Talk:Lock (water transport)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
The introduction of this article is too short.
To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, it should be expanded to summarize the article.

Contents

[edit] Hiram M. Chittenden Locks

re: the pictures and paragraph of discription of the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks... does this add anything to the article? To me, the section seems disjointed and not relevant to the rest of the article. I am hesitant to revert, though, as it is usefull information. Perhaps it would fit in better at the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks article? Iain 11:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This makes sense. It should be moved. Paranoid 18:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I saw a notice that the above lock was going to be drained for maintenance. The notice stated that one should come and see how a lock works. I took advantage of the rare opportunity to take the pictures as locks normally contain water. I put the pictures at the bottom of the "Operation" section with an explanation of what the pictures were about. I guess I was thinking someone would incorporate them into the article. My current thinking is that I should put them along with a paragraph on how they work just below the picture of "A plan and side view of a generic, empty canal lock".

[edit] staircase lock

this was added: "This is because climbing n steps can involve the loss of n lockfuls of water from the upper level and n2 sluice operations, which is much worse than n separate locks. "

Even if this was true the preceeding sentence said that bargees consider these locks nightmares. Why would bargees care how much water was used? Isn't the issue the amount of work required? Rmhermen 02:38, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

A true staircase is difficult to operate because it is necessary to ensure the emptying of a lock at the wrong time can cause difficulties. In descending, one must ensure that the lock below is empty before you start to fill it. Peterkingiron 17:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Bargees might not worry about how many lockfulls of water they used, but the canal proprietors might, because they had to ensure that there was sufficient water in the summit level for it to be nevigable. Peterkingiron 17:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Due to not normally being able to pass in the middle of staircase flights ensured many delays, and hence their main dislike by boatmen. Once a direction is chosen the delay between locks is less than a flight due to the closeness of the next lock. On a normal lock flight the next lock has to vacated of the boat in front before filling any way. Mykaskin 16:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it really not possible for boats to pass in the middle ? I've never been in anything bigger thena a two-rise - and my mnd hurts trying to visualise this without a model in front of me! Chris Jones

Would it be a good idea to separate Staircase lock to a new page, or is that not very wiki-like? Mykaskin 16:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop lock

I think the reason is slightly incorrect, and needs to be clarified. Stop locks were created to stop the newer canal stealing water. I've also never heard of the second meaning - I've always known them as Flood Gates. After consultation with other canal users I will rewrite it unless someone disagrees or can fill in more information. Mykaskin 16:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Industrial Lock

Looking south toward the Lower Mississippi River
Length: 195 m (640 ft)
Width: 22.9 m (75 ft)
Type:
Maximum lift: 6 m (19.6 ft)
Sill: 9.6 m (31.5 ft)
Waterway(s): Lower Mississippi River, Industrial Canal
Year built: 1923
Geolocation: 29.965° N 90.02735° W
These are footnotes

[edit] Lock infobox

Since there are a few Wikipedia articles about navigation locks, it occurs to me there could be an infobox template for them. I'm starting an article about the Industrial Lock in New Orleans, and have manually cobbled together the accompanying infobox, but if somebody knows how to make an actual template, that would be cool. I'm sure there could be additional parameters for it that I'm not thinking of. Anyway, does anyone here know how to code such a thing? -- Muffuletta 18:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint

Buddainabucket appears to have vandalised a very useful big chunk for some dogmatic reason of his own - can someone restore the text and bar him from doing this again?

[edit] Gongoozlers

I've deleted the part about gongoozlers under basic construction and operation as it seems irrelevant and inappropriate. – SolitaryWolf

Not the best of calls, in my opinion. Whilst the section within which it was presented may have been the wrong one, mention of the concept is appropriate. Added it to "see also" for now untill it can be worked into the article again. LinaMishima 14:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thats fair - SolitaryWolf
Speaking of which, I've cleaned up the humourous mess that was the Gongoozler article and made it much more serious, albeit a little lacking in direction (as to be expected for a colloquial term without lots of good references). Feel free to take a look at it and tell me what you think. LinaMishima 16:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good - SolitaryWolf

Yes, very serious. CJ

[edit] Caisson Lock

I've added a short piece about the Caisson Lock on the Somerset Coal Canal. This appears to be the only example of one ever being built and I'm not sure how relevant it is under alternatives - could anyone advise. Also if anyone has the engineering expertise to describe it in a better way than I've done on either article that would be great. — Rod talk 17:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that they have more in common with boat lifts than locks.Geni 19:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Geni - but a short mention should be made here, if only because of the name. Chris Jones

[edit] Water usage in transit of locks

One thing missing from this article is the usage of water when a lock is used. I recall that it is:

  differential volume of lock +/- displacement(s) of vessel(s) passing

depending upon whether the vessel is going "up" or "down". Recall that, on canals at least, additional water must enter the summit flight of a canal, and much of it is due to the passage of boats through locks! Comments? Hair Commodore 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a section on "Use of Water" which discusses this in qualitative terms. A well-written sub-section on how different types of lock use different amounts of water (with or without side ponds etc ) could be useful, but not if it was too dry, which would spoil the easy-to-read nature of this page. Too many Wikipedia articles are completely accurate, completeley comprehensive, and completely unreadable to anyone but a specialist. Chris Jones 07/02(Feb)/2007

[edit] Stop Locks - "newer canal higher" rule question

I always believed that at a junction where there is a stop lock, the existing canal owners would always insist that the newer canal was at a higher level (even if only inches) than the older one - to prevent the newer one stealing water. Then I realised that this is NOT true at Autherley (newer Shroppie - B&LJ - is LOWER than the S&W, at least according to Nicholson). Perhaps this "rule" is a myth, and the only really important thing was that there WAS a difference (in EITHER diretion) so that pressure would keep the stop lock gates shut. Anyone know of other "exceptions" to this (now only tentative) "Rule". CHRIS JONES 12/02(FEB)/2007

[edit] Locks and sluices - merge or explain?

A question from a stupid Swede,
I hope to considerably expand the article Slussen but got stuck on the distinction between these two English words. Is a lock exclusively used for transport and a sluice only for controlling water flows? If so, what to do you people call a canal and its devices when they are used for both purposes? Both words translates to the Swedish word sluss, so its less than obvious from my point of view. Maybe the two articles should be merged?
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote Karl Johanslussen today, and called the thing both a lock and a sluice. I hope someone knows better than me what to call it.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is very rare on the English waterways for the word "sluice" to be used for device to allow boats to change levels. I think there may be one or two locks in East Anglia, where the engineering was done by Dutch engineers ("sluis" is the Dutch word for lock OR sluice) , called "something sluice", but not anywhere else. Normally a sluice is something to control water flows, and probably only has one gate. Perhaps it would be true to say that something is called a "sluice" if it is primarily to control water flows, and SOME sluices have two gates where passage by boats is required as a secondary purpose. But since some (most?) sluices only have one gate, it is definitely misleading to think of a sluice and a lock as generally the same thing. Chris Jones (not logged in)
(Indented section above) OK, thanks. Apparently, the distinction is lost in translation, that's all... I guess.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caisson lock variation

A 21st century variation on the Caisson lock: There is a new design which, as before, has a tube sealed closed (see comment below) at the top and bottom with watertight gates. The difference is that the tube is completely drained at each passage. The vessel is guided up and down in the tube by floating pontoons shaped to fit the tube walls, rather than within a sealed box, and is probably less scary. Less excavation is required as the tube, of concrete rather than stonework as originally, can lie on the slope. The disadvantage will be water use: although side ponds are envisioned, water use will not be eliminated completely, as it was with the original concept. A new section to follow, when I find some usable citations, unless anyone wants to jump in sooner!--Old Moonraker 17:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone's posted it—thanks. [1]. Any volunteers to incorporate it into the article?--Old Moonraker 08:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
It's called the "Diagonal Lock" and it is most intruiging. You really need to download the videos to understand how it works (and they are big files) but you can quickly see why the inventor is so excited by his idea. I can't help keep thinking that there must be some kind of snag to it, like keeping the bottom gate watertight against such a large head of water, but nothing else springs to mind, and the accompanying article from Towpath Talk includes opinions from several experienced engineers. BTW, the top of the tube is open to the atmosphere, not sealed; the top-end 'seal' being provided by a pair of conventional lock gates.
EdJogg 00:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question removed from article

Cill [should this and all other instances on this page be spelt "Sill" [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.167 (talk • contribs)

--Old Moonraker 11:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Cill" is the common usage on canals. See, for example, BWB publications about repairs and stoppages, works on canal history etc. --Old Moonraker 11:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pointing Doors

Are they really commonly called that? I only ever hear them called mitre gates or doors. Single gates are also called clapper gates. Mayalld 12:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Never heard the term. This page [3] mentions them in the context of flood protection near Witham. Also on the fens, [4]. Again here [5] in East Anglia. Note the instructions to always leave the guillotine gate raised and the doors closed, perhaps suggesting some waterlevel control function? Anyway, it definitely seems to be a regional term so i am changing it to mitre gates.Derek Andrews 17:48, 13 September 2007

"Pointing doors" is the official usage for mitre gates on the River Nene and used in EA notices. Always at the head of locks, occasionally at the bottom as well instead of the guillotine. The reason for them is that at times of flood the doors are chained open and the guillotines raised to provide an additional overflow weir. This is obviously impossible with mitre gates at both ends. --Hymers2 (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drop locks

New addition to page: could do with some examples. I remember reading about a couple of examples being installed on certain UK restoration projects, but cannot remember which ones. I know that the Wey and Arun Canal has a pound that has been lowered below the original level (can't remember why), but cannot remember if the level is raised again at the following lock, or if the fall at that lock is merely reduced.

Are there any instances of canals being built with these 'from new' (as opposed to a restored or re-routed canal section negotiating a later-built obstruction)?

How do they stop all the water piling-up in the dropped section? (or rather, how do they maintain the correct water level in the dropped section?)

EdJogg 09:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Real life example added! Mayalld 11:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Large Locks using pumps to speed the filling process

Hello. The article says there are some locks that use pumps to speed up the filling and emptying process, but does not list which locks use this type of aid. I was under the assumption that all the canals moved water by gravity. Can somebody list some of the canals or locks that use pumps to speed up lockages.

Thanks

168.77.204.182 19:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Raoul

[edit] Photographic Sequence of a Russian Lock in Action

Picture sequence of a lock in action.

http://englishrussia.com/?p=1676#comment-223769 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Root Beers (talk • contribs) 04:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Adding a Link

Earlier today I added a link to a page listing the deepest canal locks in England. It is on a site that I run. I have just spotted elsewhere that it is considered "bad form" to link to one's own site!

Would others care to approve the link? Perhaps someone would like to remove it and add it again themselves, to keep things within the "rules"?

Or is it okay just to leave it where it is?

Some time has been spent researching this list and it uses information supplied to me by a number of sources, including BW and Waterways World. I have even measured some of the locks myself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennine (talk • contribs) 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winding gear / paddle gear - citation request

The incident mentioned (4 people drowned in lock) is certainly true. The following links provide verifiable cites:

The Coroner's Report (accidental death), was publlished nearly a year later:

But the clinching link is the report of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch into the incident

Page 21 of the report identifies a delay in obtaining the key to the handcuff lock as a contributory cause. However, on reading the report you will see that this was a very minor factor, and the MAIB did not include mention of handcuff padlocks in their recommendations.

So, the text needs to be re-written, and cites provided...

EdJogg (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone looking at the history of this page will see that this has been bugging me!
Having mulled-over the facts (having now read the report), the existing article text contains several factual errors. The canal name was wrong (fixed earlier today) and the victims were mentally disabled, not wheelchair bound; the boat caught its front fender between the lock gate and the balance beam, it was not caught on the cill; the angle of the boat meant that water was taken on board aft, causing it to sink further.
Although an inability to locate the handcuff key caused a delay, the act of opening the top paddle protected by the lock actually made matters worse by allowing water to enter the boat's cockpit.
All-in-all, I don't think that the incident is sufficiently related to the use of handcuff padlocks to need to remain in this section of the article. I leave it to other editors to decide whether the incident should be mentioned elsewhere instead.
EdJogg (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Staircase Locks

I haven't changed anything, but I feel that the section on staircase locks needs to distinguish between real staircases, like Bingley and Grindley Brook and apparent ones like Foxton and Watford. The difference is that on real staircases the water leaves one chamber to go into the one immediately below, whereas on Foxton etc where there are sideponds the water leaving the chamber goes into a sidepond, from which the next chamber is filled. This means that it is only on real staircases that it is necessary to have the whole flight full or empty before you start. It also means that on apparent staircases passage of the locks still only uses a single lockful of water. It is still the case that it is quicker for boats to follow each other through the flight rather than alternate; the usual rule applied by the lock keepers is "three up, three down". Bratch locks on the Staffs and Worcs is also an "apparent" staircase, but differs from Foxton in that each chamber has both top and bottom gates, although they are only a few feet apart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hymers2 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now rewritten this along the lines indicated, since no-one commented.Hymers2 (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Are the terms real and apparent official terminology? Also, you need to adjust the rest of the section to match your new edits, since it is inconsistent in places. EdJogg (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)