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

[mrsmelly]

11 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. 

 

The scary thing is, as with you tube, people with no clue put stuff out and people with even less idea, watch it, and take it onboard, as though the poster knows all about it, and thats what to do. Even a complete numpty understands the good reasons why an anchor is carried by people with a brain, on their narrowboats but there may be the odd chance someone reads this thread and thinks the OP actualy has some understanding, when in fact he is clueless and his views dangerous. Still, he has 200k to throw away on a boat that will be worth 100k after launch so I suppose he must know best. The combined knowledge and experience of the rest counts for nowt.

[GUMPY]

This is what can happen on a normally placid river/sometimes navigable flood control system . I will add that in this case nothing short of not being out on the river would have saved them.

 

The boat was recovered sold on and refitted and spent a while in my marina.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Loddon

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, Loddon said:

This is what can happen on a normally placid river/sometimes navigable flood control system . I will add that in this case nothing short of not being out on the river would have saved them.

 

The boat was recovered sold on and refitted and spent a while in my marina.

 

It looks as if it was very fortunate that it was just a narrow weir - Twice as wide and it would have been 'under & over'.

[IanD]

1 hour 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. 

 

Wrong again... 😉

 

Having been through this process, I will have an anchor, and it'll be the one that Alan recommended -- because in that respect, he was right 🙂

58 minutes ago, haggis said:

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

 

And if MJG had read what I actually wrote, he'd realise that I'm not saying what he seems to think I am...

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Midnight 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?

You just can't resist belittling people you disagree with, can you?

 

Pretty much all your assumptions are wrong -- I *have* been on rivers like the Trent with plenty of water on them, and I'm perfectly aware what they're like.

 

My house hasn't burned down, and it's insured against fire because I have to do it -- the insurance of course doesn't stop it burning down so it's not the same as an anchor.

 

If you think my assessment is flawed, please point out why and we can discuss it like grown-ups instead of throwing insults around.

 

If you don't believe in scientific analysis, you have a bit of a problem since it drives most of what happens in the world -- though not if you're a climate change sceptic... 😉

[haggis]

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

Wrong again... 😉

 

Having been through this process, I will have an anchor, and it'll be the one that Alan recommended -- because in that respect, he was right 🙂

 

Good decision and hopefully any others contemplating river trips will decide similarly.

 

[IanD]

2 hours 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.

All true -- and I also didn't differentiate between river types, some a more risky than others, but I was writing a post not a PhD thesis. If you go out on rivers more or they are riskier, of course you should have an anchor -- which is exactly what I said.

 

And it shouldn't be a Danforth... 😉

Edited November 28, 2022 by IanD

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, haggis said:

Good decision and hopefully any others contemplating river trips will decide similarly.

 

The whole point of this was to try and come to the right decision -- and the basis of any scientific analysis is look at the evidence and be willing to change your mind, not just stick to a preconceived idea, ignore the facts, and present biased or sensationalist information. Even if it's good enough for the Daily Wail... 😉

 

For example, that it's "pretty stupid" to ever go out on a river without an anchor, even for one day of a holiday.

 

Or that when a newbie asks about doing this (on a gentle river, in good conditions) somebody posts a long explanation  about why this is a terrible idea, with a photo of the "boat under the dolphin" incident 10 years ago -- which "horrifies" the newbie... 😞 

Edited November 28, 2022 by IanD

[GUMPY]

16 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It looks as if it was very fortunate that it was just a narrow weir - Twice as wide and it would have been 'under & over'.

It's an odd one is Ditchford, the weir is an automatic enclosed radial gate so no chance of going over it. There is/was no warning of it opening either. 

It's also in theory on a lock cut except most of the water goes down the lock cut.

Ditchford lock
https://maps.app.goo.gl/4Qz68fCgQCXLGndZ8

The problem is that unless the lock is set for you, which it never is, as they have to be left empty, you have to stop on the lock landing opposite the boom,  the lock landing is shallow so difficult to get boat alongside.  If you stop and use a centre rope and the weir is open/opens then there is zero chance of being able to hold the boat and stop it going over to the boom.

You stand a slight chance of holding it if using bow and stern ropes.

Even on a non SSA day there is flow towards the weir, I drop crew at the previous bridge and wait there until the lock is open but that has its problems with flow under the bridge.

[GUMPY]

15 minutes ago, IanD said:

Or that when a newbie asks about doing this (on a gentle river, in good conditions) somebody posts a long explanation  about why this is a terrible idea, with a photo of the "boat under the dolphin" incident 10 years ago -- which "horrifies" the newbie... 😞 

The Nene is a sometimes navigable flood control system, it's always wise to remember that.

Forewarned is Forearmed

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Loddon said:

The Nene is a sometimes navigable flood control system, it's always wise to remember that.

Forewarned is Forearmed

True, but the scare was unjustified in the circumstances. In my opinion, of course... 😉

 

It's like when a novice says they're taking up cycling to stay fit, and the first response is to show them a picture of a horribly mangled cyclist under a 44-ton truck. Net result is they don't take up cycling, and instead they die of a heart attack... 😉

 

If the newbie had been so horrified (her words) that she (note the gender) had either cancelled her holiday or replanned it with a less enjoyable route to avoid the Nene, would that have made everyone feel good?

 

"Oh yes, we warned her all right, she listened to the experts!"

Edited November 28, 2022 by IanD

[Guest]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

And if MJG had read what I actually wrote, he'd realise that I'm not saying what he seems to think I am...

 

Patronising and condescending, as ever  

[GUMPY]

16 minutes ago, IanD said:

If the newbie had been so horrified (her words) that she (note the gender) had either cancelled her holiday or replanned it with a less enjoyable route to avoid the Nene, would that have made everyone feel good?

Is this a fictional she or was someone really discouraged from going down the Nene.

The horror stories that were about in the early 1990's concerning the Nene were legendary  🤭

You will notice I haven't mentioned the Great Flood of 1998🤔

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, IanD said:

If the newbie had been so horrified (her words) that she (note the gender) had either cancelled her holiday or replanned it with a less enjoyable route to avoid the Nene, would that have made everyone feel good?

 

More nonsense.

 

People are advising caution and to take note of people who have experience. Do you not realise you seem to be out of step with experienced boat owners. Does that not tell you something?

[Midnight]

46 minutes ago, IanD said:

You just can't resist belittling people you disagree with, can you?

 

Pretty much all your assumptions are wrong -- I *have* been on rivers like the Trent with plenty of water on them, and I'm perfectly aware what they're like.

 

My house hasn't burned down, and it's insured against fire because I have to do it -- the insurance of course doesn't stop it burning down so it's not the same as an anchor.

 

If you think my assessment is flawed, please point out why and we can discuss it like grown-ups instead of throwing insults around.

 

If you don't believe in scientific analysis, you have a bit of a problem since it drives most of what happens in the world -- though not if you're a climate change sceptic... 😉

 
Well at least you have listened and seem to have changed you mind from "... I think it shows is that a narrowboat (or wideboat...) that spends most of its time on the UK canals and ventures out onto rivers some of the time doesn't *need* an anchor".

 

Now for a more sensible contribution..... lifejackets!

 

PS Don't take it too seriously Ian 
Your friend the Troll
😍

 

 

 

[IanD]

36 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 
Well at least you have listened and seem to have changed you mind from "... I think it shows is that a narrowboat (or wideboat...) that spends most of its time on the UK canals and ventures out onto rivers some of the time doesn't *need* an anchor".

 

Now for a more sensible contribution..... lifejackets!

 

PS Don't take it too seriously Ian 
Your friend the Troll
😍

 

Yes I've changed my mind about whether to have an anchor on my boat, and what type to have -- thanks Alan 🙂

 

What the analysis showed is that whether a narrowboat that spends most of its time on canals and goes onto rivers some of the time needs an anchor depends on how much "some" is -- which should come as no surprise to anybody, like any safety precaution its value depends on how big the risk is and how much it reduces it by. I've changed my mind about how much "some" is -- but the statement I made is still correct 😉

 

Go out on a relatively benign river only very occasionally in good weather (like many boaters), by all means have an anchor if you want to, but you don't need to from the safety point of view. Go out a lot more often or on rougher rivers or in poor conditions (or any combination of these) and you probably do need an anchor, and it should be a good one not a Danforth or similar 🙂

 

In some cases much of the real value of the anchor is to make the boater feel safer and more comfortable rather than really improve safety, which is true for quite a lot of safety -- and even more so, security -- precautions. For example a lot of "security checks" are acknowledged by people inside the industry to be pretty much useless, but they are there to be seen to be "doing something" in response to some horrible incident. They make people feel safer -- which is a valid reason for having them -- even if they don't actually make them significantly safer.

 

Lifejackets on canals or rivers? I know what my view is (no, yes), what's yours? 😉

 

P.S. I'm not taking it too seriously, it's only a forum -- but I *do* get annoyed when people start using strawman/ad hominem/appeal to authority/hypocrisy arguments instead of reasoned debate. Or gaslighting, or anything else that isn't in the TWC dictionary... 😉

Edited November 28, 2022 by IanD

[howardang]

16 minutes ago, IanD said:

True, but the scare was unjustified in the circumstances. In my opinion, of course... 😉

 

It's like when a novice says they're taking up cycling to stay fit, and the first response is to show them a picture of a horribly mangled cyclist under a 44-ton truck. Net result is they don't take up cycling, and instead they die of a heart attack... 😉

 

If the newbie had been so horrified (her words) that she (note the gender) had either cancelled her holiday or replanned it with a less enjoyable route to avoid the Nene, would that have made everyone feel good?

 

"Oh yes, we warned her all right, she listened to the experts!"

And therein lies a small  dilemma; in the main subject under discussion, in  this thread, which   now stretches to 17 or so  pages, without coming to a conclusive decision,  how many  contributors to the thread are actually regarded as "experts" in the true sense, rather than "blinkered individuals with strongly held opinions ?" I have largely avoided contributing too much because the thread is aimed at people who have actual experience of using anchors in the canal and river system of the UK, and fortunately I have never had to do this.   That is not to say that I haven't done my fair share of anchoring elsewhere ( both commercial and leisure).  What I think is needed from some of the "experts" on this thread are more comments such as  "in my opinion" or  other similar examples of a degree of humility,   rather than some contributors being over dogmatic. As just one example, there are scathing comments about Danforth anchors,  and assertions not to use them and, of course,  people are perfectly entitled to their view. I would also agree that there are other anchor designs which may be regarded as superior, but in my view, if Danforths are used properly and sensibly,  they can be effective and have been regarded as acceptable in many parts of the leisure and commercial marine environment since they were first designed before WW2. Indeed, I have personally used them on many occasions with good results, both in rivers and deeper water locations. 

 

I am aware that the comments above may be regarded as heresy by some people on this forum,  but I thought it might be helpful to put another point of view for the sake of completeness!🙂

 

Howard

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

41 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Is this a fictional she or was someone really discouraged from going down the Nene.

The horror stories that were about in the early 1990's concerning the Nene were legendary  🤭

You will notice I haven't mentioned the Great Flood of 1998🤔

It's not a fictional she, it was a posting by a newbie earlier this year.

 

IIRC her response to the posted picture was "OMG, that's horrific!" -- I'm sure somebody can fond the exact post, I can't right now...

[enigmatic]

On 25/11/2022 at 18:03, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Anchors aside, having seen the standard of some of the Boatmaster Licence Holders on both the Thames and the Trent, I'm unsure of how much of a recommendation that is in reality. I was well impressed by the standard of the Tug Skippers on the Thames, but they were just pulling rubbish barges, now  after the Marchioness disaster I was expecting the passenger boat skippers to be absolutely First Class, sadly I was very disappointed, they were crap.

FWIW the passenger boat that helped me out on the Thames was very well skippered   

 

Not the easiest river conditions to breast up against a unpowered narrowboat, and didn't use elf and safety or the number of people aboard in party hats (who all ignored the drama completely!) as an excuse not to help 

[Midnight]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

P.S. I'm not taking it too seriously, it's only a forum -- but I *do* get annoyed when people start using strawman/ad hominem/appeal to authority/hypocrisy arguments instead of reasoned debate. Or gaslighting, or anything else that isn't in the TWC dictionary... 😉

 

 I know what you mean. I can't stand people who use acronyms without prior explanation.

 

9 minutes ago, howardang said:

I am aware that the comments above may be regarded as heresy by some people on this forum,  but I thought it might be helpful to put another point of view for the sake of completeness!🙂

 

Not by me I have both had to use an anchor and have a Danforth on Midnight - phew! 

 

 

[IanD]

17 minutes ago, howardang said:

And therein lies a small  dilemma; in the main subject under discussion, in  this thread, which   now stretches to 17 or so  pages, without coming to a conclusive decision,  how many  contributors to the thread are actually regarded as "experts" in the true sense, rather than "blinkered individuals with strongly held opinions ?" I have largely avoided contributing too much because the thread is aimed at people who have actual experience of using anchors in the canal and river system of the UK, and fortunately I have never had to do this.   That is not to say that I haven't done my fair share of anchoring elsewhere ( both commercial and leisure).  What I think is needed from some of the "experts" on this thread are more comments such as  "in my opinion" or  other similar examples of a degree of humility,   rather than some contributors being over dogmatic. As just one example, there are scathing comments about Danforth anchors,  and assertions not to use them and, of course,  people are perfectly entitled to their view. I would also agree that there are other anchor designs which may be regarded as superior, but in my view, if Danforths are used properly and sensibly,  they can be effective and have been regarded as acceptable in many parts of the leisure and commercial marine environment since they were first designed before WW2. Indeed, I have personally used them on many occasions with good results, both in rivers and deeper water locations. 

 

I am aware that the comments above may be regarded as heresy by some people on this forum,  but I thought it might be helpful to put another point of view for the sake of completeness!🙂

 

Howard

 

 

Danforths and similar anchors have been used for many years and have undoubtedly saved many lives at sea. That doesn't mean that they're the best choice nowadays, either from the POV of safety or even cost-effectiveness, because they are known to not be especially effective either at reliable setting or holding under stress, as has been shown multiple times in tests, and also by multiple accounts of them failing to set or hold in real life.

 

Which is what I said -- a cheap anchor that works (for example) 75% of the time (which means it fails 25% of the time) is not as good a bet as a more expensive anchor that works (for example) 95% of the time (which means it fails 5% of the time). All numbers are picked to illustrate the point, I'm not claiming they're accurate...

 

Danforths are not used because they're particularly good, they're used because they're cheap, easy to stow, available everywhere, are the widely used "go-to" solution when you just need to tick the "is an anchor fitted?" box, and work most of the time -- but also *don't* work rather more of the time than some others... 😞

 

If you actually want an anchor as an effective safety precaution, there are much better ones available nowadays, some for not much more money -- though none are as easy to stow.

 

6 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

 I know what you mean. I can't stand people who use acronyms without prior explanation.

 

Not by me I have both had to use an anchor and have a Danforth on Midnight - phew! 

 

 

I hope I don't have to explain "TWC"... 😉

 

Aha, so now *you're* looking for validation of *your* choice of anchor... 🙂

Edited November 28, 2022 by IanD

[GUMPY]

16 minutes ago, IanD said:

IIRC her response to the posted picture was "OMG, that's horrific!" -- I'm sure somebody can fond the exact post, I can't right now...

Just tried searching for 

OMG, that's horrific

There is only one post with that in it🥱

Well there are two now.

 

Even just horrific only brings back 2 posts 🤭

Edited November 28, 2022 by Loddon

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Just tried searching for 

OMG, that's horrific

There is only one post with that in it🥱

Well there are two now.

Maybe didn't have "OMG" in, that could well be my memory filling in something that wasn't said -- hence the (genuinely meant) IIRC...

 

(which for Midnight's sake, means "If I Remember Correctly" -- also "Oh My Gaaaad!", to avoid further confusion...) 😉

 

Too many TLAs...

Edited November 28, 2022 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

28 minutes ago, howardang said:

....if Danforths are used properly and sensibly,  they can be effective and have been regarded as acceptable in many parts of the leisure and commercial marine environment since they were first designed before WW2.........

 

I'm not sure that that statement is correct.

 

The Danforth was designed and the patent submitted in 1948 and the patent was eventually granted by the US patent office in 1951. Mr Danforth was a Californian citizen.

 

I'm not sure if you are confusing the Danforth with the CQR which was originally designed as a lighter weight (than the admiralty pattern stockless) anchor for holding Flying Boats when away from their moorings, and general anchoring of yachts and ships.

The patent application for the CQR was made in 1933 Mr G. I Tayor (a British citizen from Cambridge) filed the patent to the UK patent office in 1933, followed by the filing with the US patent office in 1934

 

Edited November 28, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I'm not sure that that statement is not correct.

 

The Danforth was designed and the patent submitted in 1948 and the patent was eventually granted by the US patent office in 1951. Mr Danforth was a Californian citizen.

 

I'm not sure if you are confusing the Danforth with the CQR which was originally designed as a lighter weight (than the admiralty pattern stockless) anchor for holding Flying Boats when away from their moorings, and general anchoring of yachts and ships.

The patent application for the CQR was made in 1933 Mr G. I Tayor (a British citizen from Cambridge) filed the patent to the UK patent office in 1933, followed by the filing with the US patent office in 1934

 

 

I hope you're going to explain "CQR"!

 

-- yes I know, but maybe Midnight doesn't... 🙂

Edited November 28, 2022 by IanD