Jump to content

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


IanD

Featured Posts

5 minutes ago, peterboat said:

 

 

Needs mirrors I think? 

Nothing quite so technical, simply looking behind before setting off would have sufficed. I can tolerate such a 'schoolboy error' from a newby, boat hirer, I might be slightly miffed if an experienced boater does it to get to a lock having seen me coming (it has happened, more than once) but from someone responsible for a boatload of paying customers, to me, it is totally unacceptable. It's not the only incident, the one on the Thames involved some muppet skipper reversing his boat off Tower Pier into my path, and then holding station whilst seemingly pointing out the sights of London to his customers, oblivious to my boat barrelling towards him on the flooding tide.

 

I'm more impressed by someone who tells me they've been boating continuously on the system since the 1980's, done 15,000 miles around the system and never been involved in any incident, than I am by someone telling me they hold a Boatmaster Licence.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Loddon said:

I always liked Brian on Zavala's  design for anchor stowage, admittedly it's a semi trad but would work on a trad.

Gives the ability to deploy from bow or stern without leaving the helm position 🤔

Screenshot_20221126-113543.png

Not so keen on all that rope which could be snaking around close to the steerer's feet if the anchor was released in an uncontrolled manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tacet said:

I recall a plough type anchor, very similar to a CQR but without the swivel to the stock.  Seemed to hold well and no trapped fingers 

 

Are you thinking of the Bruce ?

 

I carry 3 anchors on the cruiser 'main' is the Kobra, 1st alternative is a Buegel and 2nd alternative is a Bruce

 

Bruce anchor :

 

20191014-130149.jpg

 

 

 

Beugel anchor :

 

20201025-110250.jpg

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Oh, I thought it was bigger than that. Yes it was that one that gave two blasts on the horn and then pulled out directly into my path on the Trent. I was so close that I couldn't even cut across it's stern and had to steer out into the river to avoid a collision. This was back in 2015 and I'm not saying that the other poster was skippering, but in my view, if you cast off and cause another boat to have to take serious evasive action to avoid a collision because you haven't looked behind, then you have seriously fouled up. Hence my comment about holding a Boatmaster Licence isn't necessarily evidence of competence.

Its pointless realy responding to your waffle, but here goes. As others have stated there are good and bad in all jobs. I cannot even tell you of the countless many many times I had to take action due to the complete incompetence of narrowboaters. It was too many times to mention. Most though were ok and had some idea of what they were doing. I dont recall coming across many foolish enough to not carry an anchor in my years though, much like motorcyclists, its not daily you see one in a T shirt and shorts wearing flip flops, but the moronic eejuts do exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

As others have stated there are good and bad in all jobs. I

 

Agreed, but your stand-in (apparently you were on leave) did a pretty good job of disgracing the profession.

 

We were at the top of Holme lock and waiting against the wall to go down, Nottingham Princess and a few other boats were in the lock coming up.

 

The top gates started to open, the Princess moved over to try and get out of the gates before they fully opened and must have been at full throttle by the time the bow was between the partly opened gates.

 

Despite all the rush and noise we heard a huge "CRACK" as the Princess, in its rush to get out,  crushed a GRP cruiser against the lock wall.

 

Lots of chatter on the VHF between the crushed Cruiser (apparently taking on water) and the lockie with the Princess not saying much at all - in the end they never even slowed down and headed off upstream at full-chat, they finally said on the VHF "you'd better talk with the office'.

 

If I recall it was suggested to the Captain of the Princess by the company  that he "seek work elsewhere".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Oh, I thought it was bigger than that. Yes it was that one that gave two blasts on the horn and then pulled out directly into my path on the Trent. I was so close that I couldn't even cut across it's stern and had to steer out into the river to avoid a collision. This was back in 2015 and I'm not saying that the other poster was skippering, but in my view, if you cast off and cause another boat to have to take serious evasive action to avoid a collision because you haven't looked behind, then you have seriously fouled up. Hence my comment about holding a Boatmaster Licence isn't necessarily evidence of competence.

Keeping out of the way of ships (any commercial vessels really) is a thing the  we in our little pleasure boats need to do.  A large vessel will in general be much more confined by its draft than a small vessel.

The principle is the least manoeuvrable vessel has priority . So if in doubt give the 'ship' plenty of space .

image.png.a9a148d2e774cb813751260db720aea8.png

The two hoots indicates ''I am turning to port''

image.png.ae3c91b6c515622c637174900c5ea62f.png

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/281965/msn1781.pdf

 

Edited by MartynG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Keeping out of the way of ships (any commercial vessels really) is a thing the  we in our little pleasure boats need to do.  A large vessel will in general be much more confined by its draft than a small vessel.

The principle is the least manoeuvrable vessel has priority . So if in doubt give the 'ship' plenty of space .

image.png.a9a148d2e774cb813751260db720aea8.png

The two hoots indicates ''I am turning to port''

image.png.ae3c91b6c515622c637174900c5ea62f.png

 

 

We often had to tuck ourselves out of the way. As in this example as we emerged from the lock at Sprotbrough. Unfortunately despite having the opportunity to let us know the locky didn't tip us off that Humber Princess was approaching. so there was a bit of hasty reversing involved to get out of her way on that occasion.

 

 

Humber Princess.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Keeping out of the way of ships (any commercial vessels really) is a thing the  we in our little pleasure boats need to do.  A large vessel will in general be much more confined by its draft than a small vessel.

The principle is the least manoeuvrable vessel has priority . So if in doubt give the 'ship' plenty of space .

image.png.a9a148d2e774cb813751260db720aea8.png

The two hoots indicates ''I am turning to port''

image.png.ae3c91b6c515622c637174900c5ea62f.png

 

I fully get the principle, but we need to be given a chance to do so. Had the boat pulled out when I was further back, I'd have simply cut across it's stern but I was so close to where it was coming out from it's mooring that all I could do was go with it out across the river to avoid colliding. Obviously once I'd avoided the collision situation created by the boat pulling out without looking, I then reduced engine speed and passed across his stern as he pulled away. My understanding of Colregs is that it is the responsibility of all to avoid collisions.

 

Yes I was aware what the two blasts on the horn meant, but it doesn't mean "I have priority and I'm pulling out whatever might be coming".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Yes I was aware what the two blasts on the horn meant, but it doesn't mean "I have priority and I'm pulling out whatever might be coming".

 

I wonder if he was a BMW or Audi owner too???

 

 

Edited by M_JG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

We often had to tuck ourselves out of the way. As in this example as we emerged from the lock at Sprotbrough. Unfortunately despite having the opportunity to let us know the locky didn't tip us off that Humber Princess was approaching. so there was a bit of hasty reversing involved to get out of her way on that occasion.

 

 

Humber Princess.JPG

To be honest I'd rate the competence of the "Humber Princess" skipper (and the skippers of the Thames tugs) well above the competence level of the passenger boat skippers any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I fully get the principle, but we need to be given a chance to do so. Had the boat pulled out when I was further back, I'd have simply cut across it's stern but I was so close to where it was coming out from it's mooring that all I could do was go with it out across the river to avoid colliding. Obviously once I'd avoided the collision situation created by the boat pulling out without looking, I then reduced engine speed and passed across his stern as he pulled away. My understanding of Colregs is that it is the responsibility of all to avoid collisions.

 

Yes I was aware what the two blasts on the horn meant, but it doesn't mean "I have priority and I'm pulling out whatever might be coming".

It does sound like the skipper of the ship made a mistake on that occasion.

17 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

I wonder if he was a BMW or Audi owner too???

 

 

Clearly not as he did give a sound signal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

To be honest I'd rate the competence of the "Humber Princess" skipper (and the skippers of the Thames tugs) well above the competence level of the passenger boat skippers any day.

We are so lucky on the forum to have you to give us guidance lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

We are so lucky on the forum to have you to give us guidance lol.

Not giving guidance, merely stating that someone bragging about having a Boatmaster Licence as though that gives a qualification about everything to do with boating is no different to someone claiming that because they have a driving licence they have a qualification about everything to do driving. Had you merely expressed your opinion regarding the usage, or otherwise, of anchors without trying to 'big it up' by mentioning the Boatmaster (which sounds impressive, but isn't really) then no comment would have been made.

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

It does sound like the skipper of the ship made a mistake on that occasion.

 

Thing is that it is a pretty fundamental mistake. It's a bit like a car driver saying," Surely you don't expect me to check both ways every time I come out of a junction do you?" when the logical answer would obviously be."Yes".;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Not giving guidance, merely stating that someone bragging about having a Boatmaster Licence as though that gives a qualification about everything to do with boating is no different to someone claiming that because they have a driving licence they have a qualification about everything to do driving. Had you merely expressed your opinion regarding the usage, or otherwise, of anchors without trying to 'big it up' by mentioning the Boatmaster (which sounds impressive, but isn't really) then no comment would have been made.

I only mentioned what would happen if I was completely stupid enough to not ensure both anchors were onboard, only a first class, complete fool would venture onto a river such as the Trent etc without one. They cost bugger all in the scheme of things. You havnt a clue what is involved in obtaining a boatmasters licence, they are different for each boat. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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... 😉

 

 

The only time my engine cut out, was on the Thames near Sunbury Lock. Luckily, we were close enough to entering the lock, that we had enough momentum to get to the landing stage. It was only then we realised that I had locked my bike to the anchor chain when we were moored overnight, so it didn't get pinched.

 

If we had deployed the anchor, we would have had to have deployed my bike with it!!!!! 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MaryP said:

The only time my engine cut out, was on the Thames near Sunbury Lock. Luckily, we were close enough to entering the lock, that we had enough momentum to get to the landing stage. It was only then we realised that I had locked my bike to the anchor chain when we were moored overnight, so it didn't get pinched.

 

If we had deployed the anchor, we would have had to have deployed my bike with it!!!!! 

I am laughing with you here! I have in the past padlocked the BBQ to the anchor! Fortunately always remembered to unlock it.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to everyone for the (non-name-calling) answers to my original question 🙂

 

This has thrown up a lot of questions or facts, some of which seem at first glance to contradict each other, for example:

 

-- some people have spent years on rivers and never had to deploy an anchor in an emergency

-- others have reported on this thread that they have had to, even recently

-- Alan (and others) say that a Danforth is well-nigh useless, but others report that they worked fine for them

-- boats have been known to very occasionally sink due to engine failure on a river e.g. being rolled under the "dolphins"

-- some people say that an anchor is essential and venturing out onto a river without one is "stupid", others disagree

-- some people (like in many walks of life) don't understand risk, especially for rare but serious events

 

I thought I'd try and throw some light on this by seeing if all the above can be explained, and see if it's possible to come up with some useful advice. If you don't want to read on about risk and probabilities look away now -- and please don't come back with "stupid" or "boring" or "too difficult" comments, all that's doing is showing that you're not actually interested in the question, just throwing rocks... 😉

 

[and if you just want to read the conclusions, skip to the end]

 

To work out the apparent contradictions between the first points, you need to look at how likely it is that a canal boater (not a yottie or lumpy water boater or someone who lives on a river...) will need to deploy an anchor in an emergency, which is what we're talking about. So I'm going to throw in a guesstimated risk per day on a river of 1 in a 1000 (0.1%) to see what happens and whether it explains the above facts -- and again there's no point arguing about *precise* numbers, within a factor of 3 is close enough.

 

That means that if you're out on the river every working day, you'd expect an "event" (anchor deployment due to engine stopped or fouled prop) about every 5 years *on average* -- which fits fine with what was said, one deployment in 5 years in one case, none in 10 years for another (because that's how probabilities work). But how does this fit with the half a dozen other people who have reported these events?

 

For this we need to know how many days per year a typical canal boater (or a poster on CWDF. which is not the same thing...) spends cruising on a river. There are about 30000 boats on CART waters, but only a small part of these are rivers, and there are usually fewer boats cruising on rivers than on canals, and most boats spend most of their time moored anyway. Let's assume that CWDF boaters are more active than typical but still spend more days moored than moving, and most will be on canals, not rivers. A couple of days per week moving isn't a bad guess, this is 100 days per year. Don't know how much of this might be (on average) on rivers but it must be pretty small, only a few days per year -- unlikely to be as high as 10, lets guess 3 (again, using 1/3/10 type numbers). A few hundred people have read this thread, let's call it 300. That means the people who've read this thread between them spend about 1000 days per year cruising on rivers.

 

With the 0.1%/day risk above, this predicts that the posts should have found about 1 deployment per year -- and that seems to be roughly the case going by the replies, half a dozen of so presumably in the last 5 years or so -- again, all approximations. But the point is that these accounts and the "years without a deployment" posts are both explained by the risk level suggested, they don't conflict with each other 🙂

 

So now lets see what happens to all the boats on the canals and how often an "under-the-dolphins" disaster might happen. It seems very likely that boats in general spend much less time out and about than CWDF posters because most of them spend most of their time moored in marinas or CMing -- if they all spend 100 days per year cruising there would be 10000 boats out on the move at any one time, which is 5 per mile moving for the whole system. I'd say this is probably 10x higher than reality, which suggest maybe 10 days per year cruising, which would mean about 1000 boats out on the water actually travelling at any one time -- one every couple of miles (pass another moving boat every half an hour?), which seems reasonable for the entire system all year. If we use the same river/canal ratio as above, that means that roughly once a week a boat somewhere on the rivers needs to deploy an anchor in an emergency -- which again, sounds reasonable, and would fit with the blogger "OMG MY ENGINE FAILED!!!!!" posts.

 

Now we have to figure out how many of these end up in an "under-the-dolphins" disaster not just a harmless excursion into the reeds/trees/mud or a spluttery engine restart or weed hatch clearance. I'm going to guess that at most there's one event like this every couple of years, since they'd certainly make the news like the one that Alan keeps posting about. That means that about 1% of anchor deployments (which were guessed at one per week) end up in disaster -- so that puts the risk of this at 1/100000 per day that you're moving on a river. To put it in context, if you went out on the river every day it would be 500 years on average before you had a disaster like this -- it's *extremely* unlikely.

 

So what about the type of anchor -- "chocolate fireguard" Danforth or a more expensive state-of-the-art one as advocated by Alan -- or none at all? Now we have to get into the kind of risk analysis used by insurers and governments...

 

Contrary to what some posters said, the cost of a boat ("200 grand shiny electric boat...") is pretty much irrelevant here, because the much bigger issue is people dying, not the boat sinking. And you *can* put a price on life, this is used to decide whether spending money on safety is justified, and the normal figure used is £2M. Which is 10x the cost of even an expensive boat, which is why this doesn't matter. So to allow for when the "under-dolphin disaster" happens and somebody dies, the average "cost" of this is about £20 per day (£2M x 1/100000 chance per day). That's £60/year for a CWDF poster, much less for a typical boater. If a safety precaution costs less than this, it's justified. If it costs more, it isn't -- at least, if you only look at the numbers.

 

An advanced anchor (as advocated by Alan) is a much better bet because it has a much lower failure rate than a Danforth, which is well known to fail to set or slip on multiple occasions -- but not every time, which is why people on here reported being saved by one. We might guess that the Danforth fails 1/3 of the time so it's not useless, but spending 2x (or even more) on an anchor that fails much less often (5x? 10x?) is *definitely* the better choice -- in risk terms, a Danforth is probably closer to no anchor at all than it is to an advanced one. As a safety precaution an advanced anchor is worth it, a Danforth rather less so.

 

As to the "is an anchor essential or not for a canal boater?" question, as usual the answer is "it depends"...

 

If you spend a lot of time cruising, and especially more than normal on rivers, then it's definitely a good idea, even though you might only need to deploy it every few years (or maybe never...) -- and even then the chances of ending up in a life-threatening "under-the-dolphins" type of situation is very small, probably much lower than the chance of being killed in a car crash on the way to your boat. But the analysis definitely shows that "it's worth it".

 

[but even for boaters like this, the risk/cost of an insurance write-off/death is so small compared to other risks like CO2/fire/cilling that insurers and CART don't make having one compulsory]

 

For typical long-term boaters it's more of a reassurance than something that's likely to get used, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea because people *like* being reassured -- and it certainly won't do any harm, and it's still "worth it".

 

For occasional/holiday boaters nipping out onto the river for a day or two, the chances of ever needing it (or it saving you) are absolutely minute, so if you haven't got one there's no need to panic and rush out to buy one -- or be put off from going out onto the river by lurid tales/photos of disaster... 😉

 

Funnily enough, I think this agrees with pretty much everything that has been said on the subject... 🙂

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

 

Well what a load of tripe to justify your opinion that anchors are not essential for river users. This from somebody who has probably never done a tidal stretch or a river in anything but perfect conditions. Your scientific assessment is flawed! Your house has probably never burned down but I suspect you insured it against fire for years. Stop trying to justify your flawed belief and start listening to those who have a lot more experirnce than you.

Next year you get your shiny new boat. You intend to take it over the Rochdale canal (risky enough for most 60ft boats). If like the past couple of years the Pennine Canals are closed (more likely than needing an anchor) you will have to go via the tidal Trent - will you be risking it or will your buy an anchor of choice?

Edited by Midnight
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

 

Yes crucially he does not differentiate between river types.

 

Any holiday boater who 'nips out' for a day on two onto the tidal Trent or Ouse (as examples) without an anchor would be mad. (We bought one for our first trip onto the non tidal Trent).

 

Yes you would probably get way with it on the likes of the Aire when it's not fast flowing, but tidal rivers really????

 

That penultimate paragraph is actually dangerous advice with out at least some clarification.

 

 

 

 

Edited by M_JG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, M_JG said:

 

Yes crucially he does not differentiate between river types.

 

Any holiday boater who 'nips out' for a day on two onto the tidal Trent or Ouse (as examples) without an anchor would be mad.

 

Yes you would probably get way with it on the likes of the Aire when it's not fast flowing, but tidal rivers really????

 

 

Even non-tidal (major) rivers,

Two of the incidents I have posted about were on the non-tidal Trent around Stoke & Holme locks.

 

It only takes a bit of extra flow (a couple of days after the rain the the catchment area) and a (river) inexperienced skipper / helm when things can quickly start to go pearshaped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Even non-tidal (major) rivers,

Two of the incidents I have posted about were on the non-tidal Trent around Stoke & Holme locks.

 

It only takes a bit of extra flow (a couple of days after the rain the the catchment area) and a (river) inexperienced skipper / helm when things can quickly start to go pearshaped.

 

Indeed - even the Aire could could get a bit hairy after some rain, I was always glad we had ours.

 

Addition - even being saved from coming to rest in trees or bushes is a bonus as I think somebody said ages ago. It could save your expensive windows.

Edited by M_JG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, haggis said:

Having read bits and pieces of this thread it strikes me that someone is trying to convince himself that he has made the right decision not to have an anchor. I take my hat off to all who have advised having an anchor and why but I think you are wasting your time. 

I don't think anyone other than the original poster is reading this thread to find out if they should have an anchor or not. The OP is the only one and he made up his mind ages ago  but is still trying to convince himself he made the right decision. 

 

 

.....And in doing so is trying to encourage others to follow potentially dangerous advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, M_JG said:

 

.....And in doing so is trying to encourage others to follow potentially dangerous advice.

Hopefully anyone reading this thread to find out if they should have an anchor or not will learn from all the good advice given.

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.