Down the Tidal Trent ~~~ Why not do it the easier way ?

[Tony Dunkley]

Well that really has to be the weakest 'argument' that I have ever come across! I presume that if this type of incidence is, as you allege, '..... common, and unavoidable,.....' it must have been a regular occurrence every time that there is an Aegir then, so why did anyone bother to photograph it as presumably anyone could go and watch it the next time an Aegir comes through. To the try to assert that if wasn't as a result of a mistake is beyond words, you mean that the skipper did this deliberately??? I would assume that the skipper had a knowledge of the river and would have known that the river bed was prone to disturbance at that point so he made a judgement on his manoeuvre that turned out to be wrong resulting in his grounding. I would equally credit him with the knowledge of tides on the Trent and so assume that he would have been aware that on the next turn of the tide an Aegir would be coming up so to make a manoeuvre with the potential for grounding with the additional risk of what may occur if it didn't come off, at so I'll stick with my muppet remark if that is OK with you. It seems to me that if anyone other than a 'Traditional old style' boater makes any error it merely demonstrates their incompetence but when a 'old style' boater gets into this sort of situation it magically seems to show his competence, sorry I don't buy that. You yourself said,"...Nobody, however experienced.......should ever be foolish enough to think they can cope with whatever the Trent,...... may unexpectedly throw at them......(this river)..... have on occasion caught out, or even killed, professional bargemen and seamen who've spent their working lives on them......" and this was just such a case.

 

Well, that's really quite astounding, even by your standards. Out of interest, what makes you think that any kind of ''manoeuvre'' was being attempted ?

Before I explain what actually did happen, and why 'Marnham' ended up athwart the ebb in that position, I'll again draw your attention to : ~

*At the time of grounding 'Marnham' would have been travelling downriver, loaded to capacity and either trimmed level or a little 'by the head' and being pushed along by a strong Spring ebb.

Any second thoughts, or are you going to stand by what you've said above ?

Edited September 28, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Naughty Cal]

Your argument is falling flat on it's arse here Anthony.

 

Let's not forget how exactly this topic started in the first instance and what you were initially suggesting.

[cobaltcodd]

OK, I'll make a guess. The boat was travelling downstream quite quickly, but with a deep draft. The bow dug into something, but the ebb pushed the boat sideways as it pivoted around the bow. With the ebb continuing it was soon quite well aground as the water level dropped. Oh well, put on the kettle and wait for the incoming tide in a few hours - but the ageir came along?

Edited September 29, 2015 by cobaltcodd

[Naughty Cal]

OK, I'll make a guess. The boat was travelling downstream quite quickly, but with a deep draft. The bow dug into something, but the ebb pushed the boat sideways as it pivoted around the bow. With the ebb continuing it was soon quite well aground as the water level dropped. Oh well, put on the kettle and wait for the incoming tide in a few hours - but the ageir came along?

Are you suggesting that a commercial skipper made an error?

[Naughty Cal]

 

There are two essentials for making a safe and successful passage on the last of the ebb from the upper reaches down to the Ouse and the Humber. Firstly departure from the starting point at the correct time, and secondly either strict adherence to reliable charts or knowing the river sufficiently well to be able to make Trent End without grounding before you get there.

 

 

So the skipper of the vessel in the picture you keep copying got which wrong?

[John V]

You can only make a "mistake" and run aground if you know the bottom.

If it has changed and you are the first one to find out, that is the sort of thing that happens.

 

Professional skippers also have to make a living and will sometimes try and sneak across a known shallow patch to get an extra run in that week.

 

I understand that higher up the Trent there is a shallow patch caused by a Roman causeway, where at times of low river levels barges regularly grounded.

 

One of the reasons the Suffolk and Essex rivers and coast are considered to be one of the more difficult sailing areas is because the bottom can change suddenly, sometimes in just days, going on the "putty" is an occupational hazard.

[Naughty Cal]

You can only make a "mistake" and run aground if you know the bottom.

If it has changed and you are the first one to find out, that is the sort of thing that happens.

 

Professional skippers also have to make a living and will sometimes try and sneak across a known shallow patch to get an extra run in that week.

 

I understand that higher up the Trent there is a shallow patch caused by a Roman causeway, where at times of low river levels barges regularly grounded.

 

One of the reasons the Suffolk and Essex rivers and coast are considered to be one of the more difficult sailing areas is because the bottom can change suddenly, sometimes in just days, going on the "putty" is an occupational hazard.

Not according to our "resident expert" Dunkley who claims that commercial skippers would never do such a thing.

 

Which of course everyone else knows is a load of bow locks.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

Well, that's really quite astounding, even by your standards. Out of interest, what makes you think that any kind of ''manoeuvre'' was being attempted ?

Before I explain what actually did happen, and why 'Marnham' ended up athwart the ebb in that position, I'll again draw your attention to : ~

*At the time of grounding 'Marnham' would have been travelling downriver, loaded to capacity and either trimmed level or a little 'by the head' and being pushed along by a strong Spring ebb.

Any second thoughts, or are you going to stand by what you've said above ?

OK let us look at the decision making process that put the boat where it is shall we? There are two sides to it, the Navigational side and the Commercial side. On the navigational side the skipper of the boat concerned knows that he has a deep draughted fully laden boat and is going to be travelling downstream on an ebbing Spring tide. This means that the low tide will be particularly low (see, I know a little bit about tides!) so he is aware he needs to be especially careful not to run aground anywhere. Add to this he is also aware (one would hope) that an Aegir is due on the change of the tide. His navigation decision is to be 'can I give a gold plated guarantee that I will not run aground anywhere?' If he can't then the safer option would be to wait a couple of days for the Aegirs to pass through then if he does run aground there is no real drama, make a cup of tea and wait for the tide, the navigational decision would be to wait. The commercial decision however overrides that since he cannot afford to have his boat sitting around doing nothing for a couple of days just because Aegirs are due to come through. A further commercial decision he could have made would be to lighten the boat to reduce the chance of grounding, he chooses to make neither of these decisions and opts to 'go for it' anyway, the result is captured in the photo.

[John V]

Not according to our "resident expert" Dunkley who claims that commercial skippers would never do such a thing.

 

Which of course everyone else knows is a load of bow locks.

 

At 1am this morning, I was up for the tide which was forecast as a 6.3 metre tide at our yard (one of the highest forecast for this autumn). Because of the high pressure system we reckoned at least a point down possibly 2 points. As it happened it was 4 points down, in fact so low that a boat that had been planning on moving onto a berth for winter would have been unable to get alongside. As it happened he was only moving from the other side of the creek so it was not a problem, he just stayed where he was. If, however he had been coming from, say, Kent, he would have arrived and probably ended up 50 foot from the berth....on the putty.

Almost half a metre less water than predicted in the tables ! With schedules to keep sometimes the unforeseeable happens.

[Naughty Cal]

 

At 1am this morning, I was up for the tide which was forecast as a 6.3 metre tide at our yard (one of the highest forecast for this autumn). Because of the high pressure system we reckoned at least a point down possibly 2 points. As it happened it was 4 points down, in fact so low that a boat that had been planning on moving onto a berth for winter would have been unable to get alongside. As it happened he was only moving from the other side of the creek so it was not a problem, he just stayed where he was. If, however he had been coming from, say, Kent, he would have arrived and probably ended up 50 foot from the berth....on the putty.

Almost half a metre less water than predicted in the tables ! With schedules to keep sometimes the unforeseeable happens.

Indeed it does. And I agree with you on that.

 

It would appear that Dunkley doesn't however from his previous postings, although his message seems to be getting somewhat muddled by this point.

[Tony Dunkley]

OK, I'll make a guess. The boat was travelling downstream quite quickly, but with a deep draft. The bow dug into something, but the ebb pushed the boat sideways as it pivoted around the bow. With the ebb continuing it was soon quite well aground as the water level dropped. Oh well, put on the kettle and wait for the incoming tide in a few hours - but the ageir came along?

 

That's spot on, Sir, right down to the bit about putting the kettle on.

Back in the days when there were big tonnages of sand and gravel from off the Trent to Hull it wasn't unusual for there to be several gravellers aground on the ebb at one or more of the many shallower places between the wharves at Besthorpe and Girton and the last few miles of the river. Running out of water and depth when attempting to get all the way downriver on the ebb, on one tide, is an almost inevitable consequence of being on a river such as the Trent which is tidal for such a long distance inland from the estuary. Although that was one of the main considerations in starting this Topic, it's a simple truth that seems to be well beyond the comprehension of some.

Anything grounding above Gainsborough where the river is much narrower would generally remain 'end on' to the ebb, but grounding by the head on one of the bars in the much wider lower reaches would often result in being swung round by the force of the ebb, as in the photograph. Contrary to appearances, the greatest hazard facing a loaded barge in these circumstances was not the Aegre, but the ebb itself.

Once the barge had swung and settled it was obstructing quite a large proportion of the cross-section of the river and, in effect, became something resembling a weir. If not fully covered up it could be flooded and sunk by water building up on the upriver side and pouring over the hold coamings. The last time this happened was in the late 1990's when 'Brocodale' sank about 3 miles upriver from where the photograph was taken. In this instance 'Marnham', with all it's hatch covers on and sheets battened down, wasn't at risk of that happening, and the consequences of both the grounding and the Aegre were no more than the usual, and expected, few hours delay waiting for the next tide and few drops of water down some deck ventilators.

The reason I posted this photo on this Topic was to illustrate what could happen to a small cruiser or narrowboat grounding in the Trent on a Spring ebb, but for some reason best known to themselves, and missing the point in their customary fashion, a couple of the Forum comedians have convinced themselves that it was a major problem for the barge and brought about by an incompetent skipper.

[Naughty Cal]

 

As a matter of fact, that photograph and the caption with it was sent to me by someone who is as concerned as I am that the irresponsible and potentially very dangerous so-called advice and opinions that you keep posting on this Forum may cause others to place themselves and their boats into the dangerous situations that, so far, you have been lucky enough to escape from unscathed. We are not alone in sharing this opinion, another Forum member, who had been subjected to a helping of your offensive and ill-informed opinions earlier this year, expressed similar sentiments yesterday in the 'Charges for the Lock at Goole Docks' thread.

The account you've just given of the situation shown in the photograph, and how you got into it, is nothing but fanciful nonsense, and an excellent example of how you appear to delight in posting material likely to encourage other inexperienced boaters to put themselves at risk too.

You ran out of depth and water solely because your were around 150 yards out of the deepest part of the channel, and it had nothing to do with leaving Gainsborough a little late. The photograph was taken looking upriver towards Mere Dyke. Waddington Light is between the right hand one of the two nearest pylons to the right of the poplar trees and the house and the pylon just visible on the right hand edge of the picture, and Waterton Light would be around a quarter of a mile behind the camera. If you had been in, or close to, the deepwater channel at that time, you would have had 10'-12' under you at LW, and would have made Trent End and into the Ouse with no less than about 5' under you at any time.

The point that I'm making is that nobody should attempt the last few miles down from Keadby in a cruiser or narrowboat on big tides unless they know the river sufficiently well, or have good enough charts, that they know how to use, to be sure that they can make Trent End without grounding. Don't be under any illusions, on big Springs, come the flood, any vessel grounded on the outer end of a sandbank is in a potentially very dangerous situation.

If you want to continue to hazard yourselves and your boat, relying on nothing but good fortune to see you through, then that is your choice to make, but your encouraging of others to do the same through your unwillingness to recognize and acknowledge the mistakes you've made and your dismissive attitude to the risks you've taken, is, on your part, both highly irresponsible and contemptuous of others safety.

________________________________________________________

This post is reappearing out of sequence as it has been edited for 'rudeness' at the request of DeanS, before re-posting.

 

 

 

That's spot on, Sir, right down to the bit about putting the kettle on.

Back in the days when there were big tonnages of sand and gravel from off the Trent to Hull it wasn't unusual for there to be several gravellers aground on the ebb at one or more of the many shallower places between the wharves at Besthorpe and Girton and the last few miles of the river. Running out of water and depth when attempting to get all the way downriver on the ebb, on one tide, is an almost inevitable consequence of being on a river such as the Trent which is tidal for such a long distance inland from the estuary. Although that was one of the main considerations in starting this Topic, it's a simple truth that seems to be well beyond the comprehension of some.

Anything grounding above Gainsborough where the river is much narrower would generally remain 'end on' to the ebb, but grounding by the head on one of the bars in the much wider lower reaches would often result in being swung round by the force of the ebb, as in the photograph. Contrary to appearances, the greatest hazard facing a loaded barge in these circumstances was not the Aegre, but the ebb itself.

Once the barge had swung and settled it was obstructing quite a large proportion of the cross-section of the river and, in effect, became something resembling a weir. If not fully covered up it could be flooded and sunk by water building up on the upriver side and pouring over the hold coamings. The last time this happened was in the late 1990's when 'Brocodale' sank about 3 miles upriver from where the photograph was taken. In this instance 'Marnham', with all it's hatch covers on and sheets battened down, wasn't at risk of that happening, and the consequences of both the grounding and the Aegre were no more than the usual, and expected, few hours delay waiting for the next tide and few drops of water down some deck ventilators.

The reason I posted this photo on this Topic was to illustrate what could happen to a small cruiser or narrowboat grounding in the Trent on a Spring ebb, but for some reason best known to themselves, and missing the point in their customary fashion, a couple of the Forum comedians have convinced themselves that it was a major problem for the barge and brought about by an incompetent skipper.

Make your mind up.

[Tony Dunkley]

OK let us look at the decision making process that put the boat where it is shall we? There are two sides to it, the Navigational side and the Commercial side. On the navigational side the skipper of the boat concerned knows that he has a deep draughted fully laden boat and is going to be travelling downstream on an ebbing Spring tide. This means that the low tide will be particularly low (see, I know a little bit about tides!) so he is aware he needs to be especially careful not to run aground anywhere. Add to this he is also aware (one would hope) that an Aegir is due on the change of the tide. His navigation decision is to be 'can I give a gold plated guarantee that I will not run aground anywhere?' If he can't then the safer option would be to wait a couple of days for the Aegirs to pass through then if he does run aground there is no real drama, make a cup of tea and wait for the tide, the navigational decision would be to wait. The commercial decision however overrides that since he cannot afford to have his boat sitting around doing nothing for a couple of days just because Aegirs are due to come through. A further commercial decision he could have made would be to lighten the boat to reduce the chance of grounding, he chooses to make neither of these decisions and opts to 'go for it' anyway, the result is captured in the photo.

 

I'm not going to waste time responding to any of that ill informed nonsense, except for the bit about tide heights, because some factual information about that with regard to the Trent may be useful to others.

Low Water Springs don't run down any lower than Low Water Neaps in the Trent at Keadby.

High Water Springs can make around 6'-7' more at Keadby than Neaps do, but Low Water at Keadby isn't significantly different on either Neaps or Springs.

Further upriver there is a progressively increasing difference in river level between LW Springs and LW Neaps, with LW Springs leaving considerably higher water levels and depths in the river.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[John V]

Just a bit more about erratic tides......todays tide, forecast 6.1 also only made 5.9 and the top of the tide was about 10 minutes late and it is hanging around, no sign yet of it starting to ebb (High tide +35 min, normally we have almost no slack water)......Tidal predictions should always be viewed with a jaundiced eye (around here anyway)

[Tony Dunkley]

 

 

Make your mind up.

 

I presume from that, you've imagined some sort of discrepancy or incompatibility between the two posts of mine that you've quoted.

Would you care to attempt a coherent explanation ?

[Naughty Cal]

Read it.

 

You can't have it both ways.

[Tony Dunkley]

You can only make a "mistake" and run aground if you know the bottom.

If it has changed and you are the first one to find out, that is the sort of thing that happens.

 

Professional skippers also have to make a living and will sometimes try and sneak across a known shallow patch to get an extra run in that week.

 

I understand that higher up the Trent there is a shallow patch caused by a Roman causeway, where at times of low river levels barges regularly grounded.

 

One of the reasons the Suffolk and Essex rivers and coast are considered to be one of the more difficult sailing areas is because the bottom can change suddenly, sometimes in just days, going on the "putty" is an occupational hazard.

 

There are many such places in the 52 odd miles from Cromwell Lock to the Humber, John. Some, like the one you mention at Littleborough Ferry, remain fairly constant and some tend to shoal off due to a gradual build up of mud and/or sand, but above Keadby there is a pretty stable deeper channel at all of the shallower spots.

From Keadby Bridge down, however, things are very different with stretches where there's a deep water channel, in some spots up to 15' or more at LW, interspersed with several shallow bars over the full width of the river. The bars vary a little for depth from around normally 7'- 8' at LW to the shallowest at around 5' at LW. Downriver from Keadby, the first one is immediately after the bridge, and Keadby Low Bar is about half a mile from that, followed by one near Grove Wharf, and another just below Flixborough followed by a quite extensive one up and down from Mere Dyke. There's another extensive one from just below Burton Stather Jetty to around the power lines near Garthorpe Light with 5'- 6' over it at LW, and the main, Eastern, channel round the drying Middle Sand shallows off to 5' at LW near to Flats Light. From there on it deepens rapidly, with enough depth at LW to float a battleship against the stones between North Trent and Apex Lights.

This is the part of the Trent where pleasure craft are at the greatest risk if grounded at the time of big Springs. The rate and force of the incoming tide is more than sufficient to roll over and swamp a small cruiser or a narrowboat grounded on the downriver end, or side, of a ness, or on the outer end of Middle Sand..

[Tony Dunkley]

Read it.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

If that's directed at me, you'll have to try a bit harder, . . . . . I did ask for something coherent.

 

Make a sensible and well reasoned point, assuming you've got one to make, and you'll get answered in a similar vein.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

I'm not going to waste time responding to any of that ill informed nonsense, except for the bit about tide heights, because some factual information about that with regard to the Trent may be useful to others.

Low Water Springs don't run down any lower than Low Water Neaps in the Trent at Keadby.

High Water Springs can make around 6'-7' more at Keadby than Neaps do, but Low Water at Keadby isn't significantly different on either Neaps or Springs.

Further upriver there is a progressively increasing difference in river level between LW Springs and LW Neaps, with LW Springs leaving considerably higher water levels and depths in the river.

I note how in your incredibly weak 'argument' you pick up on a trivial matter concerning the depth of low water on the Springs but studiously ignore the self evident FACT that going downstream on an ebbing tide you are at the greatest risk of running aground (as the muppet in your photo has practically demonstrated). He is the skipper of the boat and is totally responsible for what happens to it, no one can force him to do what he considers to be unsafe. He CHOSE to go down the Trent in conditions whereby if he ran aground there was a high risk of him being struck by a fairly large Aegir, again which is what happened. So perhaps you'd like to grace us with your 'superior' knowledge' of what part or these FACTS are 'ill informed nonsense'.

[Tony Dunkley]

I note how in your incredibly weak 'argument' you pick up on a trivial matter concerning the depth of low water on the Springs but studiously ignore the self evident FACT that going downstream on an ebbing tide you are at the greatest risk of running aground (as the muppet in your photo has practically demonstrated). He is the skipper of the boat and is totally responsible for what happens to it, no one can force him to do what he considers to be unsafe. He CHOSE to go down the Trent in conditions whereby if he ran aground there was a high risk of him being struck by a fairly large Aegir, again which is what happened. So perhaps you'd like to grace us with your 'superior' knowledge' of what part or these FACTS are 'ill informed nonsense'.

 

Why do you persist in vapouring on about the grounded barge in the photograph being hit by an Aegre, when it's plainly something that you know absolutely nothing about. ?

 

For some reason best known to yourself you assumed, wrongly, that a loaded barge grounding whilst making it's way downriver was something out of the ordinary.

It was you who made the incorrect assumption that the Aegre would have caused some damage , . . . . . it didn't.

You also assumed, and continue to, that the grounding was the result of some mistake or error of judgement . . . wrong again.

Loaded, downriver barges grounding as a result of running out of water and depth was a daily occurence on the Trent, and apart from the few hours delay before the next tide, it wasn't any problem whatsoever. Provided the hold was covered up and battened down, no harm would be done.

The whole issue was entirely a matter luck and largely dependent on loading and departure times from the quarries upriver in relation to Low Water (flood) at Hull.

A barge leaving Besthorpe or Girton around the time of LW at Hull would be early enough on the ebb in the lower reaches to get out of the Trent, and down to Hull, with water and depth to spare. Much earlier or much later in relation to flood at Hull and the chances of grounding somewhere in the Trent increased proportionally. If that happened, then, as someone who clearly doesn't share in your misconceptions and confusion said earlier on, you put the kettle on and wait for the next tide.

 

The sole purpose of posting the photograph was to illustrate the potential of a sizeable Aegre to either capsize and swamp, or possibly damage, pleasure craft aground in the river below Keadby, or waiting outside Keadby Lock. The presence of the barge is entirely incidental, but has been fixated upon by you to the total exclusion of the real issue.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Naughty Cal]

I note how in your incredibly weak 'argument' you pick up on a trivial matter concerning the depth of low water on the Springs but studiously ignore the self evident FACT that going downstream on an ebbing tide you are at the greatest risk of running aground (as the muppet in your photo has practically demonstrated). He is the skipper of the boat and is totally responsible for what happens to it, no one can force him to do what he considers to be unsafe. He CHOSE to go down the Trent in conditions whereby if he ran aground there was a high risk of him being struck by a fairly large Aegir, again which is what happened. So perhaps you'd like to grace us with your 'superior' knowledge' of what part or these FACTS are 'ill informed nonsense'.

Have you not learnt yet that whatever Dunkley doesn't agree with is "ill informed nonsense? "

 

Even when there is evidence to the contrary.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Have you not learnt yet that whatever Dunkley doesn't agree with is "ill informed nonsense? "

 

Even when there is evidence to the contrary.

I do find it humorous that he asks someone to supply this thread with a photo of what happens to a boat being hit by an Aegir and then accuses others of 'vapouring on about it'. Clearly with it being such an everyday occurrence I don't see why he even bothered to bring the raise the matter in the first place. He now confirms that grounding the barges was another pretty much everyday occurrence which, bearing in mind that in business time is money, I'm sure always went down well with the boat owners to repeatedly have their boats sitting in the mud waiting for the tide to lift them off, again!! I don't doubt that grounding probably was a fairly regular occurrence given the nature of the Trent but it is hardly a measure of competence, particularly to do so across the river with an Aegir due, but then Tony seems to regard it as a measure of how good the old boatmen were when in fact they made mistakes just the same as everyone else can. I would question as to how safe for a wave to hit a barge from the side such as is shown in Tony's favourite picture because if the load itself shifts there is the danger of unbalancing the boat. I'm sure that Tony will tell me that it would be impossible despite the historical record of how many boats have been lost through shifting cargo

[Tony Dunkley]

Just a bit more about erratic tides......todays tide, forecast 6.1 also only made 5.9 and the top of the tide was about 10 minutes late and it is hanging around, no sign yet of it starting to ebb (High tide +35 min, normally we have almost no slack water)......Tidal predictions should always be viewed with a jaundiced eye (around here anyway)

 

Very true, John.

I think the best way to view the time and height predictions in Tide books is as a starting point to which you apply corrections for wind speed and direction, fresh (if any distance up a river) and atmospheric pressure, in order to arrive at some figures that have a bit better chance of being right. Even then you can be caught out by a tide that doesn't conform to normal patterns for no apparent reason.

Are you right on the coast, or a few miles in?

[Scholar Gypsy]

Tony

I am interested to know if there is/was any risk of a loaded boat in that situation breaking its back - due to the weight being supported just at the bow and stern? Many thanks

[Naughty Cal]

I do find it humorous that he asks someone to supply this thread with a photo of what happens to a boat being hit by an Aegir and then accuses others of 'vapouring on about it'. Clearly with it being such an everyday occurrence I don't see why he even bothered to bring the raise the matter in the first place. He now confirms that grounding the barges was another pretty much everyday occurrence which, bearing in mind that in business time is money, I'm sure always went down well with the boat owners to repeatedly have their boats sitting in the mud waiting for the tide to lift them off, again!! I don't doubt that grounding probably was a fairly regular occurrence given the nature of the Trent but it is hardly a measure of competence, particularly to do so across the river with an Aegir due, but then Tony seems to regard it as a measure of how good the old boatmen were when in fact they made mistakes just the same as everyone else can. I would question as to how safe for a wave to hit a barge from the side such as is shown in Tony's favourite picture because if the load itself shifts there is the danger of unbalancing the boat. I'm sure that Tony will tell me that it would be impossible despite the historical record of how many boats have been lost through shifting cargo

Yes. His argument does seem to be swinging from one side to the other one a regular basis.

 

On the hand hand he starts off showing a picture of us at anchor in shallow water and claims we should have never had less then 10-12 ft below us yet later switches tact to it isn't uncommon for boats to run aground on the Trent.

 

Starts off saying that the channel in the Trent is stable, then switches tact to say it is subject to change.

 

He seems to be getting himself a bit muddled up.

 

And he doesn't seem keen on discussing how come his figures are different to CRT's and another posters figures when it comes to the width of Keadby lock either. Of course he claims it is "ill informed nonsense" but won't discuss why or how.