Report of Self Propelled Passage
of the Traditional Narrowboat
“Invicta” Equipped with
Vintage Engine with
Exhaust through
Standedge Tunnel
19th September 2008
Brian Badminton
September 2008
IntroductionThe author approached British Waterways who have been undertaking trials passages through Standedge tunnel to offer to take through “Invicta” to establish potential fumes problems that could occur with a vintage engine craft fitted with a roof mounted vertical orientated exhaust.
Details of “Invicta”“Invicta” was built in 1979 as 40ft (later extended to 60ft) long traditional style steel hulled canal narrowboat having an approximate water draught of 2ft 6in. The 2 cylinder 3 litre low speed 22HP Kelvin engine model J2 was manufactured in 1946 and overhauled in 2004 having run approximately 1000 hours since.
The engine emits typical levels of exhaust fumes and smoke consistent with similar engines of this type and age that in a good condition.
The AuthorThe author Brian Badminton has 30 years experience of canal boating and has owned “Invicta” since 1990. Under the present ownership it has travelled approximately 8000 miles and passed through 6000 locks. Hence the author is extremely familiar with the responses and handling of the boat, a point which became very apparent in the trial. (See below).
The BW PilotThe BW pilot assigned to the take “Invicta” through the tunnel was Fred Carter, a long standing employee of 40 years with BW, very experienced in piloting the tunnel tugs, and very familiar with the layout and obstructions within the tunnel.
To assist Fred was a second BW employee called Dave
Pre Passage BriefingA detailed briefing of the various engine and gearbox controls were given by the author to the BW pilot as these are a one off design unique to Invicta. Forward and reverse being controlled by a “speedwheel” with locking hook and engine speed by a separate single level.
There is no stop or start buttons as these functions are carried out directly on the engine and are complicated and unique to the Kelvin design. Also there are five manual oiling points that require attention every hour whilst the engine is operating.
With this in mind the author was asked to stay on the boat and additional safety equipment was brought on board in the event that the author would be required to take the controls.
The author’s daughter also remained on the boat in the cabin throughout the passage
The PassageBW provided an addition light source of a wide spread beam light mounted on the cabin roof facing upwards to illuminate the front to give a clear view of the tunnel
“Invicta” entered the Diggle portal with Fred steering, Dave was on the front well deck, and the author in the back cabin in communication with Fred.
At the very allow initial speed setting there was little steerage available and Fred was unable to maintain a straight line of travel. Increasing the speed slightly gave a lot better boat position control but was a lot faster than that which Fred was used to in the electric tug.
Also the 60 ft length of the boat and the unfamiliar rear steering position when compared to that of the BW tug was concerning Fred. He expressed his worry that the boat may be damaged in the extreme confines of the tunnel. Needless to say the author was also concerned about the possibility of damage to “Invicta”.
It was then mutually agreed that the author take over the steering of the boat with Fred by his side giving constant detailed information and advice of where the boat should be positioned in readiness for the obstructions ahead.
This combination of skills and familiarity of the tunnel and boat by the BW pilot and the author became immediately apparent and the passage continued without any cause for concern by either party.
We were learning from each other how to get the boat through the tunnel without mishap or worry and the journey became very easy and enjoyable.
At the communication points the author was able to stop the boat precisely where Dave could alight to contact the control centre. At the second point we were requested to slow down as we were getting too far in front of the following tug convoy. The author advised this was not preferable as steerage would suffer greatly (as outlined above). Fred concurred with this and we continued the same safe and comfortable speed, adjusting up or down as advised by Fred in readiness for obstructions that he knew about but the author could not even see.
At the third control point we advised the above situation and it was agreed that we should continue as we felt best.
The lowest point of the tunnel gave no problems and the exhaust pipe that spit the exhaust flow to the sides could have been left on. As it was the vertical exhaust flow was bringing considerable amounts of debris down form the tunnel roof and covering the roof of the boat. At some points it became uncomfortable with dust flying in both the author’s and Fred’s eyes.
At no point were the exhaust fumes a problem, despite on several occasions where it was advised safe to do so, the author increased the boat speed to cause increased emissions. Also deliberate fast stopping using reverse gears and high engine revs at the control points to increase the fume level caused no problems.
Nearing the Marsden end of the tunnel Fred had advised that there were several pinch points in the tunnel in what appeared to the author otherwise good lined sections. The boat was felt to slow down and drag as we passed through the first few but at the last the boat was brought to sudden halt. “Invicta” was being caught at the front of the hull under the water level at the lowest draught point and not at the back where the hull draught is deepest. At water level there was at least and inch each side of space between the hull and the tunnel wall.
We reversed and the boat moved back with no problem. We tried a slow forward setting but we were halted once more. We tired rocking the boat but it there was no movement. Dave explored with the boat pole but there was no obstruction evident.
A third attempt at reversing and approaching slowly again failed
Concerned that the boat may get jammed, Fred requested the author to reverse back to nearest side addict to enable control to be contacted.
This was done with no trouble. Control advised that the tunnel level was minus 3.5 inches and that no problems should be being experienced. Control halted the tug convoy.
Fred decided that we should return to the area and both he and Dave should be at the front to investigate the problem. Exploring with boat poles only indicated that there was a small ledge below the water that “Invicta” may be catching on.
The author advised that the tidemark on the tunnel walls indicated between 5 to 6 inches of height above the water level. The author also advised that when reaching lock 32W the pound water level was low by about 6 inches. It was noted that our dog was able to walk into the canal at the lock bywash on the exposed mud and we have a photograph that confirms this. We were the second of 5 boats ascending the Diggle flight and therefore the pound would be lowered even more. (Other boaters independently confirmed they had observed similar water levels of 6 inches below normal).
We concluded that the action of the rotating propeller albeit very slow was causing a localised lowering of the tunnel water level. This is a well known fact about propeller driven craft as propellers have to “suck” as hard as they “blow” in order to move a boat through the water. Also a tight confine of the tunnel when water cannot be drawn into the propeller along the sides of the boats as dictated by conventional narrowboat hull design, water in then drawn from underneath the boat, thus causing the boat to settle down into the water. This effect can readily be seen when passing over aqueducts or narrow sections of canal such as the Whiteland’s “tunnel” above lock 1W
Following this discussion Fred suggested that we “leg” the boat through the obstruction. With a combination of boat poles and hands on the tunnel roof we “legged” Invicta” through the pinch point as if there was no problem at all. We all waited for the boat to get jammed again but it just kept moving.
Once we knew we were clear the author reengaged propeller drive and we continued at a good speed to the Marsden portal with no further problems.
It should be noted that in the tug convoy there was steam powered boat with a 2ft 9 ins draught which passed through the pinch point shortly after “Invicta2 and experience no difficulties. This bears out our theory that the problem was associated with the powered movement of the “Invicta”
Gas MonitoringAt all times The BW pilot carried a gas detector. At regular intervals we checked the readings and found only a minimal detection level. The levels did not increase after the deliberate engine speed.
No one on board felt any discomfort with regard to fumes form the roof mounted exhaust and the general levels were lower than that which the author has experienced in many other tunnels.
In fact depending on prevailing weather conditions at the time higher irritation levels have been experienced by the author when locking up or down long flights of locks in quick succession such as Tardebigge.
The author spoke to several boaters that were on the tug module. Some could smell that there had been diesel fumes but no one complained or commented about the fume levels.
Fred asked the tug pilot who confirmed the above and that his gas detector was not showing any significant increase in gas levels.
Tunnel control advised that the gas levels in the tunnel were not a problem throughout “Invicta’s” passage.
The author is not aware of the precise gases and levels of PPM (parts per Million) that are acceptable by BW but would expect that the relevant data will be analysed by those concerned.
Post PassageThe rear areas of the roof and cabin sides were completely covered in light flaky debris from the tunnel roof. Both the BW pilot and the author were somewhat similar in appearance.
Invicta had not suffered any damage whatsoever.
A BW manager James Dean was present (although on officially on holiday) and the opportunity was taken by both the BW pilot and the author to relate the details of the passage.
The author knew that Fred was concerned about his decision to authorise the author to steer for most of passage as this was not the BW understanding of how the tunnel pilot system would operate.
The reasons were explained fully and made it clear that the author had been equally instrumental in the decision making.
In the author’s opinion it makes a lot lore sense to have the combined skills and knowledge of a boat steerer fully familiar with his boat and the BW pilot fully familiar with the subtleties of the interior of tunnel.
This is the method for seagoing vessel in difficult waters and harbours. The local pilot advises and the ships crew and captain and they follow his advice
This is also the best method when dealing with boats with non standard controls and systems unlike the “Morse” type single throttle/gear lever and key start/stop of most modern privately owned/hire boats where it could be argued that a BW pilot could be reasonably expected to steer the boat if the owner should wish him to do so.
James Dean confirmed that he was very pleased that Fred has taken the decision he did and adopted the method of pilot advising the steerer, and commented that this was most the “way forward”. The author agreed with and was pleased with his comment and undertook to write a report that could help record the events for future reference, commit, and action by BW senior management.
ConclusionsIt was perhaps a good thing that we had problems on our trip as this highlighted the potential situation of a self steerer being stranded in the tunnel with the need to summon assistance.
Although the author has travelled through Standedge tunnel six times previously to the above trip it would have been daunting to go through alone. Now having the experience of this trip it would not present a problem in the future to undertake a self steer passage.
On such a passage “Invicta’s” headlamp would need to be changed from the flat beam unit that prevents blinding ass oncoming boat in a two way tunnel, to a large beam type similar to car’s headlight in order to better illuminate the way ahead. This would greatly assist the positioning of the boat in readiness for the obstructions without the guidance of a BW pilot.
Although not essential, an exhaust splitter should be used in order to prevent the debris from the roof falling onto the boat and steerer. In “Invicta’s” case the exhaust pipe would have been able to remain in situ as even the low point of the tunnel has clearance in the centre of the tunnel. As most traditional boats have the vertical exhaust in the centre it should be possible for most boats to leave the exhaust pipe in situ.
It should however be noted that the lower than ideal water levels would have created more than usual clearance on our trip. Having said that, the space would have been sufficient in “Invicta’s” case.
As there was a discrepancy between the boaters observed water levels and the official control reading the author would suggest that this be investigated as this was instrumental in the difficulties at the pinch point.
At the next opportunity the tunnel walls should be examined and if possible any protrusions removed in order to eliminate or reduce the pinch point problem.
If this cannot be achieved then the self propelled passage of deeper draughted boats would have to be prevented if the tunnel water level is not at its highest.
On our passage there was the expertise of the BW pilot and the back up man was able to walk up the disused railway tunnel to contact the control centre when we had a problem. Unaccompanied boaters could not be expected to take the same courses of action as we did and could have become totally jammed and unable to move to get help. It could be very frightening for people in such circumstances.
Before allowing self steer passages monitoring systems should be investigated that allow a self steer boater in trouble to contact the tunnel control should be investigated. Methods that come to the authors mind would be as follows:-
A TV type infrared handset that communicates with receivers positioned at intervals along the tunnel.
A radio transmitter generally working the same as above.
Closed circuit cameras positioned so that all the tunnel can be monitored
A mechanical strip or closely positioned alarm buttons
On our trip the author’s daughter was confined to the boat cabin. This was disappointing for her as had she travelled on the tug convoy she would be allowed out onto the forward and rear open decks to enjoy the sights of the tunnel, wearing a hard hat of course. On future piloted or self steer passages a similar situation should be adopted for the passengers on the boat.
The Way ForwardPiloted (subject to the above comments) or self steered tunnel passages are definitely the way forward for all concerned.
By allowing piloted or self steer passages it will greatly reduce the pressure of water supply on the on the Diggle and Marsden flights when up to four boats are ascending the flights all at one time.
If a passage of the tunnel can be made on any or a number of designated days in a week and the lock flights left open during the day boaters can arrive at relatively random times.
They can enjoy the villages of Marsden and Diggle more and bring more income to those communities (especially Diggle where they arrive at 12.00 noon and have to descend the locks at 13.00
It was also greatly reduce the financial expenditure of BW compared with the present method of tunnel passages.
It would improve the image of the Huddersfield Narrow Canal and hopefully attract more boats to use it.
Offer of Return for More TrialsCircumstances at the tunnel with staff levels and planned work prevented the author from remaining at the tunnel and undertaking more trial passages as per the author’s offer to BW.
This was a pity as with a higher water level in the tunnel we could have retested the pinch point situation. Also with more than one passage in close succession the effects of gas build up with closely spaced passages could have been assessed.
With this mind and as “Invicta’s” home mooring is at Aspley Basin Huddersfield “only” 8 miles and 42 locks away, the authors would be prepared to return at a mutually agreed time over the winter months to carry out these further trials.
The only slight caveat (and not a condition of returning), would be that a senior member of BW management and his/hers partner be our guests on “Invicta” in order that they experience first hand the joys and difficulties of ascending the canal from Huddersfield to Marsden in order to more fully understand at first hand why the canal has a bad reputation.
We see many boaters returning to Aspley after 7 or 8 locks saying it was too difficult and that they will never return again!