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

[Tony Dunkley]

 

"Through passage is limited by Thorne Lock. For the Bramwith to Thorne section, dimensions

are as for the main line to Rotherham. Passage from River Trent To Thorne is limited by Keadby

Lock 77ft x 22ft 6ins (23.67m x 6.86m) although longer Craft can be admitted when the tide

makes a level..Narrowboats up to about 18.79m (61ft 8ins) can pass through Thorne Lock

diagonally"

 

 

Even more twaddle. With regard to Thorne lock, I've penned a 67' x 14' 6" Dredger through that lock, and another member of this forum has got through with 70' x 7' narrowboat.

As for the maximum dimensions given for Bramwith to Thorne being the same as the S&SYN to Rotherham, that's more duff information. The maximum beam to Rotherham is 20', and lock chamber at Bramwith is only just over 17'.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Guest]

I have no particular interest in taking 'sides' in the long running TD v NC battle of wills.

 

I will just point out though that Mrsmelly of this parish managed to get his 70ft boat through Thorne Lock, on the diagonal. ISTR passage was eased by virtue of the fact that unlike most hydraulic locks which open both gates at the same time at Thorne you can operate the gates independently. (Something which caught me out the first time i used it as I though the lock had malfunctioned.)

 

I believe rather than publish 'twaddle' that CRT publish what they believe to be the safe max. dimensions and not something which requires a lot of experience and a bit of jiggling about* in the lock.

 

 

 

*non technical boating term.

[Tony Dunkley]

I have no particular interest in taking 'sides' in the long running TD v NC battle of wills.

 

I will just point out though that Mrsmelly of this parish managed to get his 70ft boat through Thorne Lock, on the diagonal. ISTR passage was eased by virtue of the fact that unlike most hydraulic locks which open both gates at the same time at Thorne you can operate the gates independently. (Something which caught me out the first time i used it as I though the lock had malfunctioned.)

 

I believe rather than publish 'twaddle' that CRT publish what they believe to be the safe max. dimensions and not something which requires a lot of experience and a bit of jiggling about* in the lock.

 

 

You have a rather warped perception of things if what you see is a 'battle of wills'. It is, quite simply, a manifestation of the inevitable differences that will occur between someone who can draw on and recount what they've actually learned, done or experienced over the last half century, and someone who, in the absence of any such resource, repeatedly indulges in peddling useless and misleading so-called advice, ill considered opinions, and generous helpings of the misconceptions that arise from their own lack of knowledge and experience.

As for your theory about C&RT publishing what they believe to be safe maximum dimensions. If that is the case and the 77' length, which is correct for the flood lock at Keadby, is given with the intention of minimizing the chances of a boat getting caught on the sill when penning down into the canal between the flood gates from the Trent, then that is also twaddle, because there is no sill that a boat could possibly get caught on.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Naughty Cal]

I have no particular interest in taking 'sides' in the long running TD v NC battle of wills.

 

I will just point out though that Mrsmelly of this parish managed to get his 70ft boat through Thorne Lock, on the diagonal. ISTR passage was eased by virtue of the fact that unlike most hydraulic locks which open both gates at the same time at Thorne you can operate the gates independently. (Something which caught me out the first time i used it as I though the lock had malfunctioned.)

 

I believe rather than publish 'twaddle' that CRT publish what they believe to be the safe max. dimensions and not something which requires a lot of experience and a bit of jiggling about* in the lock.

 

 

 

*non technical boating term.

Which considering the ever growing number of sinkings in locks that seem to be occuring is no bad thing.

[Neil2]

We would have both fitted in the lock as I said before we have both been in the lock together so their was no problem also he was abrupt to the point of rudeness.

 

Peter

 

I wonder how many CRT employees have actually seen/read their own customer service standards.

 

eg item 1, Our people will...

 

be friendly, helpful, approachable and conscientious

 

Make sure we never intentionally avoid acknowledging or making contact with you when we see you

I'm not into knocking CRT at every opportunity but there's definitely room for improvement there.

[peterboat]

The chap next to us went down the trent on Keadby lock keepers advice and only just managed to get in, he was in a steel cruiser 6 litre engine so no shortage of power just water. Cromwell advised him to set off later and meet the incoming tide and have an easy passage through the lock which he now wishes he had done

 

Peter

[Tony Dunkley]

 

"Through passage is limited by Thorne Lock. For the Bramwith to Thorne section, dimensions

are as for the main line to Rotherham. Passage from River Trent To Thorne is limited by Keadby

Lock 77ft x 22ft 6ins (23.67m x 6.86m) although longer Craft can be admitted when the tide

makes a level..Narrowboats up to about 18.79m (61ft 8ins) can pass through Thorne Lock

diagonally"

 

Which considering the ever growing number of sinkings in locks that seem to be occuring is no bad thing.

 

When was the last recorded incident of a boat sinking in a lock because it exceeded the published maximum dimensions of that lock ?

 

As for the information you've quoted above, I have to say that C&RT's guidance with regard to the Bramwith to Thorne maximum dimensions is bound to be successful in preventing any vessel of the maximum size that can get to Rotherham having any kind of mishap in Bramwith Lock.

No chance of a mishap or sinking in the lock, in fact no chance of even getting into the lock, . . . . not with a vessel that's nearly 3' wider than the lock chamber.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Tony Dunkley]

I made my first trip on the Trent in June , Went from Barmby barrage via Trent falls to Keadby and then again at the end of the month made the journey in reverse. I worked out my times from the ABP tide tables for Goole and followed the channels marked on the ' Boating Association ' charts. I also found the ' Richlow ' guide for the Trent really informative.

 

Having never seen either of them, I don't know anything about the Boating Association charts or the Richlow Guide that you mention. They obviously did the job for you in June, but I wouldn't think they're anywhere near as good as the charts available from ABP, and certainly not corrected and kept up to date anything like as frequently.

The deep water channel in the Ouse is fairly stable, as is most of the Trent, but it does tend to move about a bit in a couple places in the last miles downriver from Burton Stather, so much so that ABP include the Trent to just above Burton Stather in their Upper Humber Chart, which is corrected and republished every two months.

Grounding in a small boat in the last few miles of the Trent below Keadby on tides of 9.0m or more over the Fish Dock (Albert Dock) Sill (7.8m above Chart Datum) can be extremely dangerous and must be avoided. Leaving aside what an Aegre could do to a small boat, shown in post #56 of this thread, a small boat aground on the outer end of a sandbank or shoal can be rolled over or swamped by the rate and power of an incoming (flood) Spring tide.

The photographs of a calm and benign looking river elsewhere in this thread are fairly typical of what the last few miles looks like for most of the time.

I can assure you that such photo's would never be used to encourage or reassure others by anyone who knows, and has seen, what the Trent, and the Ouse, are capable of. In certain circumstances, even in Summer, conditions can change from what you see in those pictures to being, possibly, the last thing you may ever see in no more than a few minutes after the tide turns.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[nicknorman]

The Boating Association guides consist of aerial photos with the line of the best channel superimposed. They are easy to use for folk who would find interpreting proper charts too difficult! They were useful as far as Torksey, probably fine to Keadby but as you say, if you are going to venture below that I think it would be sensible to invest the time in getting and interpreting the "proper" charts.

[Tony Dunkley]

From what's also been said about the Boating Association Charts in other threads, it certainly seems that they are adequate for use by pleasure craft above Keadby, but with the ABP charts now so readily available on the Internet, as per Posts #72, #73 and #80, I think anyone venturing below Keadby or on the Ouse up to Goole would definitely be well advised get them printed off and use them, provided, of course, that they do know how to read them.

Nicknorman's point about them not being understood by some, was well illustrated earlier on this thread by someone posting the link to the ABP Chart Viewer in #73 and then subsequently making it very apparent that they didn't know to read one of the Charts available on it by continuing to insist that there was no more than 2' to 3' depth at LW in the deep channel between two named lights, despite the relevant section of the chart in Post #80 showing soundings below CD of between 3.2 and 4.8 metres only a matter of yards from the Western shore.

This is, in fact, a very good example of why the Trent and the Ouse can so easily catch out the uninitiated or ill equipped, as well as those who don't treat it with enough respect.

 

Out of interest, can I ask anyone reading this and finding the Chart shown in Post 80 difficult to use or understand, to say why and suggest how they think it could be made easier to use. There are ways that the information can be put on paper in an easier to use form along the lines of the pilotage instructions and diagrams that ABP issue to the Trent and Goole pilots, and I don't think it would be much of a problem to produce something for pleasure craft that could be put on the Internet and amended as and when necessary.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[nicknorman]

 

Out of interest, can I ask anyone reading this and finding the Chart shown in Post 80 difficult to use or understand, to say why and suggest how they think it could be made easier to use. There are ways that the information can be put on paper in an easier to use form along the lines of the pilotage instructions and diagrams that ABP issue to the Trent and Goole pilots, and I don't think it would be much of a problem to produce something for pleasure craft that could be put on the Internet and amended as and when necessary.

 

I find them hard to read. Each number has to be read, taking care with the underlined ones (they're negative!). A route through the numbers doesn't fall easily to the eye. If I were doing the route, I would get the chart and then draw lines on it connecting the route of max depth (taking care to avoid the dead ends!). So in other words, colour coded depths and/or contours and/or the route of maximum depth, would be much more helpful than a load of numbers.

[Scholar Gypsy]

 

Having never seen either of them, I don't know anything about the Boating Association charts or the Richlow Guide that you mention. They obviously did the job for you in June, but I wouldn't think they're anywhere near as good as the charts available from ABP, and certainly not corrected and kept up to date anything like as frequently.

 

Tony

I'd be happy to lend you mine to have a look at - I won't need them for a few years. If you are interested please send me a PM with your address.

[Alenafour]

I find them hard to read. Each number has to be read, taking care with the underlined ones (they're negative!). A route through the numbers doesn't fall easily to the eye. If I were doing the route, I would get the chart and then draw lines on it connecting the route of max depth (taking care to avoid the dead ends!). So in other words, colour coded depths and/or contours and/or the route of maximum depth, would be much more helpful than a load of numbers.

As is SOP for a passage of this kind. together with transits where applicable. not rocket science, easy enough to do

[bassplayer]

My experiences for what it's worth. We did the Trent from Keadby to Stockwith, then Stockwith to Cromwell least year. The lockie wasn't particularly adverse to us doing the trip in one but I had mentioned I did the trip in one go back in the 80s. If I remember correctly the lockie back then insisted we all had a chart and spent time running over it with all those waiting for the flood.

 

I've still got the stuck together chart with the hand drawn notes. When we did it then it was in a pretty powerful hire narrow boat. I do remember how slow we got as we approached Cromwell and we were beginning to wonder if we'd make it before dark. We also experienced the Aegir bore on the journey. We didn't know anything about it until afterwards so it came as quite a surprise!

 

I'd recommend stopping off and doing some of the Chesterfield anyway, it's lovely.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

My experiences for what it's worth. We did the Trent from Keadby to Stockwith, then Stockwith to Cromwell least year. The lockie wasn't particularly adverse to us doing the trip in one but I had mentioned I did the trip in one go back in the 80s. If I remember correctly the lockie back then insisted we all had a chart and spent time running over it with all those waiting for the flood.

 

I've still got the stuck together chart with the hand drawn notes. When we did it then it was in a pretty powerful hire narrow boat. I do remember how slow we got as we approached Cromwell and we were beginning to wonder if we'd make it before dark. We also experienced the Aegir bore on the journey. We didn't know anything about it until afterwards so it came as quite a surprise!

 

I'd recommend stopping off and doing some of the Chesterfield anyway, it's lovely.

We've just done the route that you suggest, Keadby to West Stockwith (with a week up the Chesterfield) followed by West Stockwith to Torksey (trip to Lincoln) then Torksey to Cromwell. In honesty that route isn't as challenging as you might expect from a tidal river since you use the incoming tide to carry you along (a lot faster that under just the engine!), all that it takes is getting the timings right. Yes there are bits to be careful about, Gainsborough bridge and in my own case Turnpost Corner but generally it was OK. Taking the opposite route however is where the challenges lie since you'll invariably have to enter West Stockwith and Keadby crossing a flow on the river and of course running aground on an outgoing tide is always going to be a problem. Having done the North to South trip I'd have no qualms about doing it again but would need a lot more planning for the South to North trip.

[Scholar Gypsy]

I'm just playing with my new 35mm slide scanner, and here are some 1982 shots of Keadby and Stockwith, and a barge over taking us in between.

 

No lifejackets, mobile phones, GPS or VHF, though we did have an anchor and a guidebook.

 

 

 

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Tony

I'd be happy to lend you mine to have a look at - I won't need them for a few years. If you are interested please send me a PM with your address.

 

Thanks very much for the offer Simon, but I won't take you up on it for the moment.

The primary concern I have about the reliability and value of the Boating Association Charts is the fact they are not subject to the same frequent amendment and republication as the ABP ones.

The Trent below Keadby is nothing like as unstable as the Humber above Hull, but there are several shallow bars and one or two other areas that do change quite frequently, and given the potentially serious consequences of a small boat grounding there in certain conditions, I think that pleasure craft should avoid this stretch of river unless they're carrying the latest and best information that's available.

[Scholar Gypsy]

 

Thanks very much for the offer Simon, but I won't take you up on it for the moment.

The primary concern I have about the reliability and value of the Boating Association Charts is the fact they are not subject to the same frequent amendment and republication as the ABP ones.

The Trent below Keadby is nothing like as unstable as the Humber above Hull, but there are several shallow bars and one or two other areas that do change quite frequently, and given the potentially serious consequences of a small boat grounding there in certain conditions, I think that pleasure craft should avoid this stretch of river unless they're carrying the latest and best information that's available.

 

That's fine. The Imrays charts I have give up at the Humber Bridge - I guess the notes (which I don't have online) refer to the ABP charts.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Scholar Gypsy

[Tony Dunkley]

We've just done the route that you suggest, Keadby to West Stockwith (with a week up the Chesterfield) followed by West Stockwith to Torksey (trip to Lincoln) then Torksey to Cromwell. In honesty that route isn't as challenging as you might expect from a tidal river since you use the incoming tide to carry you along (a lot faster that under just the engine!), all that it takes is getting the timings right. Yes there are bits to be careful about, Gainsborough bridge and in my own case Turnpost Corner but generally it was OK. Taking the opposite route however is where the challenges lie since you'll invariably have to enter West Stockwith and Keadby crossing a flow on the river and of course running aground on an outgoing tide is always going to be a problem. Having done the North to South trip I'd have no qualms about doing it again but would need a lot more planning for the South to North trip.

 

The word "invariably" doesn't belong here for two reasons. Firstly there is no problem in timing the downriver, South to North, trip to avoid entering either Stockwith or Keadby on the ebb, and secondly, the Trent and it's tides are just about as variable as things can get.

The general belief, shared by many others, seems to be that, having come downriver from Cromwell or Torksey, you cannot avoid arriving at either of the side locks other than with the ebb running down, sometimes very strongly, and likely at Keadby to be getting very short of depth to get into the lock.

As explained earlier in this thread, this is not so, and it's perfectly feasible to do Cromwell to Stockwith or Keadby in one stint and and arrive at either destination at around High Water with little or no tide running.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[peterboat]

 

The word "invariably" doesn't belong here for two reasons. Firstly there is no problem in timing the downriver, South to North, trip to avoid entering either Stockwith or Keadby on the ebb, and secondly, the Trent and it's tides are just about as variable as things can get.

The general belief, shared by many others, seems to be that, having come downriver from Cromwell or Torksey, you cannot avoid arriving at either of the side locks other than with the ebb running down, sometimes very strongly, and likely at Keadby to be getting very short of depth to get into the lock.

As explained earlier in this thread, this is not so, and it's perfectly feasible to do Cromwell to Stockwith or Keadby in one stint and and arrive at either destination at around High Water with little or no tide running.

Which is what we should have done to much drama by far charging at sandbanks at speed with a tide from left to right, and leaving Torksey in the dark makes the whole thing enjoyable NOT

 

[Tony Dunkley]

As is SOP for a passage of this kind. together with transits where applicable. not rocket science, easy enough to do

 

Lines joining between the deepest soundings will make the course to follow easier to see at a glance, but on their own are of limited practical use unless a boat can follow them accurately, and that is easier said than done, especially on a river with so many changes of direction and width.

As you say, transits are useful where there happens to be marks in the right places, but as so little of the deep channel runs straight their usefulness is very limited. At some points the track to be made good runs from mark to mark across the river, but in addition to that being less easy to do than following a line to or from a pair of leading marks, there will also be a fairly lively current tending to push any vessel beyond the correct point for starting a turn to follow the channel at the places where it's necessary to cross sharply to the opposite bank.

Certainly not rocket science, but neither is it all that easy, particularly for someone who's not familiar with the river and doing it for the first time.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[bassplayer]

I'm just playing with my new 35mm slide scanner, and here are some 1982 shots of Keadby and Stockwith, and a barge over taking us in between.

 

No lifejackets, mobile phones, GPS or VHF, though we did have an anchor and a guidebook.

 

20150913130520_01.jpg 20150913130520_02.jpg

20150913130520_03.jpg

 

 

[Scholar Gypsy]

 

Thanks. It might help if I put the slides in the right way round - I've truncated a few. Anyway, not bad for a £40 gadget.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

The word "invariably" doesn't belong here for two reasons. Firstly there is no problem in timing the downriver, South to North, trip to avoid entering either Stockwith or Keadby on the ebb, and secondly, the Trent and it's tides are just about as variable as things can get.

The general belief, shared by many others, seems to be that, having come downriver from Cromwell or Torksey, you cannot avoid arriving at either of the side locks other than with the ebb running down, sometimes very strongly, and likely at Keadby to be getting very short of depth to get into the lock.

As explained earlier in this thread, this is not so, and it's perfectly feasible to do Cromwell to Stockwith or Keadby in one stint and and arrive at either destination at around High Water with little or no tide running.

I think I would have to disagree and restate that "invariably" does belong here. Having seen just how quickly the tide turns on this river there is a considerable element of luck involved in arriving at a destination exactly on slack water, whether High Water or low water. We were fortunate in arriving at West Stockwith at the right time but in the time that it took to fill the lock the tide had begun to ebb significanlty (this was just after Spring Tides). I would guess that the tide went from flood to ebb inside 15 minutes. Given the limited power of a narrow boat I wouldn't like to state my arrival time on a tidal river with that degree of accuracy (perhaps more achievable with a more powerful cruiser or barge).

 

I can also see the argument for going from Cromwell to Stockwith in one stint with a more powerful boat but I would not want to push my narrowboat into any tide for an hour or so since I'll be making very little progress (if any)for a whole lot more fuel consumption. To give the speed of my boat at the maximum speed I would want to run the engine for over any considerable period I tested it on the Fossdyke with no flow and at 1800 revs, I get 3.7knots SOG.The odds are that if I had to run at 2000 revs or above the chance of overheating will substantially increase. Why would I want to do that when it is far better to stop off on the way and enjoy the offshoots (Fossdyke and Chesterfield)?

[Tony Dunkley]

I think I would have to disagree and restate that "invariably" does belong here. Having seen just how quickly the tide turns on this river there is a considerable element of luck involved in arriving at a destination exactly on slack water, whether High Water or low water. We were fortunate in arriving at West Stockwith at the right time but in the time that it took to fill the lock the tide had begun to ebb significanlty (this was just after Spring Tides). I would guess that the tide went from flood to ebb inside 15 minutes. Given the limited power of a narrow boat I wouldn't like to state my arrival time on a tidal river with that degree of accuracy (perhaps more achievable with a more powerful cruiser or barge).

 

I can also see the argument for going from Cromwell to Stockwith in one stint with a more powerful boat but I would not want to push my narrowboat into any tide for an hour or so since I'll be making very little progress (if any)for a whole lot more fuel consumption. To give the speed of my boat at the maximum speed I would want to run the engine for over any considerable period I tested it on the Fossdyke with no flow and at 1800 revs, I get 3.7knots SOG.The odds are that if I had to run at 2000 revs or above the chance of overheating will substantially increase. Why would I want to do that when it is far better to stop off on the way and enjoy the offshoots (Fossdyke and Chesterfield)?

 

I find your reasoning somewhat difficult to understand, especially as it appears to be based on the observation of only two tides on two different days.

You seem to be indicating a preference for arriving at Stockwith, or Keadby, with the tide as slack as possible, and a preference for any downriver passage to be on the ebb all the way. Unfortunately, due to the distances from Cromwell or Torksey to both side locks, and the outer sill depths at those locks, you can't have it both ways.

Your concerns about your boat's ability to maintain maximum speed for long periods need not be too much of a problem because in the event of you being unable to make any headway at all against an incoming tide, even by making as much use as possible of all the slacks near the nesses and the slacker water to the sides on the straight racks, there is always the option to get out of the deep channel, where the flow will be swiftest, and anchor for about an hour over the period when the flood is running up at it's greatest rate.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Tony Dunkley