I've wondered this too! We have the Hiram Chittenden Locks here in Seattle between Lake Union and Puget Sound and it's about 4 stories tall. I've seen pics of when they do inspections, and they are on the floor of it, zero water is present. That's A LOT of pressure from all that water! Wonder what they use for sealing when in use?
For the older locks, sealing against the bottom would have been a problem as the gates sagged with age, and they caught on the bottom of the lock before they were closed. If there was a low curb on the lock floor, behind the base of the gates when they were closed, that could provide the "seal" against the back of the bottom of the gate. That has the advantage of the water pressure in the filled lock pushing on the gate against the seal, just as it pushes the two ends of the gates together when filled. I doubt they were water tight, but merely reduced the water leakage enough to where the normal canal waterflow would fill the lock reasonably quickly after closing the downstream gate.
They're called gate sills and they do exactly that. The pressure of the water in the lock(when high respective to the downstream side) holds the doors fast against them. Once the lock is drained to the same level as the downstream side, they open easily. No fancy-schmancy gadgets or doohickeys, just water pressure. Now that's engineering.
The flow can't be completely shut off. The locks on the Fox River have islands between the locks and the flow with a dam. The dam also controls the flow. Like the railroads, it takes some management of flow.
There is no need to seal the bottom. The water level never gets that low. The boat would be sitting in the mud. Canal level maybe 4 feet. River level maybe 6 or 7 feet. Also, you couldn't open the gates it they were dragging on the bottom. You won't see those 6 inches when I fill my canal with water.
By "dog house" I assume you mean gate control shelter. You need only one if you have a mechanism across the canal to control the opposite gate. Otherwise you'll need two dog houses, and a second gate operator. The choice becomes higher initial construction cost vs. higher continuing labor cost.
If she wishes to "overwhelm" me she may try by herself. The handiwork of the Lock and the Bowling Ally do just fine. I and others are curious about the rest of her layout. And enjoy her company. I may just pass it on to my grandson. My daughters are 52 and 37. The Brandi Lynn has a son. Burny doesn't as I know. Have a nice day all. Going to rain and snow here. And I'm working on my layout.
Oh, my bad. I thought this was going to be an old, abandoned, and dry canal... Agreed the "seal" does not need to be water-tight. But the more water that slips under the closed gates, the longer it takes to fill the lock when the gates are closed. Time is (and was) money. But if it will all be hidden by murky water in the canal, this detail in the model is moot.
If there is a lockhouse then an entire family lives there, Wives sons and daughters are the extra labor so a doghouse for each gate works for them. But I don't have a house.
Anybody have any pics of what such a cross-canal mechanism to control the opposite gate from a single dog-house might look like? Is it above the water or below? I can imagine a linkage from an arm on the near-side gate to the swinging end of the opposite gate, but that's just a WAG.
That sounds right. Why have two shelters. All the bus shelters we have are all on one side. The boat captains should know the height of all the cross walks and make is loads lower. All the little canals around here are level and don't have locks.
Dual gate control had to be below water level before the days of electrical controls. No idea how, but gotta be thee. Beautiful modelling, Candy.
Nah, I bet a guy ran across the bridge and manually cranked that half of the lock gate open from the other side. Simple times you know.
I think the model is well set up for separate doghouses, with the bridge already near where they would be. Or likely any child labor laws either...
