Actual use of anchors in emergencies on UK canal/river network

[enigmatic]

2 hours ago, Sass said:

on a similar note, is there such thing as 'too many; tyres and inflatable things hanging from your boat to protect it, providing you're not doubling them up? it seems so sensible yet a lot of boats seem to not have many and im wondering if there's a reason?

 

The more dangly things you have, the more you have to remember to lift up in locks.

And the risk of leaving one down and getting stuck is bigger than the risk of a 6mm steel hull actually getting damaged at canal speeds,

[MoominPapa]

5 hours ago, IanD said:

 

If that was how insurance worked, any careless driver or one not wearing their glasses would be personally liable for multimillion pound damages if they ran somebody over, since they didn't provide the "sufficient safety equipment" of a careful driver... 😉

The road traffic act(s) contain clauses that prohibit insurers from denying _third_party_ liabilities if the policy holder breaks the insurance contract. If you drive down the A1 pissed and crash into another car, the insurance company will refuse to pay for your car, but they can't refuse to pay for the one you hit.

 

The waterways acts have the same clauses, word-for-word, requiring insurance, but not the stuff about third parties. I found this out when a boat sank in our marina and the insurance wouldn't pay up because the sinking was caused by corrosion and lack of maintenance. They insurance wouldn't pay for damage to the blacking on many boats caused by leaking diesel from the wreck either.

 

So, negligence in a boat can land you with a liability of millions that's not covered by your third party insurance in a way which is not possible with a car, at least under UK law.

 

MP.

 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

3 minutes ago, MoominPapa said:

The road traffic act(s) contain clauses that prohibit insurers from denying _third_party_ liabilities if the policy holder breaks the insurance contract. If you drive down the A1 pissed and crash into another car, the insurance company will refuse to pay for your car, but they can't refuse to pay for the one you hit.

 

The waterways acts have the same clauses, word-for-word, requiring insurance, but not the stuff about third parties. I found this out when a boat sank in our marina and the insurance wouldn't pay up because the sinking was caused by corrosion and lack of maintenance. They insurance wouldn't pay for damage to the blacking on many boats caused by leaking diesel from the wreck either.

 

So, negligence in a boat can land you with a liability of millions that's not covered by your third party insurance in a way which is not possible with a car, at least under UK law.

 

MP.

 

I think what you will find with car insurance is that if the insurance companies are forced to pay out to third parties, even though you have broken the terms of the insurance contract, they can then come after you civilly to recover their losses, which could be considerable. As regards the damage to the blacking of your boat by the leaking diesel, could that not have been claimed for on your own insurance?

 

Not entirely sure how this relates to this thread however, if having an anchor aboard was an insurance requirement then it would be part of your terms and conditions, I've had a quick look at mine and can't find any such reference.

[oboat]

On 27/09/2022 at 15:07, IanD said:

I know the subject of anchors is a contentious one and what is the best choice has been argued to death, but I have a different question...

 

For those boating regularly on the canal/river network -- meaning, including rivers which are commonly (but occasionally, for a particular boater) travelled on like the Trent and Ribble Link and Avon and Severn, but not tidal waters/estuaries or mooring up in them -- how many boaters on CWDF have ever had to actually deploy an anchor in an emergency on a river like these, for example due to loss of power?

 

My suspicion is that even though many (most? all?) boats which occasionally venture out onto such rivers have them on board, actually deploying them in anger is an extremely rare occurrence. Certainly on the hire boats I've been on which have had them onboard (because of possible routes onto rivers) there has never been any instruction or training about how to use them, which suggests that they're there as an insurance/box-ticking exercise not because they're ever expected to be used -- or indeed, useful, since a lot of them (small Danforths, short chain, short rope) would probably be about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

 

 I'll pre-empt Alan insisting that a high-performance anchor/chain/warp is *absolutely* essential because a narrowboat once went over a weir (or one saved him when moored off a lee shore in a gale...) by saying I'm looking for experiences of boaters who've had to deploy one themselves, and why, and where... 😉

 

 

Had to do this on the (tidal) Brent, in a Black Prince boat. But not from engine fail.
Just below Thames Lock on a fast-running outgoing tide.  As the last of about 4 boats, we had to tie up until the lock was opened.
As we cast off from the ring on the very high sheet piling, we had an almighty bang & the engine stopped dead, and the bow swung out into mid-stream which would have put us side on to the full force of the flow, fortunately, before leaving Teddington I had briefed the crew as to the location of the anchor. 
After instruction it went over the side, the turning motion of the boat forced the projecting BP rear fender into one of the castellations in the piling and there we stuck fast fortunately halfway across the channel at about 35 degrees to the bank.
A lump of 3-inch hemp rope was wrapped on the prop. Bread knife out, it took less than 10 minuets to cut it free. Engine started first time and we pulled away, force of the water swung us on the anchor across the channel, so our rear end just clipped the rear of a boat moored on the opposite side of the channel, anchor up and on we went.
It was a very interesting experience!

[MoominPapa]

6 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I think what you will find with car insurance is that if the insurance companies are forced to pay out to third parties, even though you have broken the terms of the insurance contract, they can then come after you civilly to recover their losses, which could be considerable.

That's a scary prospect as well. I wonder did something like that happen to the chap who fell asleep on the M62 and dumped his Landrover into the path a a train on the East Coast Mainline?

6 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

As regards the damage to the blacking of your boat by the leaking diesel, could that not have been claimed for on your own insurance?

Probably, and they could have gone after the uninsured owner of the sunken boat, in turn. It didn't seem wise or fair to go after a fellow moorer who had already lost a lot for our small losses, if it risked coming from him rather than his or our insurer.

 

MP.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

10 hours ago, MoominPapa said:

That's a scary prospect as well. I wonder did something like that happen to the chap who fell asleep on the M62 and dumped his Landrover into the path a a train on the East Coast Mainline?

Probably, and they could have gone after the uninsured owner of the sunken boat, in turn. It didn't seem wise or fair to go after a fellow moorer who had already lost a lot for our small losses, if it risked coming from him rather than his or our insurer.

 

MP.

The insurers will only go after what they think they will be able to recover (they wont go after the anecdotal 'man of straw') so given the costs of the ECML Crash they wouldn't recover anything like the costs (unless the man was a multi-millionaire).

 

As far as the blacking goes, it was probably a good choice not to go after the fellow moorer.  Insurers invariably have a 'no-betterment' clause in their policies so might well claim that the only part that needed re-blacking was along the waterline where the diesel had damaged the paint leaving you to pay for the rest of the blacking. They would also 'argue' about what was the state of your blacking before the diesel damage (had it only just been blacked? or was it blacked 4 years ago?). I've run into diesel on the cut occasionally and just take the hit.

[IanD]

11 hours ago, MoominPapa said:

The road traffic act(s) contain clauses that prohibit insurers from denying _third_party_ liabilities if the policy holder breaks the insurance contract. If you drive down the A1 pissed and crash into another car, the insurance company will refuse to pay for your car, but they can't refuse to pay for the one you hit.

 

The waterways acts have the same clauses, word-for-word, requiring insurance, but not the stuff about third parties. I found this out when a boat sank in our marina and the insurance wouldn't pay up because the sinking was caused by corrosion and lack of maintenance. They insurance wouldn't pay for damage to the blacking on many boats caused by leaking diesel from the wreck either.

 

So, negligence in a boat can land you with a liability of millions that's not covered by your third party insurance in a way which is not possible with a car, at least under UK law.

 

MP.

 

IANAL, but I believe there's a fundamental difference between negligence or neglect leading to a claim -- failing to keep a boat "in good order" -- and not having an optional item of equipment, safety-related or otherwise.

 

If the laws said that the equipment was compulsory then that would be different, but AFAIK anchors are not required on any of the rivers under discussion (e.g. the Ribble Link, the Trent) -- and neither are any of the other recommended items of equipment such as VHF radios and flare packs, which I don't think anybody would suggest not having could lead to an insurance claim being refused -- for example, see section 4.1 here...

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/original/30977-ribble-link-skippers-guide.pdf

 

A driver -- or boater -- cannot be punished by an insurance company or have a payout reduced or refused because they didn't carry optional equipment. Any suggestion that they can be is basically scaremongering... 😉

 

Unless the boat insurance policy requires such equipment to be fitted to sail on rivers and tidal waters, which I don't believe they do -- but if this assumption is wrong and anchors are required by insurance terms then what I said above is wrong, and everyone must have one to do this. But there's no such clause here, for example...

 

https://www.gjwdirect.com/media/1366/gjw-direct-narrowboat-and-barge-policy-document-1021.pdf

Edited September 29, 2022 by IanD

[Scholar Gypsy]

On 27/09/2022 at 16:34, MoominPapa said:

The only time I've used our Danforth "in anger" was waiting for the tide to turn during a passage across The Wash. (We didn't beach, which is most common tactic, but stayed floating the whole time.) We had no problem. A shorter NB in the flotilla which had a collapsible grapnel anchor suffered dragging, and had to run their engine in ahead the whole time to hold station.

 

MP.

 

ETA. When we first started narrowboating, I would have retrieved the anchor from storage and set it up with chain and warp connected on any river; the Soar, Nene, Gt Ouse, Severn etc. These days I only have it ready under all circumstances on the Trent, Severn below Upper Lode, and the Salter's Lode to Denver tidal crossing. Summer river boating on canalised rivers, I wouldn;t bother.

 

 

Here's a group of 11 boats that anchored in the Wash a couple of years ago.  Not deployed "in anger", but in a planned way (ie lower until it is on the bed and then reverse away from it while paying out the chain. None of them dragged, and all of them were recovered - there was definitely some tide and wind.   

[Scholar Gypsy]

On 27/09/2022 at 21:06, Wanderer Vagabond said:

To be honest though, you were on the Tidal Thames not 100 miles out in the Atlantic. With a mobile phone you could call London VTS, Teddington/Brentford Lock, a passing boat or if things get really hairy even the RNLI (Chiswick, Teddington and Tower). This idea that we must save ourselves without any outside assistance becomes a bit unrealistic on inland waterways. Many of the anecdotes on here are along the lines of, "...I went to help someone who would otherwise have gone over a weir..." whereas there don't seem that many anecdotes along the lines of "The anchor saved my life". I'm not arguing against anchors, I carry one myself, but I'm also realistic about what it can and cannot do. Have done a lot of offshore sailing involving the use of anchors, I can't think of any situations when the anchor was deployed in an emergency since normally anchoring involves finding suitable locations to anchor and carefully deploying the anchor. Lobbing one over the side and hoping for the best probably isn't the best approach. There was another similar thread to this recently and I pointed out on that one that trying to deploy an anchor whilst being swept through London on the flooding tide between Limehouse and Brentford probably wouldn't have a good outcome. Assuming that everything on your boat was strong enough to take the strain of stopping an 18 ton narrowboat barrelling through London at 9mph (the speed we passed under Tower Bridge according to GPS) you now have a relatively small stationary boat anchored in the middle of a very busy waterway, what could possibly go wrong.

 

On other rivers deploying the anchor could easily make a situation worse, If you were cruising the Ouse to York (so going up on the flooding tide) and a problem arose so you flung the anchor over the side, you need to be sure that the river is going to be wide enough for your boat to pirouette around the anchor without getting caught up on the bank because if the bow was held by the anchor and the stern was caught on the riverbank, this may well put you across the river flow which really isn't what you want to be doing in a narrow boat.

I'd agree on the Tidal Thames using the anchor  is a last resort,  but should be there as an option. In the convoy heading up for the Reflections Flotilla on Saturday evening, one boat got rope around the prop (not the result of poor maintnance). They called VTS on the radio and a harbour service launch appeared quite quickly to give them a tow while they checked the weedhatch.  Anchoring would be the next option.  (Here are some photos of the event - nighttime navigation was a little hairy ...)

https://scholargypsy.org.uk/2022/09/27/reflections-flotilla-post-1-of-3/

[IanD]

49 minutes ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

Here's a group of 11 boats that anchored in the Wash a couple of years ago.  Not deployed "in anger", but in a planned way (ie lower until it is on the bed and then reverse away from it while paying out the chain. None of them dragged, and all of them were recovered - there was definitely some tide and wind.   
 

If you want to moor in places like the Wash -- or anywhere else with no bankside mooring -- then obviously an anchor is essential. And it's a good idea if you spend most or all of your boating life on rivers, especially bigger ones, where you may be forced to moor like this unexpectedly, or get stuck out there in bad conditions with nowhere else to go.

 

But my original question was specifically about the oft-cited reason -- as posted many times on CWDF during discussions about anchors -- why narrowboats need an anchor, which is emergency use, usually due to engine failure or prop fouling, to avoid being swept over a weir or dolphins some other horrible fate.

 

As far as I can see it comes down to personal choice or optimism/pessimism, and how you use your boat.

 

If you take the "always look on the bright side of life" viewpoint and/or aim to stay mainly on canals with the occasional planned excursion onto rivers for a few days or a week or so (not under red or yellow boards), then the fact that several posters with 20 years combined boating on rivers/tidal waters (in well-maintained boats like Alan's) have never had to deploy an anchor in an emergency -- and several posts like the one above where problems occurred but an anchor wasn't actually used -- could well lead you to logically conclude that you don't need one.

 

If you take the "if something can go wrong it probably will" viewpoint and/or aim to spend a lot of or all your time on rivers or tidal waters under all conditions (including floods and red/yellow boards), then posts by the people who have had engine/prop problems under these conditions and used/needed an anchor will probably convince you that an anchor is needed. And since you're planning for the worst to happen, as Alan says this should be an advanced anchor with long/heavy chain/rope capable of easy deployment and stopping and holding a 20t boat, not the much more common 14kg/20kg Danforth which is basically not up to the job -- a 30kg (or heavier) one might be but is essentially unusable for most people.

 

Both are perfectly valid viewpoints based on real life experiences and neither is right or wrong for everybody.

 

Personally speaking I'll either have no anchor or a modern one (e.g. a Fortress) that's up to the job, the usual Danforth is cheap and easy to stow but those are the only points in its favour... 😉

Edited September 29, 2022 by IanD

[fladda]

On 27/09/2022 at 15:07, IanD said:

I know the subject of anchors is a contentious one and what is the best choice has been argued to death, but I have a different question...

 

For those boating regularly on the canal/river network -- meaning, including rivers which are commonly (but occasionally, for a particular boater) travelled on like the Trent and Ribble Link and Avon and Severn, but not tidal waters/estuaries or mooring up in them -- how many boaters on CWDF have ever had to actually deploy an anchor in an emergency on a river like these, for example due to loss of power?

 

My suspicion is that even though many (most? all?) boats which occasionally venture out onto such rivers have them on board, actually deploying them in anger is an extremely rare occurrence. Certainly on the hire boats I've been on which have had them onboard (because of possible routes onto rivers) there has never been any instruction or training about how to use them, which suggests that they're there as an insurance/box-ticking exercise not because they're ever expected to be used -- or indeed, useful, since a lot of them (small Danforths, short chain, short rope) would probably be about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

 

 I'll pre-empt Alan insisting that a high-performance anchor/chain/warp is *absolutely* essential because a narrowboat once went over a weir (or one saved him when moored off a lee shore in a gale...) by saying I'm looking for experiences of boaters who've had to deploy one themselves, and why, and where... 😉

 

 

 

I've had my boat for 30 years, and have used my sea anchor in anger only once. My sea anchor stopped my being swept by a strong current onto Thrumpton weir on the Trent near Trent lock, when the river was in spate. Another boat got stuck on the weir a day or two later and the crew were airlifted off by a rescue helicopter IIRC.

 

I'd moored on Cranfield cut but was facing upstream, and wanted to proceed down Cranfield cut. I started my JP3 but forgot to turn on the fuel tap from the day tank (a rookie error!). Then went out onto the big river to do a 'U' turn, and the engine coughed and died after about 60 seconds. Everything went quiet and the boat was being swept quite fast towards the weir. My sea anchor has a good long flexible nylon rope and a heavy chain of good dimensions. I quickly moved down the gunnels to the front of the boat and dropped the sea anchor overboard. The  sea anchor 'gripped' and the nylon rope worked a treat and stopped me close to the entrance to the Soar - a couple of hundred yards or so from Thrumpton weir.

 

It then took me a couple of minutes to work out why the engine had stalled. I then re-bled the fuel system, and started the engine. Picking up the sea anchor by simply pulling it backwards (i.e. re-tracing my course) was relatively straightforward.

 

Ralph

 

[Tony Brooks]

6 minutes ago, fladda said:

 

I've had my boat for 30 years, and have used my sea anchor in anger only once. My sea anchor stopped my being swept by a strong current onto Thrumpton weir on the Trent near Trent lock, when the river was in spate. Another boat got stuck on the weir a day or two later and the crew were airlifted off by a rescue helicopter IIRC.

 

I'd moored on Cranfield cut but was facing upstream, and wanted to proceed down Cranfield cut. I started my JP3 but forgot to turn on the fuel tap from the day tank (a rookie error!). Then went out onto the big river to do a 'U' turn, and the engine coughed and died after about 60 seconds. Everything went quiet and the boat was being swept quite fast towards the weir. My sea anchor has a good long flexible nylon rope and a heavy chain of good dimensions. I quickly moved down the gunnels to the front of the boat and dropped the sea anchor overboard. The  sea anchor 'gripped' and the nylon rope worked a treat and stopped me close to the entrance to the Soar - a couple of hundred yards or so from Thrumpton weir.

 

It then took me a couple of minutes to work out why the engine had stalled. I then re-bled the fuel system, and started the engine. Picking up the sea anchor by simply pulling it backwards (i.e. re-tracing my course) was relatively straightforward.

 

Ralph

 

 

Er, I very much doubt you used a sea anchor. A sea anchor is like big canvas cone or bucket that you drop into the sea to minimize wind drift when the water is too deep to deploy an ordinary  anchor. A sea anchor would have the potential to make the situation worst on a flowing or tidal river.

[Mike Todd]

22 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Yes, Hurleston is notorious for it having myself seen someone try to get in with the pipe fenders down and then having to be 'flushed' out of the lock because he'd jammed. As you say fenders do certainly have a role, big one's to get away from the 'Shroppie Shelf' being the favourite, but leaving them down when on the move is somewhat pointless. The only real exception I'd make would be for GRP boats in locks with us well 'ard narrow boats, because it makes them feel safer.

According to the lockie (paid not volunteer) it is now the second lock up that is the pinch point now that the bottom one has been attended to. (IIRC!)

[Wanderer Vagabond]

7 hours ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

I'd agree on the Tidal Thames using the anchor  is a last resort,  but should be there as an option. In the convoy heading up for the Reflections Flotilla on Saturday evening, one boat got rope around the prop (not the result of poor maintnance). They called VTS on the radio and a harbour service launch appeared quite quickly to give them a tow while they checked the weedhatch.  Anchoring would be the next option.  (Here are some photos of the event - nighttime navigation was a little hairy ...)

https://scholargypsy.org.uk/2022/09/27/reflections-flotilla-post-1-of-3/

Having looked at your link, it was interesting to see the guy checking his depth gauge, showing 16 metres of water. If you work on the normal 8 : 1 ratios (so for every metre of water depth you need 8 metres of anchor rode) I honestly don't know where I'd put 128 metres of warp in a deployable situation (you don't want to just heave it over the side and hope it doesn't knot up). When you say anchoring would have been the next option, I think you might mean the 'nuclear' option when absolutely everything else had failed. Even then, on the tidal Thames you aren't going to be swept over any weir, you are just going to get carried up on the tide or down on the river flow.

[Tony Brooks]

7 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Even then, on the tidal Thames you aren't going to be swept over any weir, you are just going to get carried up on the tide or down on the river flow

 

However, I would hate to hit a bridge pier or dolphin sideways on.

[Scholar Gypsy]

6 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Having looked at your link, it was interesting to see the guy checking his depth gauge, showing 16 metres of water. If you work on the normal 8 : 1 ratios (so for every metre of water depth you need 8 metres of anchor rode) I honestly don't know where I'd put 128 metres of warp in a deployable situation (you don't want to just heave it over the side and hope it doesn't knot up). When you say anchoring would have been the next option, I think you might mean the 'nuclear' option when absolutely everything else had failed. Even then, on the tidal Thames you aren't going to be swept over any weir, you are just going to get carried up on the tide or down on the river flow.

 

Yes, good point ("the guy" was me, the depth sounder was one of my gadgets). 12m was a more normal depth around Wapping. The Barrier had been closed for the day, and the tidal height was very hard for the EA to predict, I think they had more water than they ideally would have liked. My experience of engine failures (other boats, and the one I was  crewing on)  on the Thames is that you have a bit of time to try and get a tow from another boat, but if you're at risk of hitting a bridge pier or a pontoon then it's time to deploy the anchor   

[tree monkey]

On 28/09/2022 at 16:05, Midnight said:

 

You are always right IanD so I suggest when you get your nice shiny new boat don't bother with an anchor and try a few trips up and down the tidal Ouse and tidal Trent.  Keep an eye out for floating debris on the way. You probably will be okay but possibly you will encounter a problem with aforementioned debris when you do, you will likely need an anchor.

I suggest in your case you will only need third party insurance too. 

To be fair all he is doing is a personal risk assessment for his own boat and using this thread to guide the process, it will be the correct decision for him because it's his risk assessment for you (and others) it's the wrong decision. 

 

I have similar discussions with many different people regularly, trees not boats, but it's the same process,  the person who has had a tree or branch failure will be more risk adverse than someone who hasn't, it's likely that their neighbours will also be more risk adverse as well despite my reassurances that their trees are fine and the % chance of a failure is low.

 

Equally some people will continue to be less risk adverse even if they have had an incident be it branch failure or boat incident, the point I am making is this is a personal decision no more no less

[LadyG]

I wouldn't worry about eight times depth, I've never ever used that for anchoring. Four or five five times scope for a prolonged storm at sea with an anchor watch. Standard is three times taking in to account tidal rise.

I would not want more than five times in a storm, in a suitable spot., but not on a river.

I've got 33m rope and eight m of heavy chain, I would want to feed the anchor out till the anchor held the boat and then decide what to do, check tide, situation,  advise the harbour authority and discuss options.

When I say feeding out the anchor, that would be if situation allowed, I might deploy it all and hope it works. This would be if boat was in favourable orientation and boat is likely to fall back on the anchor.

I don't think one wants to anchor in the centre of the fairway, nor does one want to try to anchor too near moorings for fear of catching on their ground tackle.

It's all a bit academic but not a bad idea to run through a few options.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2022 by LadyG

[bizzard]

All about dragging and losing anchors in Arthur Ransomes ''We didn't mean to go to sea''.  Also the use of Sea anchors too in his book ''Missie Lee''.

 

 

 

Missie Lee.

Edited September 29, 2022 by bizzard

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I wouldn't worry about eight times depth, I've never ever used that for anchoring. Four or five five times scope for a prolonged storm, with an anchor watch. Standard is three times taking in to account tidal rise.

I would not want more than five times in a storm, but not on a river.

I've got 33m rope and eight m of chain, I would be feeding anchor out till the anchor held the boat and then decide what to do, check tide and advise the harbour authority and discuss options.

 

I'm sure your many years of boating will confirm how the performance of the anchor increases with length of chain / rode (scope)

 

A scope of 3:1 will give a maximum of 50% of the anchors full 'holding power'

A scope of 10:1 will give you 100% of the anchors 'holding power'.

 

Industry recommendation for length is 5x the depth for chain and 10x depth for 'rope'.

If you are only going to use a scope of 3:1 then you will need a far superior holding power anchor than if you use a 5:1 scope.

 

Test results from two different sources :

 

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[bizzard]

These anchors are ok for a muddy bottom but for a known rocky bottom an ordinary Fishermans type anchor is usually best.

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

However, I would hate to hit a bridge pier or dolphin sideways on.

On a tidal Thames cruise a few years ago we were following the leading boats upstream on a rising tide when we were told to take the adjacent bridge arch to the one the boats in front of us were heading for. I thought we had plenty of time to steer across, but we closed up on the bridge much faster than I expected, and only just made it past the pier and under the correct span. But what frightened me most was how the water was piled up in front of the pier cutwater, with fast currents down either side. If we had been right in that flow we would have hit the pier very hard!

[Tony Brooks]

39 minutes ago, David Mack said:

On a tidal Thames cruise a few years ago we were following the leading boats upstream on a rising tide when we were told to take the adjacent bridge arch to the one the boats in front of us were heading for. I thought we had plenty of time to steer across, but we closed up on the bridge much faster than I expected, and only just made it past the pier and under the correct span. But what frightened me most was how the water was piled up in front of the pier cutwater, with fast currents down either side. If we had been right in that flow we would have hit the pier very hard!

 

Absolutely, I noticed the fall through arches when we went to Limehouse on a falling tide. One needed to line up in plenty of time for safety if anything went wrong.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

10 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Absolutely, I noticed the fall through arches when we went to Limehouse on a falling tide. One needed to line up in plenty of time for safety if anything went wrong.

I witnessed similar on the Trent approaching Gainsborough Road bridge on the flooding tide. I lined up for the centre arch well in advance (pretty much as soon as I could see the bridge) but the boat behind seemed to be staying to the starboard side of the river for a lot longer than I would have chosen to do even though the recommended channel is more central. I looked back again as he reached Gainsborough Road Bridge and my immediate thought was,"Christ! he didn't miss that by much" which he confirmed when chatting with him at West Stockwith.

[fladda]

21 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Er, I very much doubt you used a sea anchor. A sea anchor is like big canvas cone or bucket that you drop into the sea to minimize wind drift when the water is too deep to deploy an ordinary  anchor. A sea anchor would have the potential to make the situation worst on a flowing or tidal river.

 

Sorry my poor use of boating terminology. I should have just just called it an 'anchor', as per the original poster.