Changing depths on the Crouch?

Master_under_Dog

Master_under_Dog

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 Jan 2009
Messages
295
Location
Home, Mezieres en Brenne, France. Boat, sold. Ding
Visit site
I am a complete amateur but it seems to me that there is more water than is shown on the chart along the shore of the Foulness Sand between no 1 and no 2 Buxey buoys and a lot less on the north side around Holliwell Point. My depth sounder was recording two metres well outside the 2 metre contour at about one hour before low water in this location whereas I was recording four metres or more within 75 yards of the mud on Foulness Sand and within the charted 2 metre contour. I am relying here on the charts on my chartplotter to tell me where I was.

Anyone able to confirm, or contradict, my impressions?

Michael
 
I certainly agree with that. We've had a couple of near (or short) groundings close to Holiwell point in places where the chart tells us there should be plenty of dept. It's not an area to sail with an unreliable depth meter!.

Swallowtail is also hugely longer than marked on the charts - close to LW you can often see a long strip of dry sand stretching NE from the small drying area marked on the charts.

They were supposed to do a new survey of Crouch depths before the Crossrail dumping barges start bringing spoil to Wallasea island. Has that all been delayed?
 
That explains why there was broken water south of Ron Pipe when I came in on half tide a couple of weeks ago. I thought I was imagining it or was just a scardy cat!

I think Ron Pipe is/was out of position, too. It seemed about 5degrees out on the course from Spitway.

BTW, I met Ron Pipes' daughter (or was it grandaughter?) in West Mersea at the Smack Challange. She had no idea there was a bouy named after him.
 
I was told that Ron Pipe is on quite a long mooring chain (20m or so), so it moves by an appreciable distance (considering how narrow the channel is) according to tide and wind. There's quite a decent width of deep channel north of it.
 
Master's comment prompted me to get the old charts out. In 1940 there was no Swallowtail, just a little lump called the South Buxey and marked accordingly. Irvine (1933) describes three main approaches to the Crouch 1. via the Whitaker Channel from the East, 2, via the Ray Sand from the North and 3, via the cross sand route from London River by way of Havengore and the Roach. He also describes a couple of high tide routes from the Maplin Spit Lighthouse (it later fell over) to West of Ridge Buoy for yachts drawing 4ft and under - least depth of 4ft 'along the suggested route between half flood and 2hrs ebb' He adds that the ebbs sets off very rapidly off the sands!!!

So you are all correct to monitor the changes.
 
tillergirl said:
Master's comment prompted me to get the old charts out. In 1940 there was no Swallowtail, just a little lump called the South Buxey and marked accordingly. Irvine (1933) describes three main approaches to the Crouch 1. via the Whitaker Channel from the East, 2, via the Ray Sand from the North and 3, via the cross sand route from London River by way of Havengore and the Roach. He also describes a couple of high tide routes from the Maplin Spit Lighthouse (it later fell over) to West of Ridge Buoy for yachts drawing 4ft and under - least depth of 4ft 'along the suggested route between half flood and 2hrs ebb' He adds that the ebbs sets off very rapidly off the sands!!!

So you are all correct to monitor the changes.
Click to expand...

It wasn't there in the 1980's either, when I almost hit it during a Bradwell to Burnham passage race run by the Maldon LSC. Another competitor (a late MLSC & CYC member) actually grounded on it briefly.

I mentioned it to RCYC secretary, and was told that turn-of-century charts of the area showed a buoyed shoal there, called Swallowtail.
 
Yes you are rght. the 1908 pilot's guide to the River Thames shows Swallow Tail and the South Buxey 'lump' as continuous with the 'channel' to the north of Swallow Tail pretty much closed off at the western end. Looks like within 30 years it disappeared and the Whitaker Channel at that point got much wider. On the other hand we could be just witnessing different standards in chart drawing. The Ray Sand in 1908 is shown as only having a quarter of a fathom in it yet Reynold's 1903 chart shows a minimum depth of 2 fathoms in the Ray Sand!
 
In Messum's East Coast Rivers, published by J. D. Potter in 1903, the River Blackwater and Approaches chart (dated 1902) clearly shows and names the Swallow Tail shoal. It extends in a narrow strip (hence its name) from the Buxey sand in an easterly direction with its tip just to the WNW of the S Buxey buoy. There are least depths at LWS of 1ft at the wider Buxey end and 6ft shown at the tip. Provided you did not stray far N of a line between the S Buxey and the Ridge, there was anything between 17 and 27ft at LWS

In 1902 the entrance to the Ray Channel from the Crouch was marked by the W. Buxey buoy. A NE by N course, with the St Osyth Priory in line with the White House at Wigborough Wick, after two miles would bring you abeam of the Buxey Beacon and thence to the Blackwater or Colne via the Knoll buoy.
Between the W Buxey and the Buxey Beacon there is 10ft shown on the Raysand/Dengie side of the channel and 14 or 15 ft on the Buxey side.
On the way to the Knoll, via the N Buxey, Messum says there is a least depth of 8ft LWS.

In 1902 the Wallet Spitway carried "not less than 4ft at LWS", and "When the tide mark on the Whitaker Beacon is awash, the least depth over the Spitway is 9 feet."
Fascinating stuff...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top