Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2020 12:07:06 GMT
Theory doesn't work with the one I posted though as that would put small pleasure boat in the way of the commercials. I think it's a bit unclear specially for people not used to navigating on tidal rivers. That's why it seemed a worthy subject of discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2020 12:08:44 GMT
The recommended small craft track is marked on Navionics charts. You usually have to pay for these but the website "myshiptracking" has a Navionics overlay. Unfortunately you can't get your own location but it's handy to do a static view. The dotted pink line is the recommended small craft track I don't think that would apply to a passenger boat though. More appropriate for small private cruisers. ETA it is the correct track as can be seen beside the Houses of Parliament where there is a security zone. The pink line deviates correctly to account for it. Unfortunately the tablet I had the pay in advance version of Navionics on is broken and they now need a subscription .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2020 12:17:25 GMT
Very good.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 4, 2020 12:25:53 GMT
A bit odd though as the one I found is this Cannon Street with the tower(s) to starboard is how the bridge is seen inbound.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2020 12:30:59 GMT
A bit odd though as the one I found is this Cannon Street with the tower(s) to starboard is how the bridge is seen inbound. Amazing
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 4, 2020 13:08:02 GMT
Anyway, suspicions of evil subterfuge aside, please also explain why spans 2 & 3 are indicated as the preferred channel. The arrows and lines marked 'Channel' are solely as indicators of the greatest depth, . . at any state of the tide, and for the benefit of either inbound or outbound vessels. With regard to the 'Marchioness' / 'Bowbelle' collision, both were outbound and I think the 'Marchioness', having only seen 'Bowbelle' when it was nearly on top of them and making 5 -6 knots over the ground, was trying, albeit far too late, to get out of the way by going for the deeper water under arch No.2 of Cannon Street Railway Bridge instead of the shallower water under arch No.4, which the 'Hurlingham' was using. As it turned out, a disastrously bad decision, . . but the theory is supported by the fact that two lookouts up forard on the 'Bowbelle' stated that at the moment of impact the 'Marchioness' was seen to be moving to port across the ship's bow, and after the 'Marchioness' was raised the engine controls were found to be set at full ahead despite the vessel's speed having been established as being only 3 knots, or less, as it passed under Southwark Bridge, only some 90-100 yards astern.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2020 13:25:44 GMT
There was some discussion about interaction between the two vessels as well although that was not necessarily the problem.
As the master of the Marchioness died in the accident it seems it was a bit awkward to get the full details of his behaviour immediately prior to the collision.
Very nasty night.
A few days after that I sunk a dinghy with some teenagers in it up near Teddington and all the blue lights in the whole borough turned up.
Nobody died. I later learned that I saved a life. My sister's friend who could not swim. I can swim so assumed everyone else could. No lifejackets. I got her to the river bank safely.
Very naughty. 6 teenagers in a dinghy someone saw a dead fish and they all went forward the boat nose dived and rolled right over. It remained afloat upside down. I can remember the Suzuki 3.5hp outboard going glugglug as it went over. Bloke from a pub opposite (Boaters Inn at Kingston) swam across and I think he might have saved someone as well..
Always been lucky ! (True story not made up).
At the time I was especially pleased to be able to recover the dinghy as if was a really nice one.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Apr 4, 2020 14:02:42 GMT
It would interfere with his post count........ How about coming up with something original? cannot be bothered......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2020 14:28:19 GMT
Anyway, suspicions of evil subterfuge aside, please also explain why spans 2 & 3 are indicated as the preferred channel. The arrows and lines marked 'Channel' are solely as indicators of the greatest depth, . . at any state of the tide, and for the benefit of either inbound or outbound vessels. With regard to the 'Marchioness' / 'Bowbelle' collision, both were outbound and I think the 'Marchioness', having only seen 'Bowbelle' when it was nearly on top of them and making 5 -6 knots over the ground, was trying, albeit far too late, to get out of the way by going for the deeper water under arch No.2 of Cannon Street Railway Bridge instead of the shallower water under arch No.4, which the 'Hurlingham' was using. As it turned out, a disastrously bad decision, . . but the theory is supported by the fact that two lookouts up forard on the 'Bowbelle' stated that at the moment of impact the 'Marchioness' was seen to be moving to port across the ship's bow, and after the 'Marchioness' was raised the engine controls were found to be set at full ahead despite the vessel's speed having been established as being only 3 knots, or less, as it passed under Southwark Bridge, only some 90-100 yards astern. Did some reading. The prosecution was unable to bring charges of unlawful killing against any individual due to a lack of evidence. However survivor testimony supports the theory there were two impacts, and that the first quite probably pushed the Marchioness off-course. As for the lookout(s) on the Bowbelle, it is uncertain at best that they were performing their duty at the moment of impact. I expect you are familiar with the aspect of the trim of the Bowbelle and its effect on forward visibility. It is also a fact that the Bowbelle and its crew carried on past the point of impact without any attempt to lend assistance, and in fact only halted at Gallions Reach. Fundamentally, the notion that the Marchioness deliberately altered course to port is pure speculation and supports neither party's claim to absolution.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 8, 2020 18:01:04 GMT
The arrows and lines marked 'Channel' are solely as indicators of the greatest depth, . . at any state of the tide, and for the benefit of either inbound or outbound vessels. With regard to the 'Marchioness' / 'Bowbelle' collision, both were outbound and I think the 'Marchioness', having only seen 'Bowbelle' when it was nearly on top of them and making 5 -6 knots over the ground, was trying, albeit far too late, to get out of the way by going for the deeper water under arch No.2 of Cannon Street Railway Bridge instead of the shallower water under arch No.4, which the 'Hurlingham' was using. As it turned out, a disastrously bad decision, . . but the theory is supported by the fact that two lookouts up forard on the 'Bowbelle' stated that at the moment of impact the 'Marchioness' was seen to be moving to port across the ship's bow, and after the 'Marchioness' was raised the engine controls were found to be set at full ahead despite the vessel's speed having been established as being only 3 knots, or less, as it passed under Southwark Bridge, only some 90-100 yards astern. Did some reading. The prosecution was unable to bring charges of unlawful killing against any individual due to a lack of evidence. However survivor testimony supports the theory there were two impacts, and that the first quite probably pushed the Marchioness off-course. As for the lookout(s) on the Bowbelle, it is uncertain at best that they were performing their duty at the moment of impact. I expect you are familiar with the aspect of the trim of the Bowbelle and its effect on forward visibility. It is also a fact that the Bowbelle and its crew carried on past the point of impact without any attempt to lend assistance, and in fact only halted at Gallions Reach. Fundamentally, the notion that the Marchioness deliberately altered course to port is pure speculation and supports neither party's claim to absolution. I've been too occupied by other matters to respond to the above post for the last few days, but now I've got some time to spare let's start by considering just what difference you think the two forard lookouts on 'Bowbelle' could have made to the overall outcome AT, or after, the ''moment of impact'' between 'Bowbelle' and 'Marchioness'. As for the mention of 'trim' and wheelhouse 'visibility' on 'Bowbelle', . . neither has any real bearing on the cause of the collision, and in any case there was nothing unusual about either, and both were comparable with and similar to any low-profile coaster built to trade to inland destinations on the UK's larger rivers, when underway in ballast. Your comment concerning - "the 'Bowbelle' and it's crew [carrying] on past the point of impact without any attempt to lend assistance" - is, quite frankly, risible ! Do you really think having an (approx) 1800 ton DW ship try to hold position in a 3 knot tide in a part of the river that's filling up with swimming survivors from the capsized 'Marchioness' would be the right course of action in the circumstances ?? With regard to your final comment to the effect that - "the notion that the Marchioness deliberately altered course to port is pure speculation", I have to ask, in light of the relevant facts on vessel hull interaction and other information available - such as the position of the engine controls as noted above, what is there in any report or anything else to suggest that 'Marchioness' was NOT attempting to cut across the bows of the 'Bowbelle' and to pass under arch No.2 of Cannon Street Railway Bridge ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2020 18:14:53 GMT
You can't really say it was cutting across the bows of the larger boat if the person on the helm was unaware of the larger boat's presence.
He was simply helming the vessel (Marchioness) in the normal way, unaware that a considerably larger vessel was about to whack into him, mainly due to the lack of visibility astern.
There seem to have been some VHF Comms problems earlier as well which contributed to the accident.
ETA actually a bit surprised they didn't make more of that in the maib report. The Bowbelle reported it's intention to leave berth and proceed outward through bridges and presumably VTS have permission for this but the skipper of the Marchioness could not hear his VHF due to the noise of the disco underway on the boat.
It seems quite basic to be able to hear the radio.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2020 18:47:45 GMT
Did some reading. The prosecution was unable to bring charges of unlawful killing against any individual due to a lack of evidence. However survivor testimony supports the theory there were two impacts, and that the first quite probably pushed the Marchioness off-course. As for the lookout(s) on the Bowbelle, it is uncertain at best that they were performing their duty at the moment of impact. I expect you are familiar with the aspect of the trim of the Bowbelle and its effect on forward visibility. It is also a fact that the Bowbelle and its crew carried on past the point of impact without any attempt to lend assistance, and in fact only halted at Gallions Reach. Fundamentally, the notion that the Marchioness deliberately altered course to port is pure speculation and supports neither party's claim to absolution. I've been too occupied by other matters to respond to the above post for the last few days, but now I've got some time to spare let's start by considering just what difference you think the two forard lookouts on 'Bowbelle' could have made to the overall outcome AT, or after, the ''moment of impact'' between 'Bowbelle' and 'Marchioness'. None at all, since neither had any means of contacting or signalling the bridge; the Bowbelle's captain later admitted he distrusted and disliked VHF and as a result rarely used them. There is (unsurprisingly) no evidence that the lookouts were performing their duty at the point of collision.As for the mention of 'trim' and wheelhouse 'visibility' on 'Bowbelle', . . neither has any real bearing on the cause of the collision, and in any case there was nothing unusual about either, and both were comparable with and similar to any low-profile coaster built to trade to inland destinations on the UK's larger rivers, when underway in ballast. Well, yes it does, because on the day in question the Bowbelle had been laded in such a way that the bow was at a higher angle than was normal, and the difference resulted in a blind-spot of somewhere slightly in excess of 400 yards from the bridge, roughly twice as much as was common.Your comment concerning - "the 'Bowbelle' and it's crew [carrying] on past the point of impact without any attempt to lend assistance" - is, quite frankly, risible ! Do you really think having an (approx) 1800 ton DW ship try to hold position in a 3 knot tide in a part of the river that's filling up with swimming survivors from the capsized 'Marchioness' would be the right course of action in the circumstances ?? The Bowbelle did not even so much as chuck a life-ring or two over the side, and only made contact with the river authority of the time when it had reached Gallions Reach. The transcript of the message sent strongly indicates that the captain was already trying to absolve himself of blame by suggesting he had no idea of what had happened apart from saying he 'thought he had hit something', a view difficult to accept given the not-inconsiderable size of the Marchioness.With regard to your final comment to the effect that - "the notion that the Marchioness deliberately altered course to port is pure speculation", I have to ask, in light of the relevant facts on vessel hull interaction and other information available - such as the position of the engine controls as noted above, what is there in any report or anything else to suggest that 'Marchioness' was NOT attempting to cut across the bows of the 'Bowbelle' and to pass under arch No.2 of Cannon Street Railway Bridge ? Nothing in the evidence supports either party. This is why, despite the verdict that those who had died were 'unlawfully killed', no charges were brought against any company or individual involved in the disaster. In fact the whole incident is in large part a matter of speculation. It is unsurprising to me that you come down on the side of the Bowbelle and its crew which, incidentally, had a poor operating record, as did its captain. This a matter of record - look it up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2020 18:52:50 GMT
Worth noting also that the vessels were proceeding outward bound on a flood tide so stopping and stemming the tide would not have been particularly challenging even for a large vessel.
Of course introducing air into the water via propeller rotations is not beneficial to anyone swimming as it takes away their buoyancy. Knocking it out of gear immediately would be the correct procedure. Then stem the tide further down and look for berthing options.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 8, 2020 20:32:49 GMT
I've been too occupied by other matters to respond to the above post for the last few days, but now I've got some time to spare let's start by considering just what difference you think the two forard lookouts on 'Bowbelle' could have made to the overall outcome AT, or after, the ''moment of impact'' between 'Bowbelle' and 'Marchioness'. None at all, since neither had any means of contacting or signalling the bridge; the Bowbelle's captain later admitted he distrusted and disliked VHF and as a result rarely used them. There is (unsurprisingly) no evidence that the lookouts were performing their duty at the point of collision.As for the mention of 'trim' and wheelhouse 'visibility' on 'Bowbelle', . . neither has any real bearing on the cause of the collision, and in any case there was nothing unusual about either, and both were comparable with and similar to any low-profile coaster built to trade to inland destinations on the UK's larger rivers, when underway in ballast. Well, yes it does, because on the day in question the Bowbelle had been laded in such a way that the bow was at a higher angle than was normal, and the difference resulted in a blind-spot of somewhere slightly in excess of 400 yards from the bridge, roughly twice as much as was common.Your comment concerning - "the 'Bowbelle' and it's crew [carrying] on past the point of impact without any attempt to lend assistance" - is, quite frankly, risible ! Do you really think having an (approx) 1800 ton DW ship try to hold position in a 3 knot tide in a part of the river that's filling up with swimming survivors from the capsized 'Marchioness' would be the right course of action in the circumstances ?? The Bowbelle did not even so much as chuck a life-ring or two over the side, and only made contact with the river authority of the time when it had reached Gallions Reach. The transcript of the message sent strongly indicates that the captain was already trying to absolve himself of blame by suggesting he had no idea of what had happened apart from saying he 'thought he had hit something', a view difficult to accept given the not-inconsiderable size of the Marchioness.With regard to your final comment to the effect that - "the notion that the Marchioness deliberately altered course to port is pure speculation", I have to ask, in light of the relevant facts on vessel hull interaction and other information available - such as the position of the engine controls as noted above, what is there in any report or anything else to suggest that 'Marchioness' was NOT attempting to cut across the bows of the 'Bowbelle' and to pass under arch No.2 of Cannon Street Railway Bridge ? Nothing in the evidence supports either party. This is why, despite the verdict that those who had died were 'unlawfully killed', no charges were brought against any company or individual involved in the disaster. In fact the whole incident is in large part a matter of speculation. It is unsurprising to me that you come down on the side of the Bowbelle and its crew which, incidentally, had a poor operating record, as did its captain. This a matter of record - look it up. Apr 8, 2020 19:01:04 GMT 1 TonyDunkley said: Point 1) What difference do you think the two forard lookouts on 'Bowbelle' could have made to the overall outcome AT, or after, the ''moment of impact'' between 'Bowbelle' and 'Marchioness'. Your reply to 1) None at all, since neither had any means of contacting or signalling the bridge; the Bowbelle's captain later admitted he distrusted and disliked VHF and as a result rarely used them. There is (unsurprisingly) no evidence that the lookouts were performing their duty at the point of collision. I repeat the question: What difference do you think the two forard lookouts on 'Bowbelle' could have made to the overall outcome AT, or after, the ''moment of impact'' between 'Bowbelle' and 'Marchioness' ? ____________________________________________________________ Point 2) As for the mention of 'trim' and wheelhouse 'visibility' on 'Bowbelle', . . neither has any real bearing on the cause of the collision, and in any case there was nothing unusual about either, and both were comparable with and similar to any low-profile coaster built to trade to inland destinations on the UK's larger rivers, when underway in ballast. Your reply to 2) Well, yes it does, because on the day in question the Bowbelle had been laded in such a way that the bow was at a higher angle than was normal, and the difference resulted in a blind-spot of somewhere slightly in excess of 400 yards from the bridge, roughly twice as much as was common.
'Bowbelle' wasn't 'laden' at all ! It was, as stated, 'in ballast', and it's trim was entirely consistent with that condition. ____________________________________________________________ Point 3) Your comment concerning - "the 'Bowbelle' and it's crew [carrying] on past the point of impact without any attempt to lend assistance" - is, quite frankly, risible ! Do you really think having an (approx) 1800 ton DW ship try to hold position in a 3 knot tide in a part of the river that's filling up with swimming survivors from the capsized 'Marchioness' would be the right course of action in the circumstances ?? Your reply to 3) The Bowbelle did not even so much as chuck a life-ring or two over the side, and only made contact with the river authority of the time when it had reached Gallions Reach. The transcript of the message sent strongly indicates that the captain was already trying to absolve himself of blame by suggesting he had no idea of what had happened apart from saying he 'thought he had hit something', a view difficult to accept given the not-inconsiderable size of the Marchioness.
I'll take that as a 'no' - and that you don't think that having an (approx) 1800 ton DW ship try to hold position in a 3 knot tide in a part of the river that's filling up with swimming survivors from the capsized 'Marchioness' would be the right course of action in the circumstances. ____________________________________________________________ Point 4) With regard to your final comment to the effect that - "the notion that the Marchioness deliberately altered course to port is pure speculation", I have to ask, in light of the relevant facts on vessel hull interaction and other information available - such as the position of the engine controls as noted above, what is there in any report or anything else to suggest that 'Marchioness' was NOT attempting to cut across the bows of the 'Bowbelle' and to pass under arch No.2 of Cannon Street Railway Bridge ? Your reply to 4) Nothing in the evidence supports either party. This is why, despite the verdict that those who had died were 'unlawfully killed', no charges were brought against any company or individual involved in the disaster. In fact the whole incident is in large part a matter of speculation. It is unsurprising to me that you come down on the side of the Bowbelle and its crew which, incidentally, had a poor operating record, as did its captain. This a matter of record - look it up. I repeat, . . in light of the relevant facts on vessel hull interaction and other information available - such as the position of the engine controls as noted above, what is there in any report or anything else to suggest that 'Marchioness' was NOT attempting to cut across the bows of the 'Bowbelle' and to pass under arch No.2 of Cannon Street Railway Bridge ? If, as I suspect, you don't have a clue about how vessels such as the 'Marchioness' behave when being overtaken at close-quarters by much larger vessels, such as 'Bowbelle', or the significance of the engine controls on 'Marchioness' being found at 'full ahead' when the vessel was raised, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the basics instead of posting any more ill-informed opinions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2020 20:44:17 GMT
|
|