped boat out (speaking from experience iv done so 2/3 times)

 

End quote.

[Naughty Cal]

One assumes that the inference "overpaid" was used because they hadn't successfully completed the task they were being paid to carry out. Or that they carried it out in such a cag-handed manner that the boat sunk, again on the understanding that they weren't actually trying to sink the vessel.

I seem to recall that boats have been recovered from this very lock before without all this drama.

Define successful.

 

They have recovered the boat which I'm sure is what they were employed to do.

[b0atman]

Is the lock Ok

[John Williamson 1955]

Define successful.

 

They have recovered the boat which I'm sure is what they were employed to do.

In an ideal world, it could and should have been recovered with no further damage. If correctly recovered, it would have needed some work to dry out the front of the cabin and possibly a check of the skeg and rudder area, plus a quick look at how the trim was to make sure the ballast hadn't moved. It will now need in addition, among other work, a complete engine inspection and overhaul and the entire interior sorting out. Call it an extra 5 or 6 thousand on the cost to the owner.

[luctor et emergo]

Perhaps it was an old hireboat, in need of an overhaul anyway?

[John Williamson 1955]

Perhaps it was an old hireboat, in need of an overhaul anyway?

Maybe, but it is the start of the season, so I'd expect any major refurbishment needed to have been done by now, ready for the Spring and Summer hirers.

[luctor et emergo]

I don't know, I don't expect they give their best boats to Stag parties.

[boathunter]

Cost of write off minus cost to repair = more than the cost to recover with a crane = minimum equipment and let it sink first. Crane hire is expensive.

Edited March 23, 2014 by boathunter

[RichardH]

I don't know, I don't expect they give their best boats to Stag parties.

 

It wasn't a stag party and they weren't drunk.

[magpie patrick]

Whilst I don't condone the way the boat was removed, however it was done there was an element of risk that the boat would sink or otherwise be damaged. It was also in the way of traffic. A colleague of mine has booked this week off to move his boat from Saltford to Foxhangers and will be relieved that his week's leave is not in vain. Not shifting the boat involved other consequential losses for every day it stayed there.

 

Also, getting onto the trapped boat to secure doors, fasten cables etc wouldn't have been risk free either. At the end of the day this has been resolved and no one has been hurt in either the initial accident or the recovery.

[Mike Todd]

Possibly is

 

But why did the fireman open the gates?

 

And why didn't they keep pulling the bow up, surely the boat could have been saved from going under, or had that already happened

 

Col

 

Edited spelling

If you look very carefully as soon as the bow is vsible(initially it is obscured by something vertical) you can see that the bow is under water well before it slips off the cill.

 

Some of the speculation seems to make assumptions . . .