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

[Wanderer Vagabond]

i have been moored at gainsborough twice in my widebeam when hit by aegris the first time i ripped the mooring eye out of the pontoon the second i ended up flat on my face you know its coming as their is a fast hand clapping noise as it approaches bot where about 2 feet high so nothing huge really

To steal the line from Oscar Wilde to get caught at Gainsborough by one Aegir can be regarded as misfortune, to get caught twice looks like carelessness

 

There was a chap stuck there over the August Bank Holiday weekend. He had broken down and was waiting for the Newark Marina tug to tow him back. He endured two days's worth of aegir moored to the pontoon. Rolled him around a fair bit.

It does beg the question though what would be the best place for him with his broken down boat with an Aegir on the way, moored to the floating pontoon at Gainsborough (where he can get off if necessary)? or anchored somewhere else on the river?

[nicknorman]

It does beg the question though what would be the best place for him with his broken down boat with an Aegir on the way, moored to the floating pontoon at Gainsborough (where he can get off if necessary)? or anchored somewhere else on the river?

The aegir will be at it highest in the shallowest water (normally at the sides) so mid channel is the best place to ride it, however with no engine it might be brave to cast off and try to get to mid channel to drop anchor for the duration!

[Tony Dunkley]

It does beg the question though what would be the best place for him with his broken down boat with an Aegir on the way, moored to the floating pontoon at Gainsborough (where he can get off if necessary)? or anchored somewhere else on the river?

 

The aegir will be at it highest in the shallowest water (normally at the sides) so mid channel is the best place to ride it, however with no engine it might be brave to cast off and try to get to mid channel to drop anchor for the duration!

 

The ideal situation for any boat broken down near to flood (Low water) on Spring tides predicted to make more than 7.8m above CD (Chart Datum) or 9.0m over the Fish Dock Sill (Albert Dock) at Hull (the height of tide above which Aegres in the Trent, or Ouse, can begin to form) would be, tied up to a wharf or jetty, stern on to the ebb and with the longest headrope they've got, or can make up, rigged tight with a bight round a downriver pile as far from the boat as the rope's length will permit.

Next best option is tied to that pontoon, stern to the ebb, but unlike the cruiser in the video clip, with head and stern springs rigged at least as long as the boat itself. This isn't as good as being tied to a wharf or jetty simply because of the way the pontoon gets chucked about as much as whatever's tied to it.

Riding to a single bow anchor on the last of the ebb is really something to be avoided by small craft such as cruisers or narrowboats if an Aegre is expected or likely. The first wave will hit the boat stern on and then, depending on how big a tide it is, it will surge upriver and may be swung quite sharply round on the anchor.

There isn't really anything significant to be gained in terms of reduced wave height by being in the deepest water out in the river, the only difference being that the wave breaks along the shallower water near each bank, but is longer, smoother and less steep where the depth is greater.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[nicknorman]

The ideal situation for any boat broken down near to flood (Low water) on Spring tides predicted to make more than 7.8m above CD (Chart Datum) or 9.0m over the Fish Dock Sill (Albert Dock) at Hull would be, tied up to a wharf or jetty, stern on to the ebb and with the longest headrope they've got, or can make up, rigged tight with a bight round a downriver pile as far from the boat as the rope's length will permit.

Next best option is tied to that pontoon, stern to the ebb, but unlike the cruiser in the video clip, with head and stern springs rigged at least as long as the boat itself. This isn't as good as being tied to a wharf or jetty simply because of the way the pontoon gets chucked about as much as whatever's tied to it.

Riding to a single bow anchor on the last of the ebb is really something to be avoided by small craft such as cruisers or narrowboats if an Aegre is expected or likely. The first wave will hit the boat stern on and then, depending on how big a tide it is, it will surge upriver and may be swung quite sharply round on the anchor.

There isn't really anything significant to be gained in terms of reduced wave height by being in the deepest water out in the river, the only difference being that the wave breaks along the shallower water near each bank, but is longer, smoother and less steep where the depth is greater.

Yes good point, you would need a bow and stern anchor to face the aegir bow-on. I was just making the point that the sharpness of the aegir was worst near the sides, and more benign in the middle (or deepest part). How you might make use of that fact is another matter!

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

 

The ideal situation for any boat broken down near to flood (Low water) on Spring tides predicted to make more than 7.8m above CD (Chart Datum) or 9.0m over the Fish Dock Sill (Albert Dock) at Hull (the height of tide above which Aegres in the Trent, or Ouse, can begin to form) would be, tied up to a wharf or jetty, stern on to the ebb and with the longest headrope they've got, or can make up, rigged tight with a bight round a downriver pile as far from the boat as the rope's length will permit.

Next best option is tied to that pontoon, stern to the ebb, but unlike the cruiser in the video clip, with head and stern springs rigged at least as long as the boat itself. This isn't as good as being tied to a wharf or jetty simply because of the way the pontoon gets chucked about as much as whatever's tied to it.

Riding to a single bow anchor on the last of the ebb is really something to be avoided by small craft such as cruisers or narrowboats if an Aegre is expected or likely. The first wave will hit the boat stern on and then, depending on how big a tide it is, it will surge upriver and may be swung quite sharply round on the anchor.

There isn't really anything significant to be gained in terms of reduced wave height by being in the deepest water out in the river, the only difference being that the wave breaks along the shallower water near each bank, but is longer, smoother and less steep where the depth is greater.

I'm not really sure that there is an 'ideal situation' it's more making the best of a bad job since no-one really wants to be in this position. I can see the sense in being moored to something more substantial than the pontoon but the failing at Keadby is that there isn't anywhere to the get myself and the crew off the boat to prevent any injuries being caused by the boat being thrown around.

 

The issue really is with narrow boats on the river since any decent sea-going cruiser or boat should be able to cope with a reasonable Aegir (there is another video on You Tube showing a barge taking one on, it is just like taking on a slightly larger wave at sea). The same as at sea, you don't want to get caught across the wave but ,assuming the Aegir isn't pushing a tree trunk at it's front, taking it head on is just what sea-going boats are designed to do. In a well powered cruiser I wouldn't necessarily choose to do it but it isn't the major problem that it would be to a narrow boat.

[Naughty Cal]

I'm not really sure that there is an 'ideal situation' it's more making the best of a bad job since no-one really wants to be in this position. I can see the sense in being moored to something more substantial than the pontoon but the failing at Keadby is that there isn't anywhere to the get myself and the crew off the boat to prevent any injuries being caused by the boat being thrown around.

 

The issue really is with narrow boats on the river since any decent sea-going cruiser or boat should be able to cope with a reasonable Aegir (there is another video on You Tube showing a barge taking one on, it is just like taking on a slightly larger wave at sea). The same as at sea, you don't want to get caught across the wave but ,assuming the Aegir isn't pushing a tree trunk at it's front, taking it head on is just what sea-going boats are designed to do. In a well powered cruiser I wouldn't necessarily choose to do it but it isn't the major problem that it would be to a narrow boat.

Difference being if you are taking on a wave at sea you are not tied up!

 

If the boat in the video wasn't tied up and had been mid river facing the aegir it wouldn't have been as violently thrown around. It was snatching on its mooring lines which is far from ideal and asking for causing damage.

 

Of course the boat that was broken down had little choice and had to sit it out on the pontoon.

 

Ideally you wouldn't be on the river at all if a decent aegir is predicted, but we don't live in an ideal world.

[Tony Dunkley]

Therein lies the difference between a cruiser and a narrowboat. Entering Stockwith in a narrowboat 'with a bit of flow' isn't really a whole lot of fun. As SG says above it does require a certain amount of nerve since, given the power/weight ratio of a narrowboat it will always be difficult to get sufficient thrust to overcome the flow and remain in full control. In a cruiser it's a doddle since you have the power to overcome pretty much any flow and can effectively ferry glide across, I've done this on the tide on the River Tamar in Devon and with a boat with sufficient power anyone can do it.

 

 

The point I was making really is that narrow boats are OK for ideal conditions on the river, if one wants to try anything more than that (such as pushing against the tide or current) then you really need the appropriate tools (such as a more powerful cruiser), 'cos a narrow boat doesn't really cut it.

 

I'm not really sure that there is an 'ideal situation' it's more making the best of a bad job since no-one really wants to be in this position. I can see the sense in being moored to something more substantial than the pontoon but the failing at Keadby is that there isn't anywhere to the get myself and the crew off the boat to prevent any injuries being caused by the boat being thrown around.

 

The issue really is with narrow boats on the river since any decent sea-going cruiser or boat should be able to cope with a reasonable Aegir (there is another video on You Tube showing a barge taking one on, it is just like taking on a slightly larger wave at sea). The same as at sea, you don't want to get caught across the wave but ,assuming the Aegir isn't pushing a tree trunk at it's front, taking it head on is just what sea-going boats are designed to do. In a well powered cruiser I wouldn't necessarily choose to do it but it isn't the major problem that it would be to a narrow boat.

 

I would never discourage anyone from treating the Trent, and all other rivers, with the greatest respect and caution, but it seems that whilst in the process of coming up with some very strange and mistaken ideas about boating on it, you've also developed a quite irrational and unnecessary fear of it.

You mention the 'power to weight ratio' of a modern narrowboat and how it compares unfavourably with that of a motor cruiser as though it's some kind of serious problem, but you don't appear to have given any consideration to the same criteria if applied to the commercial vessels that used to work on the Trent and regularly used the side locks at Stockwith and Keadby.

The majority of vessels passing through Keadby, and using Stockwith Basin, were 'Sheffield size' with a loaded displacement in the region of 150 tons. Very few of the powered barges had anything bigger than a 3 cylinder 30 bhp Lister, and the unpowered sailing keels or dumb boats had nothing but a manually operated winch barrel on the forard deck and a long boathook. I'll leave the exact arithmetic to you but I would say that the typical modern narrowboat has a 'power to weight ratio' at least 5xtimes better than most of those powered barges, and, of course, infinitely better than any of the dumb or sailing barges.

Every one of the barges that made regular trouble free passage through both these locks did so due simply to correctly timing their arrival and penning, something which you now, apparently, know not to be possible after your one and only upriver trip from Keadby.

Your concerns over a narrowboat's ability to cope with Aegres are equally unfounded, provided that, if underway, it's met, preferably in a straight rack and in the deepest water, head on and as slowly as possible whilst still maintaining steerage way. When tied up, as I said earlier, either a good long, downriver, headrope and/or properly rigged head and stern springs are essential.

The real potential danger, with boats that are afloat, when an Aegre arrives is if anyone on board is caught unawares by the sudden violent movement, especially if they're pouring a kettle or lifting something hot off the stove. Aegres don't push tree trunks, or anything else, along in front of them, except very occasionally, and only then, in the part of the wave that's breaking in the shallower water against either bank. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to be in a "well powered" boat of any sort because any vessel of any size, or design, will handle best and be least affected if the Aegre is met at the slowest possible speed.

You are right in saying that in some aspects many modern narrowboats aren't suitable for tidal rivers like the Trent, but that is due mainly to poor engine installations that won't run for long periods without overheating, and badly positioned vents and drain holes that dangerously reduce effective freeboard.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Tony Dunkley]

If You lose drive completely, you can get a certain amount of control by "tripping" your anchor or by dragging a mudweight. Obviously you have to go with the tide but you can achieve a surprising amount of steerage this way and at the very least get to a safe spot where you can anchor properly.

 

That's right John, and in the days before powered barges came into common use, it wasn't unusual for privately owned keels trading between Hull and Sheffield or Lincoln to make their way up the Trent like that on good tides and save themselves the cost of a tug.

Even after the last sailing keels ceased trading on the Humber, Ouse and Trent, the practice of moving dumb barges about stern first with the tide or current whilst dragging an anchor or weight continued in much the same way, but over much shorter distances.

One example of this being regularly done was by the British Waterways Trent fleet that ran from Hull to Gainsborough and Nottingham until well into the 1970's.

Consignments for Gainsborough loaded onto dumb vessels were sometimes hung on behind others bound for Nottingham. At a suitable distance lowside of Ropery Road Depot with the tide still running up, the Gainsborough bound boat's tow was simply knocked off and the anchor let go short so the dumb could swing round on it, head to tide. After dragging to within a few boats lengths of the wharf, more cable was payed out bringing the barge to a halt level with the wharf. The speed of the water then passing over the rudder made it possible to induce a shear across to the wharf, and a rope could be got ashore.

 

Ps. Somewhere on the Internet is an old photograph of a couple of keels 'dropping' upriver at Morton Bight (just below Gainsborough). I can't find it at the moment, and I don't know how to post it on here if I could. Perhaps someone could oblige? Thanks.

 

Pps. It's alright, I've found it in a collection of photo's : ~

https://www.flickr.com/photos/41346965@N05/sets/72157621897452919/

 

There are some great photos amongst that lot, including a few where things aren't going quite as well as intended.

And specially for Wanderer Vagabond, there's a bloke standing in a cog boat out in the river just after an Aegre's gone past.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

 

 

I would never discourage anyone from treating the Trent, and all other rivers, with the greatest respect and caution, but it seems that whilst in the process of coming up with some very strange and mistaken ideas about boating on it, you've also developed a quite irrational and unnecessary fear of it.

You mention the 'power to weight ratio' of a modern narrowboat and how it compares unfavourably with that of a motor cruiser as though it's some kind of serious problem, but you don't appear to have given any consideration to the same criteria if applied to the commercial vessels that used to work on the Trent and regularly used the side locks at Stockwith and Keadby.

The majority of vessels passing through Keadby, and using Stockwith Basin, were 'Sheffield size' with a loaded displacement in the region of 150 tons. Very few of the powered barges had anything bigger than a 3 cylinder 30 bhp Lister, and the unpowered sailing keels or dumb boats had nothing but a manually operated winch barrel on the forard deck and a long boathook. I'll leave the exact arithmetic to you but I would say that the typical modern narrowboat has a 'power to weight ratio' at least 5xtimes better than most of those powered barges, and, of course, infinitely better than any of the dumb or sailing barges.

Every one of the barges that made regular trouble free passage through both these locks did so due simply to correctly timing their arrival and penning, something which you now, apparently, know not to be possible after your one and only upriver trip from Keadby.

Your concerns over a narrowboat's ability to cope with Aegres are equally unfounded, provided that, if underway, it's met, preferably in a straight rack and in the deepest water, head on and as slowly as possible whilst still maintaining steerage way. When tied up, as I said earlier, either a good long, downriver, headrope and/or properly rigged head and stern springs are essential.

The real potential danger, with boats that are afloat, when an Aegre arrives is if anyone on board is caught unawares by the sudden violent movement, especially if they're pouring a kettle or lifting something hot off the stove. Aegres don't push tree trunks, or anything else, along in front of them, except very occasionally, and only then, in the part of the wave that's breaking in the shallower water against either bank. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to be in a "well powered" boat of any sort because any vessel of any size, or design, will handle best and be least affected if the Aegre is met at the slowest possible speed.

You are right in saying that in some aspects many modern narrowboats aren't suitable for tidal rivers like the Trent, but that is due mainly to poor engine installations that won't run for long periods without overheating, and badly positioned vents and drain holes that dangerously reduce effective freeboard.

I think that you are rather over dramatizing what I'm actually saying. You also seem to use rather contradictory arguments.

 

Nowhere have I suggested that I "...know not to be possible...." any passage up or down the Trent, of course the passages are possible, it is how pleasant that they are that is important. Similarly any passage that I may (or may not) make is done entirely for pleasure so I really don't give a Tinker's cuss for what any of the old commercial vessels may or may not have done, if I don't feel like doing it I wont. I'm not being paid for it and I am not working to a schedule so if I'm not totally happy with the passage I'll go and do something else. You may call me 'chicken' until the cows come home but then I'm not likely to be one who has to call out the rescue tug to bring me home. I've had more than enough unpleasant sea sailing passages because we've had to meet some schedule, when I'm doing it for pleasure I really don't feel that I have to.

 

In terms of your contradictions, you seem critical of my aspiration to get the crew off if we are caught when an Aegir is due and yet you then tell us (self evidently!) that there is a danger if,".... anyone on board is caught unawares by the sudden violent movement...", having had a crew member at sea break three ribs by being thrown across the cabin and landing on a table edge injuries aren't just caused by handling hot stuff at the crucial moment (just in case you weren't aware). You then tell me that my ,"....concerns over a narrowboat's ability to cope with Aegres are equally unfounded...." and then tell me,"....You are right in saying that in some aspects many modern narrowboats aren't suitable for tidal rivers...". The comfort range for the engine of my boat is about 1600 - 1900 revs. I haven't run it at much over 2000 revs since it doubles the fuel consumption and I don't know whether it will cause it to overheat. I have no intention of finding out whilst pushing into the flood tide on the Trent.

 

It is clear that a lot of narrow boat DO go up and down the Trent and good luch to them, and I will if I feel that the trip will be OK, but relating stories of what others have done doesn't impress me at all. I'll do what I'm happy with. I don't have an ,"...irrational and unnecessary fear..." of the Trent any more than I have any fear of the Thames, Severn, Avon, Kennet or sailing a yacht across the Channel or North Sea, I will deal with it how I see fit.

[John V]

great set of pictures Tony, thanks for the link.

[Tony Dunkley]

I think that you are rather over dramatizing what I'm actually saying. You also seem to use rather contradictory arguments.

 

Nowhere have I suggested that I "...know not to be possible...." any passage up or down the Trent, of course the passages are possible, it is how pleasant that they are that is important. Similarly any passage that I may (or may not) make is done entirely for pleasure so I really don't give a Tinker's cuss for what any of the old commercial vessels may or may not have done, if I don't feel like doing it I wont. I'm not being paid for it and I am not working to a schedule so if I'm not totally happy with the passage I'll go and do something else. You may call me 'chicken' until the cows come home but then I'm not likely to be one who has to call out the rescue tug to bring me home. I've had more than enough unpleasant sea sailing passages because we've had to meet some schedule, when I'm doing it for pleasure I really don't feel that I have to.

 

In terms of your contradictions, you seem critical of my aspiration to get the crew off if we are caught when an Aegir is due and yet you then tell us (self evidently!) that there is a danger if,".... anyone on board is caught unawares by the sudden violent movement...", having had a crew member at sea break three ribs by being thrown across the cabin and landing on a table edge injuries aren't just caused by handling hot stuff at the crucial moment (just in case you weren't aware). You then tell me that my ,"....concerns over a narrowboat's ability to cope with Aegres are equally unfounded...." and then tell me,"....You are right in saying that in some aspects many modern narrowboats aren't suitable for tidal rivers...". The comfort range for the engine of my boat is about 1600 - 1900 revs. I haven't run it at much over 2000 revs since it doubles the fuel consumption and I don't know whether it will cause it to overheat. I have no intention of finding out whilst pushing into the flood tide on the Trent.

 

It is clear that a lot of narrow boat DO go up and down the Trent and good luch to them, and I will if I feel that the trip will be OK, but relating stories of what others have done doesn't impress me at all. I'll do what I'm happy with. I don't have an ,"...irrational and unnecessary fear..." of the Trent any more than I have any fear of the Thames, Severn, Avon, Kennet or sailing a yacht across the Channel or North Sea, I will deal with it how I see fit.

 

That's a quite remarkable statement from someone who thinks it's necessary to abandon ship in the Trent just because there may be an Aegre preceding the next tide. Here are some quotes from you in this Topic : ~ " the failing at Keadby is that there isn't anywhere to the get myself and the crew off the boat ", and, " My 'suggestion' was originally based on a dread of getting to Keadby Lock and being unable to get over the cill ", and, " My idea of a nightmare to get to Keadby Lock on a Spring low tide, be unable to cross the cill to get off the river and know that on the change of tide an Aegir was coming down."

 

Leaving aside your 'dreads', 'nightmares' and 'evacuations', you appear to have had some difficulty in understanding a chart of the river that you were carrying. In your Post #95, you say : ~ " 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."

I don't really understand why you were surprised that this happened, unless you were under the impression that there's some sort of magical boat guidance system buried in the river bed where the line is drawn on the chart, or could it be that you were just sticking firmly to your principles, as stated in your Post #209 ~ quote ~ " any passage that I may (or may not) make is done entirely for pleasure so I really don't give a Tinker's cuss for what any of the old commercial vessels may or may not have done, if I don't feel like doing it I wont ".

As it was normal 'old commercial vessel' practice to avoid going through the trees along the bank, particularly where the river is around 200 feet wide, I'm sure you must have had your own good reasons for doing this.

 

To conclude with your belief that ~ quote from your Post #140 ~ " you'll invariably have to enter West Stockwith and Keadby crossing a flow on the river ".

As I've said before, this is not so, and it's perfectly feasible, even with the slowest of boats, to time passages from either direction on the Trent to arrive at Stockwith or Keadby and make entry into either lock at or near to local HW with little or no tide running.

Your perceived difficulties in arranging this may well arise from the fact that your ill-founded opinions seem to be based on a tidal cycle which is a little over two hours shorter than the one God relies on, ~ quote from your Post #151 ~ " I still don't quite get how it floods for only a couple of hours but then ebbs for eight or so,".

 

This Topic was started with the purpose of helping and encouraging pleasure boaters wishing to use the tidal Trent to do so in the safest and most enjoyable way possible. Factually incorrect and alarmist nonsense based on your observations of a single upriver trip, such as you have included in your ill informed posts, is of no help or use to anyone, other than for it's considerable entertainment value.

Edited September 27, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

That's a quite remarkable statement from someone who thinks it's necessary to abandon ship in the Trent just because there may be an Aegre preceding the next tide. Here are some quotes from you in this Topic : ~ " the failing at Keadby is that there isn't anywhere to the get myself and the crew off the boat ", and, " My 'suggestion' was originally based on a dread of getting to Keadby Lock and being unable to get over the cill ", and, " My idea of a nightmare to get to Keadby Lock on a Spring low tide, be unable to cross the cill to get off the river and know that on the change of tide an Aegir was coming down."

 

Leaving aside your 'dreads', 'nightmares' and 'evacuations', you appear to have had some difficulty in understanding a chart of the river that you were carrying. In your Post #95, you say : ~ " 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."

I don't really understand why you were surprised that this happened, unless you were under the impression that there's some sort of magical boat guidance system buried in the river bed where the line is drawn on the chart, or could it be that you were just sticking firmly to your principles, as stated in your Post #209 ~ quote ~ " any passage that I may (or may not) make is done entirely for pleasure so I really don't give a Tinker's cuss for what any of the old commercial vessels may or may not have done, if I don't feel like doing it I wont ". As it was normal 'old commercial vessel' practice to avoid going through the trees along the bank, particularly where the river is around 200 feet wide, I'm sure you must have had your own good reasons for doing this.

 

To conclude with your belief that ~ quote from your Post #140 ~ " you'll invariably have to enter West Stockwith and Keadby crossing a flow on the river ".

As I've said before, this is not so, and it's perfectly feasible, even with the slowest of boats, to time passages from either direction on the Trent to arrive at Stockwith or Keadby and make entry into either lock at or near to local HW with little or no tide running.

Your perceived difficulties in arranging this may well arise from the fact that your ill-founded opinions seem to be based on a tidal cycle which is a little over two hours shorter than the one God relies on, ~ quote from your Post #151 ~ " I still don't quite get how it floods for only a couple of hours but then ebbs for eight or so,".

 

This Topic was started with the purpose of helping and encouraging pleasure boaters wishing to use the tidal Trent to do so in the safest and most enjoyable way possible. Factually incorrect and alarmist nonsense based on your observations of a single upriver trip, such as you have included in your ill informed posts, is of no help or use to anyone, other than for it's considerable entertainment value.

You still persist with your over dramatisation since I wasn't talking about '....abandoning ship in the Trent...." which rather suggests leaping over the side, all I proposed was that it would be advisable to let my crew off if that were possible onto a pontoon and onto shore rather than risk injury by being thrown around on the boat. Perhaps you think it better to keep her aboard and deal with any injuries later, not a very intelligent approach I would suggest.

 

Since we are digging up older posts, the reason for my 'difficulty' (did I say I was surprised??) on Turnpost corner was because, since it was my first trip up the Trent, I had no idea exactly how deep the water was across the shoal and could see mud being churned up by the current which, to my inexpert eye, suggested that it may be a bit shallower there, perhaps you know otherwise. Rather than risk running onto the shoal I was carried a bit too far towards the treeline. yes it was a mistake but ultimately no harm was done.If your 'old commercial vessels' were so brilliant perhaps you'd care to explain how the muppet parked his boat sideways across the river when the Aegir hit (the photo you repeatedly show). At least with my error no harm was done, I suspect some damage may have been caused by his 'error', and he I presume was a 'professional'.

 

And whilst we are picking up on inane comments your assertion "....any vessel of any size, or design, will handle best and be least affected if the Aegre is met at the slowest possible speed..." was a true comedy highlight. Tuesday and Wednesday of this week we have a couple of 3 star Aegirs coming up, I'll take my punt out on the river and give it a go 'cos Tony tells us the "..any vessel..." will be OK, and it does go slowly, (perhaps even on on a 5 star although I may have to wait a while for one of those) or perhaps it's not really designed for the conditions

Edited September 27, 2015 by Wanderer Vagabond

[John V]

Not wishing to get drawn into a slanging match I would point out that the term.....any vessel of any size......might mean any size vessel taken one way but if you take "any size" as being an aside it then means a largish vessel. ....any vessel, of any size,

 

Just sayin'

[Naughty Cal]

 

Interesting discussion, Tony. I've boated the Trent often since 1971, mostly with commercial craft of all sizes. I always found the Sissons charts to be very good and the gravel barge skippers still used to have them open as an aide memoire even after many years boating. Some years ago I did some work with the excellent Stuart McKenzie looking at bringing aggregate to Keadby for the proposed wind farm (since built). Initially we looked at coming in through Keadby lock to a specially built wharf near the site, and as the barges to be used would have been almost all (maybe all, depending what was used) too big to pen through they would have to pass through 'on the level' and we did quite a bit of predicting what dates that would be possible so as to provide a reliable supply. Alan Oliver was bringing his larger craft (e.g. 'Hood') through on the level (and still does) so it's not a problem and he was very helpful.. We also measured the lock and allowing for a bit of wiggle room we arrived at 23.67m x 6.86m (22ft 6 in) x 2.5m as a reasonable maximum dimension. Though wider might have been OK on the level, measuring on Google Earth seems to confirms this width dimension. In the end the aggregate came in by road at least partly because the locals (or the Council) objected to the swing bridge being opened 'at all times of day and night' even though in reality it would have been only one or two barges per tide. I then suggested using Keadby wharf (PD Ports) but it was too late.

You mentioned getting a 70ft narrow boat through Thorne Lock. That's got to be the absolute limit I woiuld say, judging by Google Earth, and also that Mike Askin couldn't even remotely get Royalty class 'Victoria' though last year, and previously Mike Harrison failed with GU 'Saltaire' at 71ft 4 in.

On the question of waterway dimensions the Trust is continuing the work started by BW of reviewing data and any corrections or updates are very welcome.

By all means contact Stuart McKenzie for assistance etc but bear in mind he is not directly responsible for lock keepers or the operation of locks (he is the Ouse Harbour Master amongst other things). Mike Marshall is NE Customer Operations Manager, with Martin Walton responsible for the S Yorks Navigation. Both have very many years of waterway engineering and operational experience - Mike probably about 40 years actually - and are very approachable...

Kind regards David L

This post interested me and I must say I am somewhat surprised that Dunkley has not responded to it.

 

Maybe he missed it?

[Tony Dunkley]

This post interested me and I must say I am somewhat surprised that Dunkley has not responded to it.

 

Maybe he missed it?

 

No, I didn't miss the Post that David Lowe (Fanshaft) put up on 17 September. I didn't respond to it simply because, like the post itself, my response wouldn't have been relevant to this Topic.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Naughty Cal]

It was and still is relevant to the topic as you were claiming that the CRT dimensions were wrong not only for Keadby lock but also Thorne.

 

Someone gave some information that suggested otherwise and then you went quiet.

 

So if you have information that suggests otherwise let us know.

[Naughty Cal]

You still persist with your over dramatisation since I wasn't talking about '....abandoning ship in the Trent...." which rather suggests leaping over the side, all I proposed was that it would be advisable to let my crew off if that were possible onto a pontoon and onto shore rather than risk injury by being thrown around on the boat. Perhaps you think it better to keep her aboard and deal with any injuries later, not a very intelligent approach I would suggest.

 

Since we are digging up older posts, the reason for my 'difficulty' (did I say I was surprised??) on Turnpost corner was because, since it was my first trip up the Trent, I had no idea exactly how deep the water was across the shoal and could see mud being churned up by the current which, to my inexpert eye, suggested that it may be a bit shallower there, perhaps you know otherwise. Rather than risk running onto the shoal I was carried a bit too far towards the treeline. yes it was a mistake but ultimately no harm was done.If your 'old commercial vessels' were so brilliant perhaps you'd care to explain how the muppet parked his boat sideways across the river when the Aegir hit (the photo you repeatedly show). At least with my error no harm was done, I suspect some damage may have been caused by his 'error', and he I presume was a 'professional'.

 

And whilst we are picking up on inane comments your assertion "....any vessel of any size, or design, will handle best and be least affected if the Aegre is met at the slowest possible speed..." was a true comedy highlight. Tuesday and Wednesday of this week we have a couple of 3 star Aegirs coming up, I'll take my punt out on the river and give it a go 'cos Tony tells us the "..any vessel..." will be OK, and it does go slowly, (perhaps even on on a 5 star although I may have to wait a while for one of those) or perhaps it's not really designed for the conditions

If you ever get chance to speak to any of the commercial skippers, you will find that most of them are not so far up their own rear ends that they claim not to make mistakes. They are only human and as such yes they did and do make mistakes.

 

A few examples here:

 

http://www.scunthorpetelegraph.co.uk/Stranded-ship-floats-free-stuck-River-Trent/story-18790132-detail/story.html

 

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Cargo-vessel-Wedau-runs-aground-Humber/story-26102073-detail/story.html

 

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/dramatic-Humber-Rescue-missions/story-26396908-detail/story.html

 

ETA: More likely pilots involved in these cases as well.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Naughty Cal

[Nightwatch]

Just a thought from me.

 

If I wasn't a member on this superb forum, I believe I would have gaily proceeded down the Trent as provisionally planned with no problems. However, having received advice from members here I decided that it was to be far too complicated to proceed. As a novice boater after thirteen years boating I didn't want to get into difficulties by getting tides, lock openings confused arriving after dark and all the other contracts I may have had to contend with.

 

Maybe it was a big plan not to let boaters overcrowd the Trent. It worked.

 

Martyn

[Guest]

Just a thought from me.

 

If I wasn't a member on this superb forum, I believe I would have gaily proceeded down the Trent as provisionally planned with no problems. However, having received advice from members here I decided that it was to be far too complicated to proceed. As a novice boater after thirteen years boating I didn't want to get into difficulties by getting tides, lock openings confused arriving after dark and all the other contracts I may have had to contend with.

 

Maybe it was a big plan not to let boaters overcrowd the Trent. It worked.

 

Martyn

 

I think that is a shame.

 

One option if you are not sure would be to put out a call on here for somebody who does know the river well to accompany you on your first trip. A couple of members (whos advice I would trust) once offered to do this for me.

 

We never got around to it though of course our boat did, sadly not with us on it.

 

(Matty40s video)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=3&v=eBZ2LrtHFCk

Edited September 28, 2015 by MJG

[Naughty Cal]

Just a thought from me.

 

If I wasn't a member on this superb forum, I believe I would have gaily proceeded down the Trent as provisionally planned with no problems. However, having received advice from members here I decided that it was to be far too complicated to proceed. As a novice boater after thirteen years boating I didn't want to get into difficulties by getting tides, lock openings confused arriving after dark and all the other contracts I may have had to contend with.

 

Maybe it was a big plan not to let boaters overcrowd the Trent. It worked.

 

Martyn

I firmly believe that you have missed out on a great trip that needn't have been complicated or scary.

[Tony Dunkley]

Just a thought from me.

 

If I wasn't a member on this superb forum, I believe I would have gaily proceeded down the Trent as provisionally planned with no problems. However, having received advice from members here I decided that it was to be far too complicated to proceed. As a novice boater after thirteen years boating I didn't want to get into difficulties by getting tides, lock openings confused arriving after dark and all the other contracts I may have had to contend with.

 

If you had set off downriver after a day or two around Nottingham, as you said you were thinking of doing, then you would have been having your first experience of the tidal Trent at around the time of the biggest tides of the year. This would undoubtedly not have been the ideal time for, to use your words, ''gaily'' proceeding anywhere ''with no problems".

Disappointing as it may be for you, it's an inescapable fact that tide times and heights change twice a day every day, and at this time of year the shortening days mean that the time equivalent of approximately one whole tide cycle will be during the hours of darkness. However, it is still possible, with good planning and timing, to make the journey you were contemplating in daylight and to arrive at your destination with the minimum of tide running, or even slack water.

This was explained in three Posts which were made for your benefit and information on 22 September. All three are shown again below, and I would be grateful if you could point out the parts that are too complicated to understand so that I can avoid causing the same alarm and confusion again on future ocassions.

_________________________________________

3 x Posts re. passage planning and timing from Cromwell Lock to Keadby Lock on the Trent, between 24 September and 4 October 2015 : ~

With the shortening days at this time of year, the later you leave a run down the Trent to Keadby, the more likely it'll be that you'll have to choose between staying put for a day or two or a bit of running in the dark, because of tide times and lock opening hours.

When were you thinking of setting off ?

You're right down at the smallest tides today and tomorrow, and right through to the end of the week you'll be able to have an easy daylight run down to Keadby, leaving Cromwell at anytime in the morning that suits you, getting there on a rising tide anytime up to HW. Even if there is a fair bit of rain over the next few days it won't be a problem, in fact, Cromwell or Torksey to Keadby would be a little easier and quicker for you with a bit of fresh on.

________________________________

As this sounds like your first time down the Trent, you would be best doing it on relatively small tides, which means avoiding the Cromwell / Torksey to Keadby journey between Friday 25 September and Sunday 4 October, during which time the biggest tide of the year is predicted on the morning of Wednesday 30 September.

As I said earlier, you're right down on the smallest tides today and tomorrow, and up to and including Friday you'll be able to have an easy daylight run down to Keadby provided that you aim to arrive there near HW. You can leave Cromwell for Torksey at anytime in the day that suits you if you want to do the journey in two stages, or if doing it in one go you can set off from Cromwell at a time that'll get you to Keadby shortly before or at around HW.

If you don't make for Keadby by Friday evening you'll either have to make the journey on biggish tides, or wait until the 4th of October when the tides will have dropped off again to a similar height as on Friday, when, because of tide times, following what now seems to be the standard advice from C&RT and other dubious sources on departure times, relative to local HW, will mean arriving and having to get into Keadby lock, for your first time, in the dark and with a strong ebb running down. Or, the alternative would be to aim for making Keadby at around HW, with little or no tide running, in late afternoon or early evening. The choice is yours.

Ps. As you don't know the river, you really should get some of the Boating Association Charts. I've never seen any of them, but those who have used them seem to have had few problems, at least as far as Keadby.

Pps. If your boat can manage and maintain around 4 - 5 knots continuously then Saturday and Sunday 26th and 27th would be OK to aim for Keadby at HW. Depending on what speed you actually do make, it may be getting dark as you arrive, but you will have slack, or slackish, water for getting into the lock.

________________________________________

It's entirely up to you, of course but if you're not in a hurry, why not make your way down to Torksey, in a leisurely fashion over the next 13 days and complete the journey to Keadby on Sunday 4 October ?

HW at Keadby is predicted for 1229 BST on that day, so an 0800 start from Torksey will get you there just nicely with the river somewhere near level with the canal and little or no tide running.

There'll be no Aegres to worry about, and if it pours with rain every day from now on it will only help you and make for a quicker trip because it'll slow the rate of the incoming flood tide that you'll meet on the way. Tidal rivers are, in fact, much less of a problem after a lot of heavy rain, . . . no weirs to get washed over !

Edited September 28, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Nightwatch]

No issue with what has been written. We have decided that we would 'do' the Trent at a later date.

 

Prior to asking the question as to wheather we had left it a bit late to do the Trent, or if I wasn't a member on here, I would have turned to Starboard rather than Port at the top/bottom of the Soar in complete ignorance of the potential problems that I may have encountered. Having been enlightened, we are now in Burton on Trent awaiting our two JRTs to be spayed on Thursday.

 

I do think in time the dogs would rather have done the Trent, given the alternative.

 

Tony, I did understand what you had advised and I thank you for your input. I like my boating life and at this time don't want to be hurried or to keep to tide times. Please, nothing personal to you.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Since we are digging up older posts, the reason for my 'difficulty' (did I say I was surprised??) on Turnpost corner was because, since it was my first trip up the Trent, I had no idea exactly how deep the water was across the shoal and could see mud being churned up by the current which, to my inexpert eye, suggested that it may be a bit shallower there, perhaps you know otherwise. Rather than risk running onto the shoal I was carried a bit too far towards the treeline. yes it was a mistake but ultimately no harm was done.If your 'old commercial vessels' were so brilliant perhaps you'd care to explain how the muppet parked his boat sideways across the river when the Aegir hit (the photo you repeatedly show). At least with my error no harm was done, I suspect some damage may have been caused by his 'error', and he I presume was a 'professional'.

 

 

If by, " explain how the muppet parked his boat sideways across the river ", you mean that you don't understand why 'Marnham' was grounded athwart the ebb in this photograph, then you would seem to be sharing your lack of insight with NC, who has similarly highlighted this as a mistake in Post #217.

You're both quite wrong, and in seeing this common, and unavoidable, occurrence as the result of a mistake you're both simply emphasizing just how very limited your knowledge and experience of tidal rivers really is.

I won't explain now why this barge was grounded as it was, but instead I'll list a few clues to give you the opportunity of figuring it out for yourselves and demonstrating that neither of you are quite as ignorant as your Posts make you appear.

Apply some thought to the following : ~

 

*Photo shows barge aground on Keadby Top Bar, between the lock and Keadby Bridge.

*The river bed at this point is prone to disturbance from the propeller wash, and anchors at short stay, of ships rounding up on the last of the flood and dropping onto Gunness Wharf (adjacent to the Bridge).

*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.

 

If and when you've managed to figure things out correctly, perhaps you'll have the good grace to withdraw, and apologize for, your "muppet" remark.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Tony Dunkley]

This post interested me and I must say I am somewhat surprised that Dunkley has not responded to it.

 

Maybe he missed it?

If you could indicate what aspects of the Post that David Lowe (Fanshaft) put up on 17 September interested you so much, perhaps by starting a new Topic, I can look up my old notebooks and paperwork going back to the beginning of the Keadby Windfarm Project in 2004 when I was working with Renewable Energy Systems examining the feasibility of bringing both construction materials such as roadstone and aggregate, and the turbines themselves, all to site entirely by water.

If construction had gone ahead at that time, the intention was to bring aggregate for the turbine bases down the Trent from Besthorpe, limestone for the roads round the site along the canal from Cadeby, and the turbine tower sections, blades and generating heads upriver from Hull and Goole.

With the possibility of having to use pontoons rather than barges to get the turbine blades through Keadby lock and along the canal to the site, and also of using tugs and pans for the limestone from Cadeby, there was, with BW as clueless and useless as ever when faced with the appalling possibility of commercial traffic, a lot of very careful measuring done both at Keadby, as well as Thorne and Bramwith, to ascertain exactly what the absolute maximum dimensions are for all three locks.

Ultimately the greatest, and insurmountable, impediment to serving the project by water was Keadby lock, but not due to any size restrictions caused by it on vessel length or width. The maximum length is, of course unlimited, and the chamber was wide enough for the hired-in Dutch pontoons we were considering using. It was for an entirely different reason that Keadby lock was the 'fly in the ointment' that contributed to the waterborne transport option losing out yet again.

If you would like discuss this and find out more about it, then I suggest you start a new, appropriately titled Topic.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

If by, " explain how the muppet parked his boat sideways across the river ", you mean that you don't understand why 'Marnham' was grounded athwart the ebb in this photograph, then you would seem to be sharing your lack of insight with NC, who has similarly highlighted this as a mistake in Post #217.

You're both quite wrong, and in seeing this common, and unavoidable, occurrence as the result of a mistake you're both simply emphasizing just how very limited your knowledge and experience of tidal rivers really is.

I won't explain now why this barge was grounded as it was, but instead I'll list a few clues to give you the opportunity of figuring it out for yourselves and demonstrating that neither of you are quite as ignorant as your Posts make you appear.

Apply some thought to the following : ~

 

*Photo shows barge aground on Keadby Top Bar, between the lock and Keadby Bridge.

*The river bed at this point is prone to disturbance from the propeller wash, and anchors at short stay, of ships rounding up on the last of the flood and dropping onto Gunness Wharf (adjacent to the Bridge).

*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.

 

If and when you've managed to figure things out correctly, perhaps you'll have the good grace to withdraw, and apologize for, your "muppet" remark.

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.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Wanderer Vagabond