What size is Lodes End Lock
Martin Ludgate
I own gives the size of Lodes End lock, the new lock constructed
near Ramsay in the 1980s when the water levels in the area were
altered. I might be taking a full-length (71ft 6in) narrow boat to the
Middle Levels sometime in the next year or two, and would like to
know how much of the system will be accessible.
--
Martin Ludgate
Greg Chapman
<edi...@navvies.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Neither the Middle Levels web site nor any of the reference books
>I own gives the size of Lodes End lock,
I rang the MLC this morning, as soon as I read your note, Martin. As
I hadn't received a response on my answering machine while I was out I
rang again this afternoon. Guess what! They don't know!
"I went straight to our Navigation Notes" said the man I was put
through to, "but it's not in there". "I know", I said and explained I
was the guy that was putting together the web site and explained how I
been asked the question about a 71'6" narrowboat. "I'm sure it's big
enough", he said. "When we rebuilt it I'm sure we would have taken
account boats of that size. I'll have to look up the drawings. Can
you wait until tomorrow?" "Of course", said I. He said he'd ring
then. I warned him he might have to speak to an answering machine. So
I await a definitive answer and will definitely post it on the fens
site asap!
At the moment the MLC pages on "the-fens" site contain only copies of
the current public information sheets issued by the MLC. I was hoping
to keep things that way, making a clear distinction between official
MLC information and other material. As the info due from the phone
call is not an official paper I was planning to add it elsewhere on
the-fens site, so be careful where you look!
The additional Middle Level pages should contain both reliably sourced
info from the MLC, the waterway's users and old documents from other
sources. For instances, I think I've said before, there are some
interesting minor variations between this years and last years
"General Information" notes which the MLC provide if you ask for their
information pack about the Nene-Ouse Link Route.
Greg
Slippery Dick
sore point with them.
When they built tebbits bridge pumping station the original plan was to
block of the river at Ramsey, but the IWA got wind of the plan and made them
build a lock to keep the navigation open.
The MLC is run by wealthy land owners and farmers whose only care is to keep
their land free from the waters which should rightfully cover it they don't
care two hoots for boat owners, fishermen and the like.
BTW theres a picture of the thames barge which used to trade from Cadge and
Colmans mill in Peterborough on my webpages at
www.fisheries.freeserve.co.uk/barge.htm
Greg Chapman wrote in message <374f57b1...@news.freeserve.net>...
Greg Chapman
<edi...@navvies.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Neither the Middle Levels web site nor any of the reference books
>I own gives the size of Lodes End lock,
At 5:40pm on Friday I took a phone call from Mr Clemmow the MLC's
Chief Engineer. He was full of apologies for not calling earlier in
the day after his promise of the day before. He had managed to look
up the dimensions of Lode End Lock from the original drawings.
Length is 68ft and width is 12ft. The length is taken from between
the gates less the width of the walkway across the lock gates at one
end. He added that it would be possible to make the passage in a boat
longer than 68ft at level water. This does occur from time to time
according to pumping requirements at Bevills Leam.
He added that he would ask one of his staff to measure it more
accurately on site. However, he had been unable to do that on Friday
as he had been out of the office all day and was now about to leave
for Germany for a weeks holiday, so it would not happen for at least a
week.
I was most impressed, and flattered, that he seemed so keen to get me
the full information and told him so. I am uploading the information
to the MLC site as I send this. The "What's New" page now has an
additional entry:
1 June 1999:
Information of the dimensions of Lodes End Lock added to
Nene-Ouse Route page (Access it from the Navigation menu button.)
(While it's not on the "recommended route" that is where the MLC give
the dimensions of all the other locks on the system, so it seemed
appropriate to add it there.)
Greg
Greg Chapman
<ang...@fisheries.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>The MLC is run by wealthy land owners and farmers whose only care is to keep
>their land free from the waters which should rightfully cover it they don't
>care two hoots for boat owners, fishermen and the like.
Whether they are wealthy or not, you can't blame them for not doing
anything for which they don't get paid and in which they have no
interest.
It's true you become a Commissioner simply by owning 100 acres within
the MLC catchment area so perhaps you need to be rich, but most will,
no doubt, be owned by those with mortgages up to their necks like the
rest of us.
The 1862 Act which established the MLC, requires that a board, elected
by and from the commissioners, actually manages the waterways.
Though, like any local council, they will take advice from the
officers they employ about what is technically or legally possible, so
its not always the commissioners themselves who are to blame.
From what I've been told, like many a Parish Council, the officers can
find it very difficult to get commissionners to meet their legal
requirements put themselves forward for election to the board. It's
not, therefore, a matter of the MLC not being particularly interested
in boat owners or anglers. Most are are not even that interested in
their own land drainage!
One of their problems is that the Act only allows them to generate
income from drainage rates and navigation tolls. The act further
stipulates what those tolls might be. Unfortunately for the
Commissioners, none of the cargoes common in the early part of the
last century are still carried, so they have no income for maintenance
of the navigation. And it is against the law for them to charge a
navigation fee to pleasure boats.
So unless what they need to do to keep the land drained happens to
afford some benefit to boat owners or others, it is pure chance that
navigation, wildfowl, anglers or others benefit. For non-drainage
works they are completely reliant on grants from other bodies and, to
be fair, they have used them where they could.
Greg
Tony Clarke
Greg Chapman wrote in message <3753a0f2...@news.freeserve.net>...
>It's true you become a Commissioner simply by owning 100 acres within
>the MLC catchment area so perhaps you need to be rich, but most will,
>no doubt, be owned by those with mortgages up to their necks like the
>rest of us.
>
>The 1862 Act which established the MLC, requires that a board, elected
>by and from the commissioners, actually manages the waterways.
>Though, like any local council, they will take advice from the
>officers they employ about what is technically or legally possible, so
>its not always the commissioners themselves who are to blame.
>
>From what I've been told, like many a Parish Council, the officers can
>find it very difficult to get commissionners to meet their legal
>requirements put themselves forward for election to the board. It's
>not, therefore, a matter of the MLC not being particularly interested
>in boat owners or anglers. Most are are not even that interested in
>their own land drainage!
In other words it's a system fallen into decay and ripe for an overhaul.
If an 1862 Act is involved, then it dates from a time when the vote was
restricted to male freeholders with a minimum rateable value of property, a
situation that has been radically modernised since. Ensuring that drainage
was done by vesting its control in those who would benefit commercially and
with resources (ie, tenant labourers) to spare for its upkeep, was possibly
pragmatic in its Victorian heyday, but is an anachronism now.
>
>One of their problems is that the Act only allows them to generate
>income from drainage rates and navigation tolls. The act further
>stipulates what those tolls might be. Unfortunately for the
>Commissioners, none of the cargoes common in the early part of the
>last century are still carried, so they have no income for maintenance
>of the navigation. And it is against the law for them to charge a
>navigation fee to pleasure boats.
Sounds like a new Act is required to remedy the situation, though it
will in effect merge the MLC with the EA who may be unhappy to take it on
without further finance. Assuming their present operations are that
separate, of course. At the least there should be a Board with
representatives from non-farming interest groups, such as the IWA, RSPB,
tourism officers of local councils, etc. All those shiny door plates in
March are quite charming, but there's been enough old-skool patronage in the
Fens, to the area's detriment. (Recent East Cambs election results refer).
Perhaps those with an urge to poke and stir could lobby Malcolm Moss to
engage in consultation with his loyal voters, with a view to introducing a
private member's Bill?
Greg Chapman
<TonyC...@careers.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> In other words it's a system fallen into decay and ripe for an overhaul.
The MLC recognise that. Indeed the document from which I learned all
this was a legal opinion drawn up in 1986 by the Clerk and another
solicitor. I only have pages 48 to 51. I have no idea what the rest
of the paper was about, though there is a reference is boundary
changes, but these pages are headed "Joint Opinion on Mode of
Electoral Reform of Middle Level Commissioners". The full text is
available via the reform link at the MLC site at
http://www.the-fens.freeserve.co.uk/mlc/index.htm
As a drainage board they are in an unenviable position, because of the
navigation duties placed upon them with, effectively, no income
through which to meet those responsibilities. I have some sympathy
for them, which is why I can't condemn them as being just wealthy
landowners in it for their own good.
>If an 1862 Act is involved, then it dates from a time when the vote was
>restricted to male freeholders with a minimum rateable value of property, a
>situation that has been radically modernised since.
As the paper makes clear there are other options, based on legislation
as recent as 1976, but these assume a single drainage function. The
MLC are not in this position and, it appears, conscious that boat
owners would be likely to protest at anything which would raise their
charges.
> Sounds like a new Act is required to remedy the situation, though it
>will in effect merge the MLC with the EA who may be unhappy to take it on
>without further finance.
Precisely the problem foreseen in 1986! And promoting a private bill
was expected to cost at least 20,000 UKP. Money they clearly decided
not to spend!
>Assuming their present operations are that
>separate, of course. At the least there should be a Board with
>representatives from non-farming interest groups, such as the IWA, RSPB,
My understanding is that the MLC do consult with user groups on a
regular basis, but clearly that is not the same as having a vote.
>Perhaps those with an urge to poke and stir could lobby Malcolm Moss to
>engage in consultation with his loyal voters, with a view to introducing a
>private member's Bill?
I get the feeling that things have moved on since 1986. Certainly, it
does appear now that a way way round the MLC's inability to levy a
licence fee is being got round by some deal with the Environment
Agency, whereby the EA will add some extra to their Great Ouse/Nene
licence and cover the Commissioner's costs of navigation work within
the Middle Level.
Greg
Martin Ludgate
Chapman <gr...@the-fens.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>On Wed, 26 May 1999 12:20:33 +0100, Martin Ludgate
><edi...@navvies.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Neither the Middle Levels web site nor any of the reference books
>>I own gives the size of Lodes End lock,
>
>At 5:40pm on Friday I took a phone call from Mr Clemmow the MLC's
>Chief Engineer. He was full of apologies for not calling earlier in
>the day after his promise of the day before. He had managed to look
>up the dimensions of Lode End Lock from the original drawings.
>
>Length is 68ft and width is 12ft. The length is taken from between
>the gates less the width of the walkway across the lock gates at one
>end. He added that it would be possible to make the passage in a boat
>longer than 68ft at level water. This does occur from time to time
>according to pumping requirements at Bevills Leam.
>
>He added that he would ask one of his staff to measure it more
>accurately on site.
Thanks. It sounds like unless there is level water we won't be
able to get 71ft 6in narrow boat 'Fulbourne' through then.
I wonder why they built it that length - longer than was necessary
to accommodate existing Middle Level boats, but not long enough
for possible future use by full length narrow boats.
--
Martin Ludgate
Greg Chapman
<edi...@navvies.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Thanks. It sounds like unless there is level water we won't be
>able to get 71ft 6in narrow boat 'Fulbourne' through then.
I did mention going in on the diagonal, but he didn't respond to that
idea, because plainly he did not know what extra length that would
give and perhaps because, as he was working from the drawings, wasn't
sure about height of walkway on the gate and all those other factors
which might mean, that with the right boat you'd have the necessary
length.
>I wonder why they built it that length - longer than was necessary
>to accommodate existing Middle Level boats, but not long enough
>for possible future use by full length narrow boats.
He posed that question to himself and, again, didn't have a good
answer. My own best guess was that it represents both something
longer than all the other locks at the time (and so a perfectly good
length given that it would have been difficult to imagine additional
navigation funds being available to lengthen other locks) and more
importantly as much as the funds would allow!
Greg
Chris N Deuchar
> On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:03:50 +0100, Martin Ludgate
> <edi...@navvies.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Thanks. It sounds like unless there is level water we won't be
> >able to get 71ft 6in narrow boat 'Fulbourne' through then.
>
> I did mention going in on the diagonal, but he didn't respond to that
> idea, because plainly he did not know what extra length that would
> give and perhaps because, as he was working from the drawings, wasn't
> sure about height of walkway on the gate and all those other factors
> which might mean, that with the right boat you'd have the necessary
> length.
Bishop Meadow lock on the Soar, the shortest one since about 1948, has
had its sill 'remodelled'. It was always tight with our pair but with
Jackal at 69'9" we only have a few inches in which to open ONE bottom
gate. We then have to pull our 71'6" butty sideways and through the same
gate when going downhill. Uphill, the butty goes first. Working this way,
the butty has a foot or so to spare.
The relevance here? Well if there is room for a 72'6"+ boat through a
lock with barely 70feet between mitres and cill then Fulbourne might JUST
manage - and it would be very nice to try any way - and let the rest of
the world know, eh? Martin?
Chris D
--
Chris N. Deuchar, Nottingham University,
Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough, LE12 5RD
tel 0115 951 6264, NEW fax 0870 088 2339
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~sbzcd/
Author & Publisher: "A Boaters Guide to BOATING" 3-75GBP +0-75 p&p
A mixture of old and new waterway techniques. ISBN 0 9531512 0 4
Details at: http://www.blacksheep.org/canals/books.htm
Martin Ludgate
Deuchar <Chris....@nottingham.ac.uk> writes
>The relevance here? Well if there is room for a 72'6"+ boat through a
>lock with barely 70feet between mitres and cill then Fulbourne might
>JUST
>manage - and it would be very nice to try any way - and let the rest of
>the world know, eh? Martin?
>
and finding out for ouselves whether it will fit. But we won't make
any arrangements that are based on the assumption that we'll get
through! Anyway if and when we get there, we will tell you all
about it.
--
Martin Ludgate
Narrowboat StKilda
Can anyone advise me whether I can wind a 58' narrowboat at the head of
navigation on the Wissey?
Many thanks,
Robert
--
Narrowboat "StKilda", Cambridge (England).
http://www.cam.net.uk/home/StKilda/index.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Greg Chapman
wrote:
>Can anyone advise me whether I can wind a 58' narrowboat at the head of
>navigation on the Wissey?
As you probably know, the Imray Guide is silent on any matter to do
with boat length. (GOBA members only seem interested in headroom and
draft!) so I don't know whether it's worth e-mailing
members...@ndirect.co.uk and asking them.
Greg
Martin Ludgate
In article <37538500...@news.freeserve.net>, Greg
Chapman <gr...@the-fens.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>On Wed, 26 May 1999 12:20:33 +0100, Martin Ludgate
><edi...@navvies.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Neither the Middle Levels web site nor any of the reference books
>>I own gives the size of Lodes End lock,
>
>At 5:40pm on Friday I took a phone call from Mr Clemmow the MLC's
>Chief Engineer. He was full of apologies for not calling earlier in
>the day after his promise of the day before. He had managed to look
>up the dimensions of Lode End Lock from the original drawings.
>
>Length is 68ft and width is 12ft. The length is taken from between
>the gates less the width of the walkway across the lock gates at one
>end. He added that it would be possible to make the passage in a boat
>longer than 68ft at level water. This does occur from time to time
>according to pumping requirements at Bevills Leam.
>
In case anyone else is interested, I have just received the latest
East Anglia Waterways Association newsletter, which confirms
that Lodes End Lock is not long enough to pass a full length
narrow boat. There is a photo of NB Saltaire trying but failing to
get through.
--
Martin Ludgate
Greg Chapman
news:hRotziA1$dA4...@navvies.demon.co.uk...
> A very long time ago......
But then it does seem to have gone rather quiet! :-)
> >At 5:40pm on Friday I took a phone call from Mr Clemmow the MLC's
> >Chief Engineer. He was full of apologies for not calling earlier
in
> >the day after his promise of the day before. He had managed to
look
> >up the dimensions of Lode End Lock from the original drawings.
Reminds me.... I must chase the Clerk to see what's happened to the
revised byelaws!
> In case anyone else is interested, I have just received the latest
> East Anglia Waterways Association newsletter, which confirms
> that Lodes End Lock is not long enough to pass a full length
> narrow boat. There is a photo of NB Saltaire trying but failing to
> get through.
I recall that name! Did I see it reviewed in one of the national
magazines? Did it manage Salters Lode on level water?
Greg
Martin Ludgate
<gr...@eastwalton.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Martin Ludgate <edi...@navvies.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:hRotziA1$dA4...@navvies.demon.co.uk...
>
>> East Anglia Waterways Association newsletter, which confirms
>> that Lodes End Lock is not long enough to pass a full length
>> narrow boat. There is a photo of NB Saltaire trying but failing to
>> get through.
>
>I recall that name! Did I see it reviewed in one of the national
>magazines?
they possibly can - their exploits have featured in the magazines at
least once.
>Did it manage Salters Lode on level water?
>
--
Martin Ludgate