In message <6i9pp0FpdqolU1@
mid.individual.net>, at 10:57:51 on Thu, 4
Sep 2008, John Williamson
btinternet.com> remarked:
>>> If the infrastructure is updated,
>> If you are going in for major upgrades to the infrastructure, then
>>lots of things get easier. The conservationists might not be happy
>>though.
>>
>True. Fifty thousand gallons of water for the average narrow lock.
I was thinking more about the "listed building" kind of conservationist.
>It all comes from the summit level & travels with the boat, so that's
>100,000 gallons per trip from London to Birmingham. Double that for a
>wide canal. Halve it if boats alternate through locks.
>Then again, that flow could be used as part of a national water grid as
>has been proposed for many years now.
On the Grand Union there are two intermediate summits between Birmingham
and London, so you'd need to pump between Warwick and Braunston and
Wolverton and Tring.
>>> then single manned working through a lock is easy. When I was living
>>>on a boat, I could go through a modern lock very nearly as quickly on
>>>my own as a crew of 2,
>> Just one boat then?
>>
>Yup. The way it worked with 2 boats on narrow canals was usually with
>the lockwheeler jumping on the butty to work it through the lock, then
>the boats were lashed side by side for the bit between the locks,
>unless it was a staircase or too narrow. On a wide canal, they just
>lashed 2 narrow boats side by side & worked them as one boat.
>
>>> if it was set my way to start with.
>> if
>>
>Hence the lock wheeler. :-)
I think you are losing track of the original problem, that the Working
Time Directive would mean that operating canal boats efficiently would
require four crew, but not if two at a time were working.
(I understand how canals work, I've travelled pretty much the entire
network over the last 30 years).
--
Roland Perry
