On 7/9/07 20:16, "Michael Askin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry my mistake - it was Stanground, I was thinking elsewhere. I > still find it hard to believe that the depth is so close you could not > go the right way round. > I was on Fulbourne when we made our first trip through Stanground in 1993, soon after it had been lengthened. As we tried to leave the lock, we went hard aground on the original bottom sill, which is now about 2/3 of the way down the chamber. A lot of flushing of top paddles, hauling on ropes and a bit of revving the engine only succeeded in getting us so hard aground that we not only couldn't get out but couldn't get back into the lock to get the gates shut either. The counter was something like four inches clear of the water. I spent the next fifteen minutes removing lumps of steel ballast from under the back cabin floor, lugging them along the top planks and dumping them on the bows, to level the boat up (at the time we drew about 3ft at the back and about 6in at the front). I had to do this single-handed as the rest of the crew were on the bank and we were right in the middle of the lock! The lock keeper then wound the top paddles wide open, sending a flush of water down the canal. He shut the paddles, waited until the flush of water hit the next bend, part of it rebounded and a wave came back along the canal to the lock. As it arrived back, he wound the paddles wide open again so that for a few seconds the two waves combined. At that point I revved the engiine as hard as I dared without risking pulling the stern down even harder, everyone heaved on the ropes and we just scraped through. Although I realise that the levels vary due to the waterway's drainage function and therefore there might at times be more depth, I understand that the old bottom sill is still in situ and therefore we have not tried to go forwards down this lock again. Martin L
