Bollard overkill

Took a trip down the South Oxford to Lower Heyford and return, and BW seem
to have won the bollard lottery and are busy installing three bollards
alongside all the narrow locks that don't already have them, ie nearly every
one except maybe Somerton. Most boaters I discussed this with can't imagine
they'll be much use, especially in the deeper locks, and may even be less
safe if ropes get snagged up when going down...

Given the higher than normal number of rotten balance beams and
broken/missing paddle gear, and the fair few lock mooring bollards that are
about to be pulled out of the ground, what drives this new enthusiasm for
'lock bollards'? Elfin Safety perhaps?

Paul

On Jun 21, 12:47 pm, "Paul Scott" <notvalidpmsc...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> Took a trip down the South Oxford to Lower Heyford and return, and BW seem
> to have won the bollard lottery and are busy installing three bollards
> alongside all the narrow locks that don't already have them, ie nearly every
> one except maybe Somerton.  Most boaters I discussed this with can't imagine
> they'll be much use, especially in the deeper locks, and may even be less
> safe if ropes get snagged up when going down...
>
> Given the higher than normal number of rotten balance beams and
> broken/missing paddle gear, and the fair few lock mooring bollards that are
> about to be pulled out of the ground, what drives this new enthusiasm for
> 'lock bollards'? Elfin Safety perhaps?
>
> Paul

It might be all those who complain about there being no bollards, or
bollards in the wrong place. I don't use bollards in locks at all.

Did you give us a wave at Cropredy?

Tone

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:47:08 +0100, "Paul Scott"
<notvalidpmscott@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Took a trip down the South Oxford to Lower Heyford and return, and BW seem
>to have won the bollard lottery and are busy installing three bollards
>alongside all the narrow locks that don't already have them, ie nearly every
>one except maybe Somerton. Most boaters I discussed this with can't imagine
>they'll be much use, especially in the deeper locks, and may even be less
>safe if ropes get snagged up when going down...
>
>Given the higher than normal number of rotten balance beams and
>broken/missing paddle gear, and the fair few lock mooring bollards that are
>about to be pulled out of the ground, what drives this new enthusiasm for
>'lock bollards'? Elfin Safety perhaps?

It's a target innit?

Big organisations like targets, and they have to be measurable
targets, so they can work out if they met them.

BW has set targets, and bollard installation is one of those targets
(bridge numbers is another).

Targets tend to be less than effective when it comes to actually doing
what is needed.

On 22 Jun, 08:54, Dave Mayall <david.may...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:47:08 +0100, "Paul Scott"
>
> <notvalidpmsc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >Took a trip down the South Oxford to Lower Heyford and return, and BW seem
> >to have won the bollard lottery and are busy installing three bollards
> >alongside all the narrow locks that don't already have them, ie nearly every
> >one except maybe Somerton.  Most boaters I discussed this with can't imagine
> >they'll be much use, especially in the deeper locks, and may even be less
> >safe if ropes get snagged up when going down...
>
> >Given the higher than normal number of rotten balance beams and
> >broken/missing paddle gear, and the fair few lock mooring bollards that are
> >about to be pulled out of the ground, what drives this new enthusiasm for
> >'lock bollards'? Elfin Safety perhaps?
>
> It's a target innit?
>
> Big organisations like targets, and they have to be measurable
> targets, so they can work out if they met them.
>
> BW has set targets, and bollard installation is one of those targets
> (bridge numbers is another).
>
> Targets tend to be less than effective when it comes to actually doing
> what is needed.

Agreed. Having seen the standard of their bridge numbers-on-sticks, I
would hesitate to tie up to one of their new bollards. What're they
made of? Softwood?

Tone

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:53:32 +0100, Alan N Estherby
<a.e@notinthisworld.com> wrote:

>Couldn't agree more. Doing just this (boat in tickover, nudged against
>top gate) I was ascending the Lapworth flight, Northern Stratford.
>Four or five locks, same technique, no probs - then failed to notice
>that the top gate of the next one was lacking the rubbing board up the
>inside of the gate. The prow of the boat hooked under one on the cross
>beams of the gate, I was lying on the balance beam, enjoying the
>sunshine as the lock filled, next thing the beam "jumped" a bit under
>me, and when I looked across, the water was within about four inches of
>spilling over in to the front deck, and the stern was out of the water
>with the prop visible...!
>
>Fortunately, by running back, dropping the top paddles and then opening
>the bottom paddles to let some water back out I salvaged the situation
>before I sank the boat - but it was a close run thing...
>
>I've been a bit more careful since!

Which is, of course, the valuable lesson here!

Not that riding a top gate is inherrently bad, but rather that failing
to devote you attention to a process that can go wrong in many
dangerous ways is a bad thing.

On Jun 23, 7:32�am, Dave Mayall <david.may...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:53:32 +0100, Alan N Estherby
>
>
>
>
>
> <a...@notinthisworld.com> wrote:
> >Couldn't agree more. � Doing just this (boat in tickover, nudged against
> >top gate) I was ascending the Lapworth flight, Northern Stratford.
> >Four �or five locks, same technique, no probs - then failed to notice
> >that the top gate of the next one was lacking the rubbing board up the
> >inside of the gate. � The prow of the boat hooked under one on the cross
> >beams of the gate, I was lying on the balance beam, enjoying the
> >sunshine as the lock filled, next thing the beam "jumped" a bit under
> >me, and when I looked across, the water was within about four inches of
> >spilling over in to the front deck, and the stern was out of the water
> >with the prop visible...!
>
> >Fortunately, by running �back, dropping the top paddles and then opening
> >the bottom paddles to let some water back out I salvaged the situation
> >before I sank the boat - but it was a close run thing...
>
> >I've been a bit more careful since!
>
> Which is, of course, the valuable lesson here!
>
> Not that riding a top gate is inherrently bad, but rather that failing
> to devote you attention to a process that can go wrong in many
> dangerous ways is a bad thing.- Hide quoted text -

Indeed! I have single handed a working boat over most of the network
(where it fitted) narrow and broad, but I cannot say I have ever
sunbathed while the boat was rising/falling in a lock.

George

John Gwalter <ernest@stoppage.gwalter.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > I understand very little of what's being discussed
> > but for some reason it's fascinating.
> >
> > (Jon Thompson, urs)
>
> My rule of thumb is that narrow boats weigh abut a ton a metre (minus one to
> allow for the swims), so an average 17m boat would be about 16 tons.
> The sideways force on the bollard would be the weight of the boat multiplied
> by the number of G's deceleration imposed, with a maximum of about 2G given
> the average rope's length and elasticity.
>
The force will depend on so many things I think your rule of thumb is
decidely a 'guesstimate'. Apart from anything else surely one uses
the bollard to slow the boat (if one does at all, I'd try and stop the
boat completely whenever possible) by using friction sliding the rope
around the bollard. The maximum force that can be present is the
breaking strain of the rope, I doubt if most barges have rope with a
50 tonne breaking strain, nearer 5 or 10 would be my guess.


> Given a 72 foot boat and normal factors of safety this would imply that a
> bollard needs to take about 50 tons of lateral force.

As I said above I doubt very much if it ever reaches this sort of
level, 5 tons would be more like it.

--
Chris Green

On 23 Jun, 07:32, Dave Mayall <david.may...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:53:32 +0100, Alan N Estherby
>
>
>
> <a...@notinthisworld.com> wrote:
> >Couldn't agree more.   Doing just this (boat in tickover, nudged against
> >top gate) I was ascending the Lapworth flight, Northern Stratford.
> >Four  or five locks, same technique, no probs - then failed to notice
> >that the top gate of the next one was lacking the rubbing board up the
> >inside of the gate.   The prow of the boat hooked under one on the cross
> >beams of the gate, I was lying on the balance beam, enjoying the
> >sunshine as the lock filled, next thing the beam "jumped" a bit under
> >me, and when I looked across, the water was within about four inches of
> >spilling over in to the front deck, and the stern was out of the water
> >with the prop visible...!
>
> >Fortunately, by running  back, dropping the top paddles and then opening
> >the bottom paddles to let some water back out I salvaged the situation
> >before I sank the boat - but it was a close run thing...
>
> >I've been a bit more careful since!
>
> Which is, of course, the valuable lesson here!
>
> Not that riding a top gate is inherrently bad, but rather that failing
> to devote you attention to a process that can go wrong in many
> dangerous ways is a bad thing.

I wuz going to say that, but you would have accused me of agreeing
with you again..... £$->=

Anyone who nudges the upper gates on ascension without keeping out a
watchful eye is asking for trouble. It's common sense, if anyone in
this century can remember what that is.

Tone