Chain ferries - should they be the 'stand on vessel'? wa

[Poignard]

Reading the thread about the Sandbanks chain ferry near tragedy set me wondering whether it would not be simpler, and therefore safer, if chain ferries were always to be the stand-on vessel. (Except perhaps, where large vessels are using the channel). In fact, until I read that thread, I always asumed they were and gave them a wide berth.

What do other people think?

 

[fireball]

Chain ferries can effectively fix their position in "an instant" - so whilst they are restricted in their manoeuvrability they can control exactly where they will be on a given line (curve!).
Chain ferries operate in narrow channels which does concentrate the traffic somewhat - so I can see why the Poole ferry has been given stand-on rights - otherwise they'll never achieve their destination - it's not as though they can weave in and out of traffic!

I've always given them a wide berth because I don't know the camber of the chains - don't really want to catch that with my keel - although I'm probably concerned over nothing ...

 

[Norman_E]

Logically, when a chain ferry is moving, it is pulling the chain ahead of it upwards closer to the surface. If it stops suddenly it will pull the chain behind it up as it comes to a stop. I think it very wise to give them a wide berth.

 

[Skysail]

I think it need an Act of Parliament to change the status of the Sandbanks ferry.

I don't know when the ferry was implemented, but presumably most of the traffic in those days was commercial?

But I always give them a wide berth anyway.

 

[davidej]

Logically, when a chain ferry is moving, it is pulling the chain ahead of it upwards closer to the surface. If it stops suddenly it will pull the chain behind it up as it comes to a stop. I think it very wise to give them a wide berth.

I always assumed chain ferries were stand-on vessels until i saw a yacht trapped in the chain of the East Cowes ferry.

I beleive something like that happened.

 

[Laundryman]

Chain ferries

I am yet to have the pleasure of sailing into Poole and after reading these posts and seeing the video, I need to understand more about this particular ferry. I am assuming that the ferry pulls itself forward by winching in the chain forward, effectively dragging a chain behind. Does that mean that the forward chain is above or near the surface and the chain behind is dragging along the bottom? Presumable that means that you cannot cross anywhere forward of the ferry but can cross behind allowing sufficient space for the chain. Have I got this right please? How much space would you leave between you and the ferry if crossing behind? I'm hoping that it sounds more difficult than it really is. Thanks. Alan

 

[prv]

I need to understand more about this particular ferry.

Nothing specific about this one - it's just like any other chain ferry. Apart from it having right of way which is uncommon.

I am assuming that the ferry pulls itself forward by winching in the chain forward, effectively dragging a chain behind. Does that mean that the forward chain is above or near the surface and the chain behind is dragging along the bottom?

I wouldn't describe the chain behind a chain ferry as "dragging" on the bottom, because it's not moving. The chain stays still (well, apart from moving up and down) and the ferry crawls along it.

Yes, the chain will be tight ahead of the ferry - I suspect the weight means there's enough sag to get over it while there's a long span (ie wide gap and ferry still near the other shore) but I wouldn't deliberately try it. Behind the ferry, the chain drops more or less vertically out of the sprockets.

Pete

 

[Poignard]

Nothing specific about this one - it's just like any other chain ferry. Apart from it having right of way which is uncommon.



I wouldn't describe the chain behind a chain ferry as "dragging" on the bottom, because it's not moving. The chain stays still (well, apart from moving up and down) and the ferry crawls along it.

Yes, the chain will be tight ahead of the ferry - I suspect the weight means there's enough sag to get over it while there's a long span (ie wide gap and ferry still near the other shore) but I wouldn't deliberately try it. Behind the ferry, the chain drops more or less vertically out of the sprockets.

Pete

The chain astern of the ferry must also be under some tension due to the ferry being pushed sideways by the tide.

However, I've never got near enough to investigate!

 

[alant]

Nothing specific about this one - it's just like any other chain ferry. Apart from it having right of way which is uncommon.



I wouldn't describe the chain behind a chain ferry as "dragging" on the bottom, because it's not moving. The chain stays still (well, apart from moving up and down) and the ferry crawls along it.

Yes, the chain will be tight ahead of the ferry - I suspect the weight means there's enough sag to get over it while there's a long span (ie wide gap and ferry still near the other shore) but I wouldn't deliberately try it. Behind the ferry, the chain drops more or less vertically out of the sprockets.

Pete

On the Poole ferry, the distance from bank to bank, gives any boat enough room to avoid any chain, most of the time.

However, the Cowes chain ferry, because the distance is quite small, if stopped away from the banks will need very careful passing, because the chain will hang close to the surface.

Also, at some low waters, the navigable part of the river is not that great, so a boat could touch bottom.

 

[wiggy]

I had a little incident with the Cowes-East Cowes chain ferrry many years ago. I had been skippering a Sigma 8 sportboat during Cowes Week and we were making a very early get away back to Brighton.
The chain ferry was parked fairly central in the channel, leaving a narrow gap between it and the shore, I passed my normal distance off one end and cunningly managed to get the T shaped lead bulb hooked on the chain.
Unfortunately I had not appreciated that the strong falling tide had tightened the chains both sides, my mate vanished down the companionway head first and I ended up on my face on the cockpit sole due the the rather sudden stopping! The boat then swung across the tide parked nose first into on end of the ferry. Luckily for us a RIB lifeboat (Cowes Rescue?)was comming back up the Medina after a job and passed a line which we secured to our stern, as they towed us up stream a foot high wash came in the low, open transome filling my deckshoes with cold water, all before the sun was up! Fortunately the only damage was a chunk of filler missing from the faired keel. You live and learn and I now give chain ferries even more space.

 

[l'escargot]

Reading the thread about the Sandbanks chain ferry near tragedy set me wondering whether it would not be simpler, and therefore safer, if chain ferries were always to be the stand-on vessel. (Except perhaps, where large vessels are using the channel). In fact, until I read that thread, I always asumed they were and gave them a wide berth.

What do other people think?

I don't think you would want it stand on if it pulled out in front of you as you were heading out of Cowes with 4 knots of tide under you. With the chains being pulled up in front of it and limited room to turn your opportunity for avoiding it would be somewhat limited.

The situation at Poole is somewhat different with a much wider channel.

 

[colhel]

I am yet to have the pleasure of sailing into Poole and after reading these posts and seeing the video, I need to understand more about this particular ferry. I am assuming that the ferry pulls itself forward by winching in the chain forward, effectively dragging a chain behind. Does that mean that the forward chain is above or near the surface and the chain behind is dragging along the bottom? Presumable that means that you cannot cross anywhere forward of the ferry but can cross behind allowing sufficient space for the chain. Have I got this right please? How much space would you leave between you and the ferry if crossing behind? I'm hoping that it sounds more difficult than it really is. Thanks. Alan

Possibly this thread is worrying people needlesly. There are dangers but equally there is plenty of room to stay out of the way.

 

[LittleSister]

Some chain ferries are given stand-on status by local harbour regulations.. I seem to remember the Torpoint ferries on the Tamar are one of these cases.

 

[Seajet]

Chain ferries can effectively fix their position in "an instant" - so whilst they are restricted in their manoeuvrability they can control exactly where they will be on a given line (curve!).
Chain ferries operate in narrow channels which does concentrate the traffic somewhat - so I can see why the Poole ferry has been given stand-on rights - otherwise they'll never achieve their destination - it's not as though they can weave in and out of traffic!

I've always given them a wide berth because I don't know the camber of the chains - don't really want to catch that with my keel - although I'm probably concerned over nothing ...

Fireball,

spot on !

The rest is down to discussions in clubs and/or pubs... or here !

 

[Poignard]

I don't think you would want it stand on if it pulled out in front of you as you were heading out of Cowes with 4 knots of tide under you. With the chains being pulled up in front of it and limited room to turn your opportunity for avoiding it would be somewhat limited.

No, of course not; but it only moves very slowly and I have never had any problem avoiding it in my low-powered vessel, or even waiting for it to get out of the way. In fact, until very recently, I did not realise it was not the stand on vessel, and always acted as if it was.

But, to counter your concerns, perhaps some better system of warning that it is about to cross would get round the problem. At present the first you know of it is that a head appears in the 'wheelhouse' and a rather feeble yellow strobe light begins to flash.

 

[l'escargot]

No, of course not; but it only moves very slowly and I have never had any problem avoiding it in my low-powered vessel, or even waiting for it to get out of the way. In fact, until very recently, I did not realise it was not the stand on vessel, and always acted as if it was.

But, to counter your concerns, perhaps some better system of warning that it is about to cross would get round the problem. At present the first you know of it is that a head appears in the 'wheelhouse' and a rather feeble yellow strobe light begins to flash.

It works now in Cowes because they have to consider other traffic. If they were given stand on rights and could just pull out with boats closing on them I think the rate of collisions would go up. In my experience most boats do give the Cowes ferry consideration and let it out - a bit like slowing down and flashing to let a vehicle pull out of a lay by.

I've never had a problem with spotting the warning light and giving them room to pull out but if they were stand on why would they need to give any warning? They could just pull out and it would be down to everyone else to take avoiding action. Look at how buses behave when pulling out in front of other vehicles and any priority they think they have is purely advisory.

 

[Lakesailor]

Chain ferry on Windermere is stand-on. In fact all the ferries are.

 

[Greenheart]

Dammit, Parsifal, you've hijacked my thread!

And we'd branched out into all manner of fascinating peripheral concerns...Poole mooring charges, Dorsetshire eateries...

Isn't it surprising that there aren't horrid chain-ferry incidents at night, when small boats with faint wattage mightn't even be seen, to influence the ferry captain's choice of 'go' or 'wait'? Or are those yachts' crews who take chances in daylight, much more wary after dark?

I haven't been through Poole entrance after dark. If I remember rightly, the Medina at Cowes is relatively well lit.

Anyone enthralled by the danger may want to look at the incident that raised the question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC-xNzIg1Lk


Seven more pages on the same subject started here:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=294100

 

[Poignard]

Dammit, Parsifal, you've hijacked my thread!

Sorry Dan, I can't win. I started a new thread because I didn't want to hijack your thread!

Percy

 

[Greenheart]

I was only kidding. Anything that raises the matter in the minds of people using Poole entrance, must be good.