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

[Naughty Cal]

I'd still be needing the turbo to thrash into the tide for an hour .

 

The point I'm beginning to get about this thread is that it seems to be just another opportunity to have a poke at CRT since their recommendation is to travel down on the ebb. I'm quite happy that the original proposal is an alternative way to come down but both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. The CRT method's disadvantage is that there is the risk of getting to Keadby and being unable to get over the cill and into the lock. The disadvantage of the Dunkley method is that you have to either thrash into the tide for an hour, possibly heating the engine and burning twice as much fuel, or you need to anchor somewhere to wait for the flood to pass and hope no-one comes upstream on the tide and rams into you. You have already told us that the 'old style' watermen would set off on whatever state of the tide in their barges (once they were laden) so how important is it, really??

If you are really so worried about not getting to Keadby on time you could break the trip up at Torksey and at West Stockwith.

 

At the end of the day we do this for pleasure, no point getting worked up about it.

[Tony Dunkley]

Out of intrigue as to where Dunkley thinks this is going next I have marked on the approximate location of the boat on this plan he lifted from the ABP website.

 

 

Dunkley for your information the blue line on the plan doesn't show the extent of the drying as you claim. That is indicated by the black dotted line on the plan.

 

You will note from the pictures that Dunkley is lifting from a previous post that the boat is facing in different directions in the pictures. In the first showing the full boat the stern is swinging towards the mud bank on the last of the ebb. In the second showing the blue crane the stern is swinging away from the mud bank and pointing the bow into the incoming tide.

 

I don't agree with the exact position you've marked, but rather than complicating things further, let's say for arguments sake that it's not too far away.

The charted depth at that point is 2.8m (9' 2'') at MLWS. A short distance NNW from there, in the deep channel, is a charted depth of 3.9m ( 12' 9''), which is one of a line of soundings along the Western shore between Waddington and Waterton Lights ranging from 4.8m down to a least depth of 3.2m (10' 6''), delineating the deep channel at that point. So, despite the depths shown on the ABP Chart and the fact that the configuration of the river bed at that spot hasn't changed significantly within at least the last half century, you claim in your caption to the photograph ~ " . . . . . no water in the channel . . . " . The only explanation for this is that either the level of the North Sea and the Humber dropped some 10' - 12' on that particular day, or both ABP, and I, have got it wrong.

All in all, that puts you in a position well out of the deep channel, where I, correctly, originally estimated there would be 10' - 12' at LW ~ quote from my Post #43 ~ " It is clear from the caption that they believed themselves to be in the 'navigable channel', but in fact they're aground on the ness between Waddington Light and Waterton Light at least 150 yards out of the channel where there is never less than 10' to 12' of water on the lowest of tides."

The extent of your confusion about every aspect of this is further demonstrated by what you say above and your own caption to the photo looking upriver towards Mere Dyke : ~

"With a big spring tide behind us we were now making good progress towards Trent End where we would anchor up for a couple of hours and wait for the incoming tide to take us back up the Ouse to Goole. With just a couple of miles to go it looked like we would enter the anchorage with no problems despite setting off later than planned, until the depth sounder started showing less and less water well in the navigable channel. We slowed to a crawl before deciding it was no longer wise to carry on and dropped the anchor before the beached the boat. It was a peaceful enough spot and with no water in the channel we were not causing an obstruction to navigation so we brewed the coffee, broke out the cheese and crackers and listened to some music whilst waiting for the tide to lift us back off the bottom."

 

~ ~ ~ You say this morning that " In the first showing the full boat the stern is swinging towards the mud bank on the last of the ebb". If this is in fact true, then it's little short of miraculous.

The ripples on the water and the ensign show the wind to be blowing broadly downriver on the stern quarter, and the boat, so you say, has been riding to it's (bow) anchor, afloat and stern to wind and tide.

A far more believable story would be that the boat was just about to float off on the first of the flood, after all you did say at the end of your own caption to your photo ~ " waiting for the tide to lift us back off the bottom."

By putting the marker arrow on that Chart this morning you've already confirmed that you weren't in the deep channel, so why not go all the way and admit that either you hadn't got a decent Chart, or if you had, you didn't know how to read it or weren't paying enough attention.

Incidentally, your comments about the depth contours this morning do show that your ability to read a chart is somewhat "iffy".

No doubt you'll respond to this with some more bluster and nonsense, but the plain truth of what happened is clear for all to see, and I hope it goes some way towards persuading anyone planning to venture below Keadby to equip themselves with some ABP Charts, and equally importantly, learn how to read and follow them.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Naughty Cal]

Which has what to do with you changing your argument?

 

And that isn't an ensign by the way either, The ensign is on the rear starboard quarter where it should be!

 

Perhaps you should go to spec savers as well Dunkley if you are struggling to read those contours, or perhaps get a book on how contours work

Edited October 1, 2015 by Naughty Cal

[Tony Dunkley]

I'd still be needing the turbo to thrash into the tide for an hour .

 

The point I'm beginning to get about this thread is that it seems to be just another opportunity to have a poke at CRT since their recommendation is to travel down on the ebb. I'm quite happy that the original proposal is an alternative way to come down but both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. The CRT method's disadvantage is that there is the risk of getting to Keadby and being unable to get over the cill and into the lock. The disadvantage of the Dunkley method is that you have to either thrash into the tide for an hour, possibly heating the engine and burning twice as much fuel, or you need to anchor somewhere to wait for the flood to pass and hope no-one comes upstream on the tide and rams into you. You have already told us that the 'old style' watermen would set off on whatever state of the tide in their barges (once they were laden) so how important is it, really??

 

Not important at all, just totally irrelevant if bound for Hull, which most of the sand and gravel from the Trent was.

[Naughty Cal]

To help Dunkley out here is a (rather crudely and quickly) coloured in plan showing the extent of the mud.

 

 

Rather handily it falls on the black dotted line which marks the extent on the plan.

 

 

Funny that.

 

The rest of the charts for the area are here:

 

http://www.humber.com/Estuary_Information/Navigating_the_Estuary/Chart_Viewer/

 

ETA: For this that don't know the blue lines on the charts are indeed contour lines, just not drying lines as Anthony seems to believe.

 

Example chart from the East Coast portfolio showing the entry to Great Yarmouth and the blue major contours marked in blue.

 

Edited October 1, 2015 by Naughty Cal

[Tony Dunkley]

To help Dunkley out here is a (rather crudely and quickly) coloured in plan showing the extent of the mud.

 

 

Rather handily it falls on the black dotted line which marks the extent on the plan.

 

 

Funny that.

 

The rest of the charts for the area are here:

 

http://www.humber.com/Estuary_Information/Navigating_the_Estuary/Chart_Viewer/

 

As I said, your ability to read a Chart is distinctly "iffy".

The black dotted line is the 1m contour, and the 2m and 0m ( in effect Chart Datum) contours are blue, or blue/green lines. Drying heights, which I think is what you mean by "the extent of the mud", are shown by being underlined, representing a level above Chart datum with all other depths, or soundings, being below Chart Datum.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Naughty Cal]

You have changed your argument yet again

 

Are you getting more and more confused here Anthony?

 

the blue line marking the edge of the drying ness

 

Edited October 1, 2015 by Naughty Cal

[Tony Dunkley]

 

You have changed your argument yet again

 

Are you getting more and more confused here Anthony?

 

 

The 0m , or zero, (Chart Datum) contour is in blue on the Chart shown, and it marks the (waters) edge of the areas that dry at approximately Mean Low Water Springs.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Naughty Cal]

 

The 0m , or zero, (Chart Datum) contour is in blue on the Chart shown, and it marks the (waters) edge of the areas that dry at approximately Mean Low Water Springs.

And the other blue line you have conveniently ignored?

[Tony Dunkley]

And the other blue line you have conveniently ignored?

 

Post #281 : ~

 

As I said, your ability to read a Chart is distinctly "iffy".

The black dotted line is the 1m contour, and the 2m and 0m ( in effect Chart Datum) contours are blue, or blue/green lines. Drying heights, which I think is what you mean by "the extent of the mud", are shown by being underlined, representing a level above Chart datum with all other depths, or soundings, being below Chart Datum.

[Naughty Cal]

So you have changed your mind yet again?

[Tony Dunkley]

I'm confused. I am a tidal Trent novice having only once travelled on it on our narrowboat. That occasion was on the 6th September this year. We were heading out from Keadby bound for Torksey. The very informative, helpful and friendly lockie at Keadby advised us that the best time for us to penn down would be just before 11am at slack low water just before the flood. This is what we did and therefore got a helping shove for a good proportion of the journey.

The confusing bit is that earlier in this thread there is talk of arriving late when coming into Keadby and not being able to get over the cill. If we could get out at LW how come other NBs can't get in?

 

We were told when we booked a week beforehand that it would be 10:55 am. On the day he let us through the swing bridge at 10:35. The lock was slow to empty because the electric paddles wern't working. Our log shows us passing Keadby Drainage Pumping Station at dead on 11:00. The river seemed to be flat calm (there was no wind).

 

Sunday 6 September was only a couple of days away from the bottom of Neaps, with Hull HW predicted to make only 6.4m at 1254 BST. From that you could expect the river level at Keadby to start rising at around 1040. On such a small tide there would have been little or no flow, just a rise in water level, with some gradually increasing flow beginning after 15 - 20 minutes.

As you were so early on the tide but didn't see the mud/sand build up in the lock tail or have any problem getting over it, it's possible that it may have cleaned out a bit not long before you were there.

At one time BW used to dredge it regularly and keep the level of the mud down pretty close to sill level, but these days they limit things to occasionally getting the wharf operators next door to take a few grabfulls out with their crane and chuck it as far as they can out into the ebb.

[Tony Dunkley]

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

 

It may have happened on the Trent at some time or other, but I can't recall any instance of it, Simon. It did happen to a few barges in the Old Harbour in Hull, which is not a Dock as such, with water retained at fairly constant level behind a lock, but the lower end of the river Hull where it joins the Humber.

Amongst the vast numbers of barges that used to work from Hull were some very beamy lighters which were a good bit shorter than most of the powered barges were by the 1950's. There were a few instances of barges breaking their backs and sinking after one of these lighters was left in one place for an unusually long period, dug itself a hole in the river bed over a good many tides, and then out of sheer bad luck a loaded barge tied up directly over the hole on the same tide that the lighter moved off on.

A loaded barge grounding in the Trent above Keadby would usually be fairly evenly supported along most of it's length. Above Gainsborough the very limited width and depth of the deep channel wherever it is within the width of the river prevents a loaded barge that has grounded from being swung very far off line, and further down as the river progressively widens towards Keadby the bed is generally fairly flat for almost the full width, but not necessarily level, often sloping down to it's greatest depth quite close to one or other side of the river.

From Keadby down there are some places where the deep channel is of such a width and depth that it would be possible to ground with each end of a barge supported and nothing under the rest of it, and the only precaution against it is careful and correct positioning within the channel. Crossing the bars in that last few miles presents no real danger at all of that happening because the river is a fairly constant depth for almost the full width. If a barge does ground on a bar and is swing athwart by the ebb, as in the photograph that has been the subject of so much ill-informed hypothesizing, then it will be quite well supported for it's entire length. The only real possibility for damage in these circumstances is to rudder and sterngear, if the stern ends up on the stones along the bank. The standard practice to eliminate any chance of that happening was to either keep more than a boat's length from a stoned shore whilst crossing a bar, or to keep what probably appeared to any onlookers to be ridiculously close. Not much more than a boat's width was usually about right for most of the way, but moving out a bit round the stoneheaps at the lights.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Naughty Cal]

That's another change of mind!

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I'm about 4km up Benfleet Creek from the Crow stone (end of Port of London waters) The Thames itself is about 7km wide at that point (Crow Stone to London Stone) so very little, if any, effect of fresh. Strong winds can hold the water in the creek a bit but generally our tidal readings agree with those put out for Southend Pier (at least within a point) One of the biggest local effects is if and when they close the tidal barrier, if they close it very late on the tide the level on our side can go up like a lift !!!

 

I don't know the Thames Estuary area at all, John, so I've been playing around with Google Maps to try and find Benfleet Creek.

I've found East Haven Creek at Benfleet. There's a big opening Sluice and a bridge across it with a lot of boats either side. If I've got the right place, am I right in thinking that you're on the sea side of that Sluice and there's a pronounced 'back up' effect when it's closed, or is there a similar back up effect, but on a much bigger scale when the Barrier at Woolwich is closed ?

[Scholar Gypsy]

 

I don't know the Thames Estuary area at all, John, so I've been playing around with Google Maps to try and find Benfleet Creek.

I've found East Haven Creek at Benfleet. There's a big opening Sluice and a bridge across it with a lot of boats either side. If I've got the right place, am I right in thinking that you're on the sea side of that Sluice and there's a pronounced 'back up' effect when it's closed, or is there a similar back up effect, but on a much bigger scale when the Barrier at Woolwich is closed ?

 

This may help? I have added a 2.28nm (approx 4km) line at the top of the chart, though the small craft moorings are further west than that?

 

canvey.pdf

[Tony Dunkley]

 

This may help? I have added a 2.28nm (approx 4km) line at the top of the chart, though the small craft moorings are further west than that?

 

canvey.pdf

 

Thanks for that, Simon.

It all dries out a long way up, doesn't it. Boats on moorings up near that tidal barrier must have to be pretty nifty getting in and out, especially on Neaps.

Much bigger distances to cover than any of the Havens off the Humber.

[Tony Dunkley]

Out of intrigue as to where Dunkley thinks this is going next I have marked on the approximate location of the boat on this plan he lifted from the ABP website.

 

Dunkley for your information the blue line on the plan doesn't show the extent of the drying as you claim. That is indicated by the black dotted line on the plan.

 

You will note from the pictures that Dunkley is lifting from a previous post that the boat is facing in different directions in the pictures. In the first showing the full boat the stern is swinging towards the mud bank on the last of the ebb. In the second showing the blue crane the stern is swinging away from the mud bank and pointing the bow into the incoming tide.

 

Despite your reluctance, so far, to discuss this in a sensible and constructive manner, I'm going to try again, because an understanding of why you ended up waiting for the next tide in shallow water close to the outer end of a mudbank, and just how potentially dangerous that can be in the lower Trent, may help you and anyone else reading this to avoid getting into similar situations in future. If the tide on that afternoon had been much bigger than predicted (8.0m at Hull, so not a particularly big tide, and probably reduced in rate and effect at that time of year, 7 April, by some fresh coming downriver) or it had happened to be at the time of exceptionally big Springs, then you could have had a really bad time as the tide first covered, and then pushed your boat over, that dried out mudbank visible in the top photograph, and the one at the bottom of this Post.

Anyone doubting the destructive power of big tides in this area should read the Report on the sinking of 'Lapwing' in the Humber in 1961. The whole Report is at : ~ http://www.plimsoll.org/images/89033_tcm4-332189.pdf ~ 'Lapwing' was a Hull based tanker which grounded when visibility deteriorated whilst taking a shortcut across Whitton Ness, swung athwart the tide and was rolled over and sunk by the force and rate of the Spring flood. At the time 'Lapwing' was turned over the tide rate was estimated to be 3.5 knots, which is similar to what the biggest tides run up at in the lower Trent and Ouse.

If you genuinely believe that the position you've marked on the section of ABP Chart above is where the photograph was taken from, then you do need to make some big improvements to your Chart reading and pilotage know-how before going below Keadby again.

 

If the photo looking downriver towards Burton Stather Jetty had been taken from the position you've marked with the red arrow, then Waterton Light (approx 1'' from left hand edge of photo) would be almost in line with Pit House (approx 1.5'' to the left of the crane in the photo), with the house showing just slightly to the right of it.

I would say that the bottom righthand corner of the arrowhead is fairly close to the true position of the boat at the time, between the blue (0m) Chart Datum contour and the black dotted 1m contour line, and close to soundings of 0.7m and 0.4m.

If you had actually been at the position you've indicated you would have been in more than 9' of water when you got there. If that was so, then you wouldn't have said what you did about the depth of water in your caption to the photograph below : ~

 

With a big spring tide behind us we were now making good progress towards Trent End where we would anchor up for a couple of hours and wait for the incoming tide to take us back up the Ouse to Goole. With just a couple of miles to go it looked like we would enter the anchorage with no problems despite setting off later than planned, until the depth sounder started showing less and less water well in the navigable channel. We slowed to a crawl before deciding it was no longer wise to carry on and dropped the anchor before the beached the boat. It was a peaceful enough spot and with no water in the channel we were not causing an obstruction to navigation so we brewed the coffee, broke out the cheese and crackers and listened to some music whilst waiting for the tide to lift us back off the bottom.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[John V]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Benfleet,+Essex+SS7+1NF/@51.5402585,0.5731968,114m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d8c53219923af9:0x65bf85030cf396ea

 

Sabina is in the centre of the shot on the inside of the jetties, to get out, the two large cruisers behind me have to be moved. and yes it is a buxxer. I need a tide within .2 or .3 of a spring tide to get across the mud as well. The big compensation is the price

 

Any trip up the Thames normally means going out to Hadleigh Ray on the top of the tide, anchoring up and waiting for the first of the flood to go up river (unless you like burning a lot of diesel)

Edited October 3, 2015 by John V

[John V]

 

Thanks for that, Simon.

It all dries out a long way up, doesn't it. Boats on moorings up near that tidal barrier must have to be pretty nifty getting in and out, especially on Neaps.

Much bigger distances to cover than any of the Havens off the Humber.

 

HA!!! You don't get out on the neaps !!! At high water on the smallest of neaps the water doesn't even get to the sterns of the boats on the outside !!!......on the other hand my mooring costs me less than my 25' cruiser did when it was on the Trent and Mersey, so I 'ain't complaining.

 

 

P.S. That's why I said that sitting on the putty around here is a feature not a fault

Edited October 3, 2015 by John V

[Naughty Cal]

 

HA!!! You don't get out on the neaps !!! At high water on the smallest of neaps the water doesn't even get to the sterns of the boats on the outside !!!......on the other hand my mooring costs me less than my 25' cruiser did when it was on the Trent and Mersey, so I 'ain't complaining.

 

 

P.S. That's why I said that sitting on the putty around here is a feature not a fault

Depending on which day of the week it is Dunkley swings from it being a feature to a fault on the Trent

 

He can't make his mind it would seem.

 

One would rather hope that his argument in his latest legal case with CRT is going to be a bit clearer then the one he is attempting here.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Naughty Cal

[Scholar Gypsy]

Nice photo here from Trinity House - no idea where it is!

 

https://twitter.com/trinityhouse_uk/status/650749680893186048

 

[howardang]

Nice photo here from Trinity House - no idea where it is!

 

https://twitter.com/trinityhouse_uk/status/650749680893186048

 

It could possibly be one of the victims of the Japanese Tsunami. There were many vessels which ended up in similar precarious situation.

 

Howard

[John V]

It could possibly be one of the victims of the Japanese Tsunami. There were many vessels which ended up in similar precarious situation.

 

Howard

 

 

There used to be (late 60's early 70's) a rock off Northeast Scotland somewhere with a trawler balanced on the top, way, way above the highest tide mark !!! (was there for years)

[Scholar Gypsy]

It could possibly be one of the victims of the Japanese Tsunami. There were many vessels which ended up in similar precarious situation.

 

Howard

 

Thanks - in which case it would seem a little harsh for Trinity House to say "It's not a bad idea to include tides in passage plans" in their tweet!

Edited October 5, 2015 by Scholar Gypsy