Jump to content

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


Tony Dunkley

Featured Posts

fatigue.gif

 

Times move on Tony. We are not in the 1980's anymore.

 

I presume from that you think that the deepest water between Waddington Light and Waterton Light, where you grounded, is no longer 20 to 25 yards out from the stones along the Western bank.

Would you like to have a bet on it ?

If so, we could ask for another member to make the soundings figures readable by enlarging and posting the relevant section of the chart that 'Biscuits' linked to in Post #72.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you not have a zoom button Anthony?

 

The rest of the world does frusty.gif

 

I can't see one on this old laptop I was given , but my knowledge of how to work computers isn't very much better than your knowledge of the Trent.

 

I'll ask the question again . . . . . would you like to have a bet about the up to date charted depth in the channel you should have been following when you grounded, in 2 to 3 feet of water, around 150 yards out of it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'll ask the question again . . . . . would you like to have a bet about the up to date charted depth in the channel you should have been following when you grounded, in 2 to 3 feet of water, around 150 yards out of it ?

I don't know the river, as I said before, but if you are saying 4' (1.2m) and our survey says 7' (2.2m) to twice that on that stretch I'll take your money!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the river, as I said before, but if you are saying 4' (1.2m) and our survey says 7' (2.2m) to twice that on that stretch I'll take your money!

 

I'm not sure where you've got those soundings from, but in the post you were responding to I was specifically referring to the small cruiser aground and pictured in post #43. The two photos in post #70 were taken from the same boat, aground in the same spot at the same time. I detailed the position of the grounded boat in post #70 and said that it was about 150 yards out of the deep channel between Waddington and Waterton Lights and there would be at least 10' to 12' of water in that deep channel at LW. The enlarged section of the Chart, you linked to, that Dave Clinton posted confirmed what I had said about the depth and position of the channel, which is shown as being about 20 to 25 yards out from the Western shore.

It's plain enough that those on the grounded cruiser either hadn't got a decent chart or hadn't got a clue how to read the one they had got. The deep water round that sweep in the river has been in the same place, close to the stoned shore, for at least the last 50(+) years to my knowledge, and the ABP chart confirms that it's still the same.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still have not answered the question of what exactly you are aiming to achieve here Anthony.

 

Why trawl up posts from 2012?

 

We are in the latter parts of 2015 now. Of what possible significance is a boat anchoring in 2012. Note anchoring not grounding. There is somewhat of a difference.

 

Anyway we are heading back up river again soon. Are we likely to see you out and about?

 

Holme Lock again I take it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you also saying Dunks, that you have never made a single error of judgment?

 

After all if as you say we are completely incompetent, you would be able to find many more examples of us getting it wrong in the three and a half years since that trip to Leeds at Easter 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still have not answered the question of what exactly you are aiming to achieve here Anthony.

 

Why trawl up posts from 2012?

 

We are in the latter parts of 2015 now. Of what possible significance is a boat anchoring in 2012. Note anchoring not grounding. There is somewhat of a difference.

 

 

The photograph and caption that I used in Post #43, which doesn't mention either boat name or date, was e-mailed to me with a suggestion that it would be ideal to accompany an explanation of how easy it is for boats to get themselves into potentially dangerous situations in the last few miles of the Trent. I used it because the exact location is so easy to identify and it illustrates the point very well.

You then jumped in with both feet in your mouth in post #50 identifying it as your boat, and then with two more pictures on post #53 confirming the location and just how far out of the deep channel the boat was. Later, from post #75 on, you've demonstrated clearly that you don't know how to read a chart . . . . . specifically, the enlarged section of the ABP chart showing the point between Waddington and Waterton Lights where you grounded.

It was very helpful of you to identify the boat in the photo I used, and to provide the two additional ones taken at the same time. The lines of sight to marks on the shore in the three pictures, used together with the ABP chart, confirm the exact position of your boat in relation to the deep channel at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was fairly obviously our boat. Your excuse doesn't wash.

 

You thought you could use it for another point scoring exercise didnt you?

 

As much as I am flattered by all of the attention you seem to give us and our boat it is becoming quite stalkeresk and somewhat tiresome.

Edited by Naughty Cal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To me, one of the most alarming aspects of the ''standard advice package'' is that boats following it are frequently passing, around or a little after HW, along one of the few stretches where they are most likely to come to some harm if they ground.

Marton Rack has a narrow deep water channel between fairly flat areas of hard marl with quite steep-to edges in places. The marl is covered, but not usually by more than 3' - 4' at HW, but sometimes dries and bares out in the last few hours of the ebb.

In my view, sending boats on their way, in the charge of skippers with limited or no knowledge of the river, down past an area where they could ground precariously on a falling tide on a hard steep edge, later to dry to one side but with 5' or more of water to the other side, is just about as irresponsible and stupid as it can get.

There was a nasty incident in Marton Rack about three years back, when, whilst following some of the usual advice, the owner of a V-bottomed plastic job parked his boat on the East side marl bank on a falling tide. The boat, by chance, settled upright as the water level dropped, and a few hours later when it had dried right out he decided to give the bottom a scrub.

The boat toppled over while he was doing it and trapped him underneath with a broken pelvis.

 

Another more general issue for me is how the river is marked. I think this is relevant to C&RT's plans to encourage greater (and safe) leisure use of the river.

 

For example: I've been through Marton Rack both ways recently. The charts produced by the Boating Association are pretty clear - you need to traverse this area on a transit line joining two white poles on the east bank, a rather different course to the normal "stick to the outside of the bend" approach.

 

This was OK going downstream - although it's a bit tricky to do a transit with one marker behind you and one in front. But going upstream, even though I knew the poles were there, tree growth was such that it was impossible to see the downstream pole until you'd practically gone though the danger area. Of course I could rely on knowing where the channel was (and I was keeping an eye on my depth sounder as well), and the risk was less anyway as the tide was rising.

 

Anyway, my general point is whether we need to encourage C&RT to look at buoys and other markers, to make it clearer (where there is any doubt) where the channel actually is? I am mainly focussing on the C&RT stretch upstream of Gainsborough. I don't think the section from Gainsborough to Keadby is particularly tricky - and of course Keadby to Trent Falls is a whole different ball game ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was fairly obviously our boat. Your excuse doesn't wash.

 

You thought you could use it for another point scoring exercise didnt you?

 

As much as I am flattered by all of the attention you seem to give us and our boat it is becoming quite stalkeresk and somewhat tiresome.

 

How could I possibly have known it was your boat shown in the photo I posted in #43 ? It came to me, complete with caption, as an attachment to an e-mail as I have already said. There is nothing whatsoever in the picture to identify the boat or the owner. It's just a picture of a commonly seen type of small cruiser grounded on the ebb at a very easily recogniseable location in the Trent.

I have no interest in 'point scoring' as you call it, and with regard to you in particular, absolutely no need to do so. You're quite capable of making a complete fool out of yourself, as you are doing now, without any assistance from me.

You stuck your nose into this topic with some stupid and ill informed remarks, directed at me, about the new chamber and sill at Torksey, so if any 'attention' that you're now getting is unwelcome, I suggest, unless you have some rational and valid input to include, that you keep out of it from now on, and leave it to revert to the sensible and constructive discussion that it was before the onset of your disruptive and irrelevant contributions.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Another more general issue for me is how the river is marked. I think this is relevant to C&RT's plans to encourage greater (and safe) leisure use of the river.

 

For example: I've been through Marton Rack both ways recently. The charts produced by the Boating Association are pretty clear - you need to traverse this area on a transit line joining two white poles on the east bank, a rather different course to the normal "stick to the outside of the bend" approach.

 

This was OK going downstream - although it's a bit tricky to do a transit with one marker behind you and one in front. But going upstream, even though I knew the poles were there, tree growth was such that it was impossible to see the downstream pole until you'd practically gone though the danger area. Of course I could rely on knowing where the channel was (and I was keeping an eye on my depth sounder as well), and the risk was less anyway as the tide was rising.

 

Anyway, my general point is whether we need to encourage C&RT to look at buoys and other markers, to make it clearer (where there is any doubt) where the channel actually is? I am mainly focussing on the C&RT stretch upstream of Gainsborough. I don't think the section from Gainsborough to Keadby is particularly tricky - and of course Keadby to Trent Falls is a whole different ball game ....

SG

 

I'd agree with your assessment at Marton Rack, I was travelling upstream on the tide so it was less of an issue but I have to say that I didn't even find the upstream pole and relied on keeping pretty much to the centre of the channel as per the BA chart, I don't have the luxury of a depth gauge. A transit between two posts, one in front and one behind doesn't really work either does it, you only need to look at those who get it wrong on a sailing race start line to see that. What is needed is a proper transit mark in which you line up two posts on the same shore, it works everywhere else, why not there?

 

The place where I had more of a problem was Turn Post Corner where, despite being on the line of the BA Chart the push of the current as it ran along the shoal pushed me into the trees of the Eastern shore despite full engine revs and trying to steer back towards the centre of the river. That was where I could have done with a depth gauge since I didn't know how far across the shoal came and seeing mud churning up to the surface suggested to me that it wasn't particularly deep. No damage done (other than to dignity, and those trees needed pruning unsure.png )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Another more general issue for me is how the river is marked. I think this is relevant to C&RT's plans to encourage greater (and safe) leisure use of the river.

 

For example: I've been through Marton Rack both ways recently. The charts produced by the Boating Association are pretty clear - you need to traverse this area on a transit line joining two white poles on the east bank, a rather different course to the normal "stick to the outside of the bend" approach.

 

This was OK going downstream - although it's a bit tricky to do a transit with one marker behind you and one in front. But going upstream, even though I knew the poles were there, tree growth was such that it was impossible to see the downstream pole until you'd practically gone though the danger area. Of course I could rely on knowing where the channel was (and I was keeping an eye on my depth sounder as well), and the risk was less anyway as the tide was rising.

 

Anyway, my general point is whether we need to encourage C&RT to look at buoys and other markers, to make it clearer (where there is any doubt) where the channel actually is? I am mainly focussing on the C&RT stretch upstream of Gainsborough. I don't think the section from Gainsborough to Keadby is particularly tricky - and of course Keadby to Trent Falls is a whole different ball game ....

 

I'm pleased you've raised this Simon. There have been some moves to improve safety on the (Yorkshire) Ouse following the incident when Humber Rescue were called out to the narrowboat which ended up dried out on a sandbank between Boothferry and Howden, and I'm working on some more safety related matters at the moment with C&RT at Leeds. They're keen to do the same for the Trent, and we want as much input as we can get from boaters on their experiences and concerns when using either or both rivers.

The questionnaire / survey earlier this year wasn't much use because of it's limited scope, and I think that having as many boaters as possible sharing their opinions and experiences on navigational matters for both rivers on forums such as this will be far more useful.

 

As for Marton Rack, it is in my view, one of the most potentially hazardous parts of the upper tidal Trent for pleasure craft, and the deep channel should be well marked in both directions. The use of buoys as marks wouldn't be effective or practical because of the length the rode would need to be to accommodate Spring and Winter time water levels.The amount of lateral movement due to the long rodes in strong winds would make them very unreliable as markers in such a narrow channel.

I think well placed and easily visible pairs of leading marks at both top and low end of Marton Rack should be put in place as soon as possible, and I will pass that on to C&RT at Newark together with any further comments or suggestions that you or anyone else may care to make with regard to this, or any other matter, relating to the Trent below Cromwell.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last week's big tides have washed a load of rubbish off the river banks which is currently milling around in Torksey Lock cut.

 

DSC_0883.jpg

 

Might not look too bad in the picture but there are some big lumps of tree in there. This mess stretches at least half way along the cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An article in WW from a few years ago stuck in my mind and was resurrected by this thread.

 

It was an account of the former editor Richard Fairhurst's attempt to navigate the Trent down to Keadby which resulted in a nerve jangling moment when it appeared they had arrived at the lock too late to clear the cill. In fact they were well over an hour adrift of their estimated passage time. He put this down to a combination of a "calm river and a small engine" but it's not the first time I've heard this story. Does make you wonder if they would have fared better using Tony's suggested strategy, though retrospectively RF concluded they should have done the trip in three stages (from Cromwell).

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.