Marine traffic

Tomahawk

Tomahawk

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 Sep 2010
Messages
19,168
Location
Where life is good
Visit site
Does anyone know how to get the past track (more than 24 hours) for a ship out of Marine Traffic?

The reason for asking is there was yet another near miss at Brightlingsea over the weekend. The 88m long MV Twisteden nearly took out the pontoons when swinging round. By all accounts she came to within a few yards of the moored boats. Hew bow wave swamped the pontoon.

This is the third near miss in 18 months.
 
I believe you have to subscribe or know someone who does.

I don't know that it will be that accurate though (real time isn't always real time), don't forget that the AIS track is based on the antenna position so depending if its not set up correctly it won't give an exact position. I'd also suggest that it wouldn't be admissible in any claim?

W.
 
I agree I think you have to subscribe. I did do some tests of the accuracy of Marine Traffic in the season and it showed that it was not accurate. For example a yacht managed to get into Ramsgate via the walls. That error wasn't consecutive. Whether the 'subscribed' version is better, I do not know.
 
"Accuracy" is an interesting thing. The default setting on MT is to refresh every 600 seconds, and it appears it doesn't report every position report (IIRC 4mins for Class B) only the nearest to the refresh time....
 
I think the track only straighlines between the current position and the last position which can be minutes between.

I certainly wouldn't follow the snails trail for navigation purposes/
 
I believe that Tomahawk is referring to the pontoons on the North Shore of the North channel owned by Morgan Marine.
Must say that I am a bit surprised that the incident described occurred as coasters have been swinging round in that area for many years with no near misses that I have heard of, but we now have 3 in a relatively short time span. Something that the Harbour Authority needs to take a close look at and invariably consultation with the port pilots to prevent further instances.
 
Tomahawk said:
Does anyone know how to get the past track (more than 24 hours) for a ship out of Marine Traffic?

The reason for asking is there was yet another near miss at Brightlingsea over the weekend. The 88m long MV Twisteden nearly took out the pontoons when swinging round. By all accounts she came to within a few yards of the moored boats. Hew bow wave swamped the pontoon.

This is the third near miss in 18 months.
Click to expand...
It's interesting that there have been accounts of so many near misses so recently yet no evidence. I wonder if they are being invented by people opposed by the proposed planning application for a marina there as mentioned by RivalRedwing? £2m Colne Marina plan for Brightlingsea proves controversial
 
Cobra said:
Maybe if the pontoons weren't there? Brightlingsea has been a commercial port far longer than it has had pontoon moorings! (Ducks and runs for cover!!!)
Click to expand...

An interesting comment. The Twistenden is 88m long.That is about 20 m longer than the Cutty Sark. Yet ships like the Cutty Sark never plied a trade out of Brightlingsea when sail ruled everything. Thames barges and smacks, yes. But not full on clippers?

To put things into context, at 88 m length there are only about 20m spare when she is swung about. They don’t bother with having a tug. That's no room for error. Would anyone consider it safe to swing the Ever Given in Felixstowe using just the anchor without tugs? Yet the Twistenden takes up more of the available water in Brightlingsea than the Ever Given does in Felixstowe.
 
Plum said:
It's interesting that there have been accounts of so many near misses so recently yet no evidence. I wonder if they are being invented by people opposed by the proposed planning application for a marina there as mentioned by RivalRedwing? £2m Colne Marina plan for Brightlingsea proves controversial
Click to expand...

Would you accept first hand witness?
I was on board last summer when a ship was bought in. They put a line ashore to swing the bow. But they had got it wrong and the ship was still moving. The line went tight.. then tighter and started making an awful noise. The dock crew started running for their lives because they could see what was happening next.. You don’t want to be anywhere near a 4” mooring line that snaps under load. It went bang like a cannon. Then the ship was no longer attached to the wharf but the tide was carrying her upstream towards the Fuel pontoon and me..

I got ready to cut and run fearing they would plough through me on the pontoon. (Look on Google satallite. Tomahawk is recognisable). There then followed a few minutes of very heavy throttle and rudder and bos thrust before bringing her under some control. But the prop wash dug a huge hole on Cindry Island and there was a big hole in the north bank of the creek.
As I say, first hand witness.


Second hand witness. I didn’t see the whole thing. . But did witness the final moments as the ship was finally bought under control.

Last month the Dancia Hav cocked it up. They nosed the bow round the corner into the gutway. But let the bow line go to soon well before the stern had swung across the creek. Next they reversed but too fast and rammed the rudder into the north bank of Cindry bank stopping the stern from swinging under prop and rudder. She was then sideways across the creek with a strong wind on the beam way more load than the bow thrust could control.

If Dracula hadn't been nearby to help turn the bow, there would have been a serious accident. But Dracula is not a certified tug. She is a light pilot cutter. These photos and video tell a story. Note now Dracula was not in the right position to control the bow at abour 20 seconds in the video. The huge holes in Cindry are revealing. Remember Cindry is a designsted SSSI, ESA, Ramsar site and EPA. As I sayTomshawk is easy to spot on google satellite. But so also is the damage caused by turning ships up to 105m long in creek that is only 120m wide at the top of the tide.

191021 – Google Drive

I will try and get a photo of the pontoons being swamped by the wash from the latest incident. So that’s three near serious accidents in 18 months.

As to the pontoons themselves, they date back to a general plan for the entire area that included building Olivers Wharf ..., and a marina in the area to the east of Olivers Wharf. That planning permission was implemented by developing the industrial units, the wharf and starting to build the marina. I have copies of letters from head of planning stating that the planning permission to build the marina has been implemented.
 
Cobra said:
I believe that Tomahawk is referring to the pontoons on the North Shore of the North channel owned by Morgan Marine.
Must say that I am a bit surprised that the incident described occurred as coasters have been swinging round in that area for many years with no near misses that I have heard of, but we now have 3 in a relatively short time span. Something that the Harbour Authority needs to take a close look at and invariably consultation with the port pilots to prevent further instances.
Click to expand...

The harbour make a lot of money from dues. It would be simple to prevent any accidnt by using a tug for every manoeuvre.
 
I’m sure if the shipping companies are willing to pay then tugs are/would be available.

I used to watch them swinging the Arco dredgers right in front of my old flat windows in Shoreham. They were almost close enough to the walls you could jump aboard! Never heard of one hitting it though.

The above incidents sound like the pilots may have to carry some of the blame?

W.
 
The port authority need to consult with the pilots and and provide a tug at least on close stand by.
If the vessels concerned are pilot exempt then their masters need to be individually assessed. I know of some instances where a vessel was regarded as exempt irrelevant of the master's experiencece.ce
 
From the Brightlingsea Spotted FB group from 2 days ago - a whole load of photo's by Tony Lopez - here's a few.
 

Attachments

  • 6.jpg
    6.jpg
    184.9 KB · Views: 70
  • 8.jpg
    8.jpg
    170 KB · Views: 73
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    115.1 KB · Views: 71
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top