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

[ditchcrawler]

30 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Insurance, small print.

Never found it on mine

 

[IanD]

52 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Insurance, small print.

Nope, we had this discussion before... 😉

1 hour ago, Proper Charlie said:

I used our anchor on the Trent this summer. Leaving the lock at Holme and heading upriver to Nottingham, the engine coughed and died in the middle of the river, about 200 yards above the weir. There wasn't a great deal of flow on at the time but I went into a cold sweat. Tried to restart but it wouldn't fire up. I left my wife at the stern, rushed through the boat and dropped the anchor. As the boat slowly drifted downriver and the rope began to tighten, my wife yelled that she'd got the engine started. Back through the boat, gave the engine a few revs in neutral and it spluttered a bit but stayed alive. Back through the boat again and hauled the anchor back in, realising that 25kg is quite a lot to pull vertically from the water. But I did it. Back to the stern and continued on our way, very nervous and tuned in to every pulse and hiccup of the engine. We got into Nottingham and I called RCR out. The engineer couldn't find anything but agreed with me that the choppy waters on the Trent (it was very windy and we were heading into both the current and the wind) had probably stirred up some gunk in the fuel tank which caused a blockage before clearing.

 

Looking back, I feel enormously relieved and lucky, but also pleased that I could deploy the anchor without mishap. It's not the sort of thing any/many of us practise, certainly not me.

 

So, I reckon you should always carry an anchor on a river. On another day, if the engine hadn't restarted and especially if there was more flow on the river, we would have been on the boom above the lock in three or four minutes. 

 

 

Not being sarky here, a genuine question -- if you'd ended up on the boom , how would this have been worse than being anchored in mid-stream?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

Nope, we had this discussion before... 😉

 

Not being sarky here, a genuine question -- if you'd ended up on the boom , how would this have been worse than being anchored in mid-stream?

 

Boats trapped on a wier boom can roll and capsize.

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Boats trapped on a wier boom can roll and capsize.

Yes, but this is a very rare occurrence, and depends on the particular weir, boom and how fast the flow is -- lots of boats end on booms and don't capsize, which is why I was asking about this particular case... 😉

 

Boats with gas on board can explode and burn out, but that doesn't happen very often either, and doesn't mean that all boaters should be terrified of gas... 🙂

Edited November 24, 2022 by IanD

[rusty69]

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

Nope, we had this discussion before... 😉

 

Not being sarky here, a genuine question -- if you'd ended up on the boom , how would this have been worse than being anchored in mid-stream?

Not being sarky here, but how can he answer that unless he ended up on the boom?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

Yes, but this depends on the particular weir, boom and how fast the flow is -- lots of boats end on booms and don't capsize, which is why I was asking about this particular case... 😉

 

Boats with gas on board can explode and burn out, but that doesn't happen very often either, and doesn't mean that all boaters should be terrified of gas... 🙂

 

You asked a question I gave an answer.

 

It obviously depends on the flow.

 

The gas reference is irrelavent.

 

The other risk is that the boom doesnt hold with the force of the flow against the hull side and the boat ends up on/over the wier.

 

Far safer to arrest the boats progress before it reaches the wier.

 

Using the anchor gives an extra chance, if that fails you then have the wier boom to fall back on as a safety net rather than the first opportunity to stop the boat.

 

 

Edited November 24, 2022 by M_JG

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Not being sarky here, but how can he answer that unless he ended up on the boom?

He could see the boom and where it was, and how much water was flowing. The boom's there to stop boats going over the weir and usually that's exactly what they do; occasionally they don't and a boat capsizes but -- as I keep saying -- this is very rare.

[rusty69]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

He could see the boom and where it was, and how much water was flowing. The boom's there to stop boats going over the weir and usually that's exactly what they do; occasionally they don't and a boat capsizes but -- as I keep saying -- this is very rare.

If he had time to stop and look whilst running up and down the boat in a panic on numerous occasions, fine. But you are asking him to compare something that he did to something he didn't do, and make a comparison. How exactly did you expect him to do that?

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

You asked a question I gave one.

 

It obviously depends on the flow.

 

The gas reference is irrelavent.

 

The other risk is that the boom doesnt hold with the force of the flow against the hull side and the boat ends up on/over the wier.

 

Far safer to arrest the boats progress before it reaches the wier.

 

I asked the question of Proper Charlie, not you 🙂

 

The gas reference is *not* irrelevant, it's an example of people taking something bad which happens very occasionally and using it as a "scare tactic" to justify something.

 

Yes I understand perfectly well that there are risks if you end up on a boom, but see above -- usually they work. Most boats who suffer an engine failure on a river end up against the bank in trees or mud or reeds, not upside down.

 

It's all a matter of risk -- not just of something going wrong (engine failure) but the anchor working not slipping, and if it does slip ending up in a horrible situation not a safe one... 😉

[Momac]

4 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Insurance, small print.

In the sense that the boat should be in a sea worthy condition that's a good point. Only relevant if the absence of an anchor should lead to a loss or if a loss is greater because an anchor is absent.

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

If he had time to stop and look whilst running up and down the boat in a panic on numerous occasions, fine. But you are asking him to compare something that he did to something he didn't do, and make a comparison. How exactly did you expect him to do that?

<sigh> I just asked the question -- why don't you let *him* answer instead of attacking me? I'm sure he's perfectly capable of saying "I don't know"... 😉

Edited November 24, 2022 by IanD

[rusty69]

Just now, IanD said:

<sigh> I just asked the question -- why don't you let *him* answer instead of attacking me? 😉

<sigh>I wasn't attacking you. It was a genuine question,which you seem unable or unwilling to answer. Never mind.

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, MartynG said:

In the sense that the boat should be in a sea worthy condition that's a good point. Only relevant if the absence of an anchor should lead to a loss or if a loss is greater because an anchor is absent.

Please read back in the thread. If a safety measure is *required* (e.g. seat belts) then insurance can reduce or refuse payment if you don't take it. If it's a "nice to have" (advisory) they can't. For example, to cross the Ribble Link you *must* have certain things, but others are just advisory -- and an anchor is one of these... 🙂

 

This is a matter of law, because in all walks of life there are always things you *could* do to make things safer but don't, for example wearing full body armour when you cross the road, and if insurance companies could refuse on this basis they'd never pay out for *anything*... 😉

Edited November 24, 2022 by IanD

[Guest]

Just now, rusty69 said:

<sigh>I wasn't attacking you. It was a genuine question,which you seem unable or unwilling to answer. Never mind.

 

He cant help himself sometimes. 

 

Of course you werent attacking him.

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

He cant help himself sometimes. 

 

Of course you werent attacking him.

 

<sigh> I asked a simple question of a poster, and get jumped on for supposedly asking him a question he couldn't possibly answer. How do you know? Why not let him answer for himself?

 

I'm sure he can either say "Dunno, couldn't tell" or alternatively "Probably nothing, the flow looked OK to me" -- or even "going by the way the flow was going, it looked really unsafe to end up there".

 

You don't get to reply for him, you weren't there and don't even know where it happened.

Edited November 24, 2022 by IanD

[Guest]

Just now, IanD said:

 

<sigh> I asked a simple question of a poster, and get jumped on for supposedly asking him a question he couldn't possibly answer. How do you know? Why not let him answer for himself?

 

You didnt get 'jumped on'.

 

Somebody merely had the temerity to question what you were saying/asking.

[rusty69]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

<sigh> I asked a simple question of a poster, and get jumped on for supposedly asking him a question he couldn't possibly answer. How do you know? Why not let him answer for himself?

I too asked a simple question of a poster, to which I was then accused of attacking them.

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

I too asked a simple question of a poster, to which I was then accused of attacking them.

How about we let the person who was asked the question reply, since it happened to him and none of you were there? 😉

[rusty69]

Just now, IanD said:

How about we let the person who was asked the question reply, since it happened to him and none of you were there? 😉

Sure.

[Guest]

Just now, IanD said:

How about we let the person who was asked the question reply, since it happened to him and none of you were there? 😉

 

The problem with this being a 'discussion' forum people chip in with their twopenneth.....whether you like it or not.

[IanD]

Just now, M_JG said:

 

The problem with this being a 'discussion' forum people chip in with their twopenneth.....whether you like it or not.

That's be zeropennorth in this case, having no knowledge about what actually happened -- but nevertheless wanting to argue about it... 🙂

[Proper Charlie]

Others have said lots of sensible things on my behalf but the truth is... I have no idea. There wasn't much flow so I might have been OK. But the lack of flow would have been luck and not part of a cunning plan of mine.

 

Who knows what would have happened if I didn't have an anchor. But I'm 100% glad I didn't have to find out.

[Guest]

Just now, IanD said:

That's be zeropennorth in this case, having no knowledge about what actually happened -- but nevertheless wanting to argue about it... 🙂

 

Takes two to tango.

[IanD]

Just now, Proper Charlie said:

Others have said lots of sensible things on my behalf but the truth is... I have no idea. There wasn't much flow so I might have been OK. But the lack of flow would have been luck and not part of a cunning plan of mine.

 

Who knows what would have happened if I didn't have an anchor. But I'm 100% glad I didn't have to find out.

 

Thank you 🙂

[rusty69]

Just now, Proper Charlie said:

Others have said lots of sensible things on my behalf but the truth is... I have no idea. There wasn't much flow so I might have been OK. But the lack of flow would have been luck and not part of a cunning plan of mine.

 

Who knows what would have happened if I didn't have an anchor. But I'm 100% glad I didn't have to find out.

Oh c'mon Charlie, after that massive build up, you could at least make summit up. Attacked by pirates, or one of the securing cables gave way.