Jump to content

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


IanD

Featured Posts

15 hours ago, M_JG said:

 

No its not the same.

 

I would advocate having an anchor if you plan to venture on a river or river section all be it occasionally.

 

That is not the same as 'no anchor' at all "because you may never use it".

 

 

You would advocate it because your view is that even given the tiny chance of you ever needing it and it working and it successfully fending off disaster instead of you ending up in the trees, you'd rather be "safe than sorry" -- it's a peace of mind thing, and absolutely valid.

 

The opposing point of view -- which I'm still not absolutely sure I would take when push comes to shove! -- is that the chances of needing it in a lifetime's boating when you only venture out onto rivers occasionally is extremely small (given posters who have been on the river daily for five or ten years never having to do it), and doesn't justify the cost of buying one (because a Danforth is next to useless isn't it, and an advanced anchor like a Rocna or Fortress is north of £500) and the hassle of finding a place to stow it and the chain and rope and getting it out and preparing it and laying the rode out every time you nip out onto a river -- and this is an equally valid point of view.

 

(especially in an electric boat which doesn't have a drive plate to fail or dirty fuel being stirred up and stopping the engine or it overheating, engine failures like this seem to be the most common cause of an emergency -- of course a fouled prop can still happen, but this seems rather less likely...)

 

Neither is wrong or right because it's all down to perception of risk, which is different for different people -- it's why some people will happily bungee jump or skydive secure in the knowledge that 99.99% of the time there's no problem, and others wouldn't dream of it because 0.01% of people doing this die while having fun.

 

Because it's your opinion and you're perfectly entitled to it, even if I disagree with you (and will happily argue about this over a beer until the pub closes...) I wouldn't presume to tell you that you're wrong to say that having an anchor is essential.

 

Perhaps you could extend the same courtesy to people who have a different point of view to you? 😉

 

 

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, IanD said:

and doesn't justify the cost of buying one (because a Danforth is next to useless isn't it, and an advanced anchor like a Rocna or Fortress is north of £500)

 

There is a middle ground that you appear to ignore every time you post your 'thoughts'.

 

Yes the Danforth is pretty useless as reported by several people on this forum - one example :

 

Anchoring-a-NB-with-a-Danforth.png

 

 

You do not need to go to the expense of a Rocna or Fortress, or even a Mantus or Manson.

 

 

For around £100 for the 16kg (not dissimilar to the price of a Danforth) you can get a "Kobra 2" which on a test of 12 different types of anchor (including the Fortress, Manson / Mantus etc)  it actually came 2nd in the tests (2nd to the Fortress and 'Spade', both at ~£500)

 

I picked one up 2nd hand 16kg  'as new' for £70

 

Screenshot-356.png

 

Yachting-Monthly-Test.png

 

And - here it is on my boat.

 

It has perfomed well over the last couple of years and we have anchored up overnight with no fears of the anchor dragging.

 

 

20200925-105412.jpg

 

 

You will note that the "Kobra 2" actually stores flat (as per the Danforth) but does require the removal of a single bolt.

 

 

s-l1600.jpg

 

 

 

Edit to add : I see that the 20kg Kobra 2 (suitable for 18 metre boats) is now ~£200 - £240

Edited by Alan de Enfield
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

There is a middle ground that you appear to ignore every time you post your 'thoughts'.

 

Yes the Danforth isd pretty useless as reported by several people on this forum - one example :

 

Anchoring-a-NB-with-a-Danforth.png

 

 

You do not need to go to the expense of a Rocna or Fortress, or even a Mantus or Manson.

 

 

For around £100 (not dissimilar to the price of a Danforth) you can get a "Kobra 2" which on a test of 12 different types of anchor (including the Fortress, Manson / Mantus etc)  it actually came 2nd in the tests (2nd to the Fortress and 'Spade', both at ~£500)

 

I picked one up 2nd hand and 'as new' for £70

 

Screenshot-356.png

 

Yachting-Monthly-Test.png

 

And - here it is on my boat.

 

It has perfomed well over the last couple of years and we have anchored up overnight with no fears of the anchor dragging.

 

 

20200925-105412.jpg

 

 

You will note that the "Kobra 2" actually stores flat (as per the Danforth) but does require the removal of a single bolt.

 

 

s-l1600.jpg

 

Thank you for the detailed anchor results (again), the Kobra 2 is indeed cheaper (about half the price of a Guardian looking online, the article is well out of date...), performs well and is easily dismantled 🙂

 

Regardless of the exact choice of "better-than-Danforth" -- and some might work really well hanging off a bow roller on lumpy water boats but will be awkward to place and deploy on a narrowboat -- the two differing points of view remain, and both are valid.

 

P.S. BTW, I really wish you'd leave out the digs and sniping, it's really tempting to come back at you but I'm going to resist... 😉

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

More exquisite irony....

Not at all -- I've repeatedly said that my POV is not the only valid one, unlike you... 😉

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, IanD said:

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... 😉

In some cases the cylindrical floats on the boom are very large diameter, meaning they bear on the boat quite high up. And so with a boat caught broadside on to the current, there is a significant sideways force acting on the submerged part of the hull, which is resisted by a horizontal force from the floats at some height. That creates an overturning effect which tilts the boat over and which could easily cause front well deck drain holes or other hull openings on the upstream side of the boat to dip below water level. And what follows is more or less inevitable.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

Not at all -- I've repeatedly said that my POV is not the only valid one, unlike you... 😉

 

As I said earlier 'opinions' - opinions differ. Which by default means other opinions are available.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, David Mack said:

In some cases the cylindrical floats on the boom are very large diameter, meaning they bear on the boat quite high up. And so with a boat caught broadside on to the current, there is a significant sideways force acting on the submerged part of the hull, which is resisted by a horizontal force from the floats at some height. That creates an overturning effect which tilts the boat over and which could easily cause front well deck drain holes or other hull openings on the upstream side of the boat to dip below water level. And what follows is more or less inevitable.

 

Thanks David, I'm perfectly well aware of what *can* happen (and why), and the fact that very occasionally it *does* happen, as shown by the posts that Alan keeps scaring novice boaters with... 😉

 

But it very rarely happens, otherwise boats would be rolling under booms like this after engine failure on a regular basis. I've asked if anyone (e.g. Alan) knows how many occurrences of this there have been, but nobody has answered -- from what I can see that has been posted, it's only ever happened a few times, maybe one every few years -- unless you know better?

 

Given that several boats sink every year in locks -- which doesn't put people off using them, does it? -- I'd say the comparative risk of a boom disaster happening to anyone is extremely small, especially given what the usual causes are (dirty fuel etc.), many of which (but not all) are avoidable with good boat design and maintenance.

 

3 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

As I said earlier 'opinions' - opinions differ. Which by default means other opinions are available.

 

 

Precisely what I've said, half a dozen times on this thread alone... 🙂

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

Thanks David, I'm perfectly well aware of what *can* happen (and why), and the fact that very occasionally it *does* happen, as shown by the posts that Alan keeps scaring novice boaters with... 😉

 

But it very rarely happens, otherwise boats would be rolling under booms like this on a regular basis. I've asked if anyone (e.g. Alan) knows how many occurrences of this there have been, but nobody has answered -- from what I can see that has been posted, it's only ever happened a few times, maybe one every few years -- unless you know better?

 

Given that several boats sink every year in locks -- which doesn't put people off using them, does it? -- I'd say the comparative risk of a boom disaster happening to anyone is extremely small, especially given what the usual causes are (dirty fuel etc.), many of which (but not all) are avoidable with good boat design and maintenance.

 

 

Precisely what I've said, half a dozen times on this thread alone... 🙂

 

So you wish to withdraw what you said earlier then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, M_JG said:

 

Not at all -- I've repeatedly said that my POV is not the only valid one, unlike you.

Maybe you should try reading what I wrote, not what you think I wrote; here's an exact word-for-word quote from what I wrote couple of hours ago:

 

"You would advocate it because your view is [snip] and is absolutely valid.

The opposing point of view -- [snip] -- and this is an equally valid point of view.

Neither is wrong or right because it's all down to perception of risk, which is different for different people -- it's why some people will happily bungee jump or skydive secure in the knowledge that 99.99% of the time there's no problem, and others wouldn't dream of it because 0.01% of people doing this die while having fun.

Because it's your opinion and you're perfectly entitled to it, even if I disagree with you (and will happily argue about this over a beer until the pub closes...) I wouldn't presume to tell you that you're wrong to say that having an anchor is essential."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, David Mack said:

In some cases the cylindrical floats on the boom are very large diameter, meaning they bear on the boat quite high up. And so with a boat caught broadside on to the current, there is a significant sideways force acting on the submerged part of the hull, which is resisted by a horizontal force from the floats at some height. That creates an overturning effect which tilts the boat over and which could easily cause front well deck drain holes or other hull openings on the upstream side of the boat to dip below water level. And what follows is more or less inevitable.

I wonder if this would partly answer yesterdays question from @IanD, in that although not fatal could possibly damage the bus windows on a typical narrowboat if hit at sufficient speed.

 

Quote

if you'd ended up on the boom , how would this have been worse than being anchored in mid-stream?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Maybe you should try reading what I wrote, not what you think I wrote; here's an exact word-for-word quote from what I wrote couple of hours ago:

 

"You would advocate it because your view is [snip] and is absolutely valid.

The opposing point of view -- [snip] -- and this is an equally valid point of view.

Neither is wrong or right because it's all down to perception of risk, which is different for different people -- it's why some people will happily bungee jump or skydive secure in the knowledge that 99.99% of the time there's no problem, and others wouldn't dream of it because 0.01% of people doing this die while having fun.

Because it's your opinion and you're perfectly entitled to it, even if I disagree with you (and will happily argue about this over a beer until the pub closes...) I wouldn't presume to tell you that you're wrong to say that having an anchor is essential."

 

I did read it.

 

You contradicted yourself.

 

Both cannot be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rusty69 said:

I wonder if this would partly answer yesterdays question from @IanD, in that although not fatal could possibly damage the bus windows on a typical narrowboat if hit at sufficient speed.

 

 

It does indeed, and as I said above it's not just possible in theory but has actually happened -- for example, see Alan's posts where he's mentioned this on several occasions.

 

The question I keep asking but nobody has answered so far is -- how often has this happened?

 

If the answer is "almost never" then it joins the list of all the other very rare but ingenious ways that people keep finding to sink their boats... 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

I did read it.

 

You contradicted yourself.

 

Both cannot be true.

Oh, leave it out -- I'm trying hard to be sympathetic to other people's POV, you're just trying to carry on a pointless argument and needle me for the sake of it. Grow up. And go and sit on the naughty step while you're at it...

 

5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Out of interest what would be the outcome insurancewise if a boat went under Dolphins was written off/very badly damaged and a crew member died when an anchor could have prevented that.

 

Already discussed -- almost certainly (IANAL) nothing, unless an anchor was a compulsory item of safety equipment required by either waterways regulations or your insurance policy. Several people have already delved into the fine print of their insurance policies or those where the terms can be read online, and nobody has found any suggestion or clause saying that an anchor is needed in inland waters.

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

Oh, leave it out -- I'm trying hard to be sympathetic to other people's POV, you're just trying to carry on a pointless argument and needle me for the sake of it. Grow up. And go and sit on the naughty step while you're at it...

 

Oh here we go - on Ian's 'naughty step again'. Utterly laughable.

 

Coming from one of the most if not the most argumentative and opinionated members on the forum that is pretty priceless.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Out of interest what would be the outcome insurancewise if a boat went under Dolphins was written off/very badly damaged and a crew member died when an anchor could have prevented that.

 

I would say it would depend on the wording of the policy around 'taking' reasonable precautions to avoid accidents etc.

 

If the policy specifically stipulated you had to have an anchor on a river but didn't, that would likely cause a problem. But I don't how many if any policies stipulate it.

 

I do know when we hired a boat to do the Leicester ring Napton on discovering our planned route immediately brought out an anchor for us to use. They cited 'insurance requirements' (but I don't know if that was actually true or not). As they didn't actually provide any instructions on how to use it - other than what was in the supplied 'boaters handbook' I'm not sure we would have known how best to deploy it other than what I had read on here of course.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Oh here we go - on Ian's 'naughty step again'. Utterly laughable.

 

Coming from one of the most if not the most argumentative and opinionated members on the forum that is pretty priceless.

 

You missed out patronising and condescending - "of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you'll find that mine is the correct one"

 

Or to quote George Bernard Shaw

 

See the source image

Edited by Alan de Enfield
  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

You missed out patronising and condescending - "of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you'll find that mine is the correct one"

 

Or to quote George Bernard Shaw

 

See the source image

Which is exactly the opposite of what I said -- a strawman argument at its most classic... 😉

 

And after I'd thanked you for the anchor suggestion too, which was genuinely helpful...

 

P.S. "Patronising and condescending" is a bit rich, coming from you...

 

P.P.S. Wouldn't it be nice just for once to have a reasoned discussion instead of descending to character assassination and name-calling? 😉 😉 😉

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jerra said:

Out of interest what would be the outcome insurancewise if a boat went under Dolphins was written off/very badly damaged and a crew member died when an anchor could have prevented that.

Insurers may pay out for death or bodily injury which occurs as a result of an accident, but the chances of the insurers then recovering that sum from the person in control of the boat at the time are virtually nil. They would have to prove that the persons actions were so unreasonable as to amount to serious negligence, which would be hard to do, and it would only be worth pursuing if the individual concerned had sufficient assets to cover the insurer's costs.

Police could investigate and take action, but as far as I know there is no boating equivalent of 'causing death by careless/dangerous driving' so I think criminal prosecution for manslaughter would be the only option available to them. But again the burden of proof is very high. Simply making a particular decision in a stressful situation, that with the benefit of hindsight turned out to be wrong, is not an offence.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

You missed out patronising and condescending - "of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you'll find that mine is the correct one"

 

Or to quote George Bernard Shaw

 

See the source image

 

There speaks the forums pedantic font of all knowledge, from his huge glass house.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, IanD said:

Oh, leave it out -- I'm trying hard to be sympathetic to other people's POV, you're just trying to carry on a pointless argument and needle me for the sake of it. Grow up. And go and sit on the naughty step while you're at it...

 

 

Already discussed -- almost certainly (IANAL) nothing, unless an anchor was a compulsory item of safety equipment required by either waterways regulations or your insurance policy. Several people have already delved into the fine print of their insurance policies or those where the terms can be read online, and nobody has found any suggestion or clause saying that an anchor is needed in inland waters.

I was thinking more of any action the relatives of the dead crew member might take.

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

Insurers may pay out for death or bodily injury which occurs as a result of an accident, but the chances of the insurers then recovering that sum from the person in control of the boat at the time are virtually nil. They would have to prove that the persons actions were so unreasonable as to amount to serious negligence, which would be hard to do, and it would only be worth pursuing if the individual concerned had sufficient assets to cover the insurer's costs.

Police could investigate and take action, but as far as I know there is no boating equivalent of 'causing death by careless/dangerous driving' so I think criminal prosecution for manslaughter would be the only option available to them. But again the burden of proof is very high. Simply making a particular decision in a stressful situation, that with the benefit of hindsight turned out to be wrong, is not an offence.

Some people would count being on a river without an anchor as seriously negligent.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.