Shell Channel Pilot or Reeds Channel Almanac?

[johng39]

As title. I have used the Shell Pilot and found it excellent, but about to re-purchase this year and thought that I would ask others on here what the opinion was?

Are they basically the same or is one better or easier to reference than the other?

Thanks

 

[CharlieAlpha]

As title. I have used the Shell Pilot and found it excellent, but about to re-purchase this year and thought that I would ask others on here what the opinion was?

Are they basically the same or is one better or easier to reference than the other?

Thanks

Tom's Shell Pilot gives you lots of information & background about the passage planning etc and to be honest much of the information changes little over the years, so look for new additions but IMHO it should be good for 5 or so years. The Reeds Almanac on the other hand has all the info that does change year on year, including the tide tables so I replace mine every year (normally at Southampton Boat show as on offer there).

 

[johng39]

Tom's Shell Pilot gives you lots of information & background about the passage planning etc and to be honest much of the information changes little over the years, so look for new additions but IMHO it should be good for 5 or so years. The Reeds Almanac on the other hand has all the info that does change year on year, including the tide tables so I replace mine every year (normally at Southampton Boat show as on offer there).

Thanks, tide tables are not important as I have them on the plotter, but are you saying that the Reeds has everything the Shell has, but more?

 

[CharlieAlpha]

There is some duplication but in my eye they are different, I look at the Pilot when planning a trip and working out best routes for a passage plan and the the Almanac for the detail.

 

[Prhperio]

As title. I have used the Shell Pilot and found it excellent, but about to re-purchase this year and thought that I would ask others on here what the opinion was?

Are they basically the same or is one better or easier to reference than the other?

Thanks

IMHO they're rather different. The almanac gives you all the detail but the Shell gives a better overview. I've just updated to the latest Shell (7th ed) and it's a great read on a miserable day apart from being a great passage planning aid. I wouldn't sit down and read the almanac and get the same overview I don't think. Also, it seems to me that even with the plotter I can eye ball tide heights for example (and other bits of info) quickly and roughly when using the almanac far faster than using the plotter. As someone has also posted, the Shell will last a few years…

HTH

Paul

 

[lampshuk]

Just reviving this thread because I'm scratching my head a bit over the tidal info in these 2.
I have recently re-started sailing and thought I would prep for a week mucking about in the Solent by calculating tide times for a couple of interesting harbours where depth matters (eg Bembridge).
Rather than just turn to my trusty iPad and look it up, I thought I would do it the old-fashioned way.
But I am now scratching my head. For example, for Bembridge the following HW time differences from Dover:
Shell Pilot : +0014
Reeds : +0020
OK. 6 minutes is neither here nor there .

But let's take ranges (MHWS/MHWN/MLWN/MLWS):
Shell: 3.1/2.3/0.5/0.2
Reeds: 4.7/3.8/1.9/0.8
Those differences are more significant. Though the ranges are similar, the actual heights are quite different.
(and don't get me started on why Reeds lists them in this order and Shell in the more natural HWS/LWS/HWN/LWN)

Other Solent harbours are similarly off (though Ryde is spot on). Christchurch is extremely different.

Outside the Solent it seems to correlate better for some harbours - eg Portland seems identical, while Dartmouth differs by some distance.

So: who to believe? Saint Thomas of Cunliffe - certified Maritime National Treasure off of the telly, or the Holy Bible ( or Koran/Torah/whatever) of Reeds. To be fair, the Pilot does refer you to the Almanac for "more accurate calculations" - but a >1m difference in a 3m data point isn't just a question of accuracy.

Anyway: am I overlooking something obvious? I couldn't see any mention of different datums being used, and there's no indication in either set of chartlets about where the tide heights refer to. I think the Pilot is always quoting lower figures than Reeds (in the non-exhaustive search I just did), so for my approximate pilotage purposes ("we've probably got at least that much") the Pilot is probably going to be the one to go with, while for more exact calculations you should use Reeds.

Which, thinking about it, is exactly what it says in the Pilot. And at the end of this long post I seem to have answered my own question.

But still: 2.3m vs 3.8m - that's a big difference!

Anyway - I am going to push the button to post this now, because even if I think I now know the answer, it's possible there is a better one, or I have overlooked something obvious. And I have taken the time to write this, so I'm flippin' well going to send it.

Thanks for reading this far. Please don't be too cruel with your replies.

 

[superheat6k]

Good to see 'old' methods being actively applied. When the GPS won't work having this ability to work up a basic DR & EP is crucial, and too many would likely struggle without the modern electronics. I bet a significant number don't even carry paper charts.

You are right that 6 minutes doesn't matter a damn, but the differences in predicted tidal heights is quite significant, but is this because you are using a standard port so far away. I haven't studied the differences close up but I assume these differences are on depths re Dover. Possibly one or the other is referring differences to a nearer Standard port, e.g. Pompey.

I have always preferred to use the nearest standard port, which for the Solent is Portsmouth (Southampton suffers the vagaries caused by the local seabed / coastline topography too much IMHO). I would also study the small print in the almanac and / or Pilot to check if a different SP is referred to.

Ultimately a decent sounder, log, and local knowledge are invaluable, and if in doubt prudence dictates caution, e.g. only chance touching on a rising tide, and if you have a twin shaft boat DO NOT RISK TOUCHING !

 

[Prhperio]

Just reviving this thread because I'm scratching my head a bit over the tidal info in these 2.
I have recently re-started sailing and thought I would prep for a week mucking about in the Solent by calculating tide times for a couple of interesting harbours where depth matters (eg Bembridge).
Rather than just turn to my trusty iPad and look it up, I thought I would do it the old-fashioned way.
But I am now scratching my head. For example, for Bembridge the following HW time differences from Dover:
Shell Pilot : +0014
Reeds : +0020
OK. 6 minutes is neither here nor there .

But let's take ranges (MHWS/MHWN/MLWN/MLWS):
Shell: 3.1/2.3/0.5/0.2
Reeds: 4.7/3.8/1.9/0.8
Those differences are more significant. Though the ranges are similar, the actual heights are quite different.
(and don't get me started on why Reeds lists them in this order and Shell in the more natural HWS/LWS/HWN/LWN)

Other Solent harbours are similarly off (though Ryde is spot on). Christchurch is extremely different.

Outside the Solent it seems to correlate better for some harbours - eg Portland seems identical, while Dartmouth differs by some distance.

So: who to believe? Saint Thomas of Cunliffe - certified Maritime National Treasure off of the telly, or the Holy Bible ( or Koran/Torah/whatever) of Reeds. To be fair, the Pilot does refer you to the Almanac for "more accurate calculations" - but a >1m difference in a 3m data point isn't just a question of accuracy.

Anyway: am I overlooking something obvious? I couldn't see any mention of different datums being used, and there's no indication in either set of chartlets about where the tide heights refer to. I think the Pilot is always quoting lower figures than Reeds (in the non-exhaustive search I just did), so for my approximate pilotage purposes ("we've probably got at least that much") the Pilot is probably going to be the one to go with, while for more exact calculations you should use Reeds.

Which, thinking about it, is exactly what it says in the Pilot. And at the end of this long post I seem to have answered my own question.

But still: 2.3m vs 3.8m - that's a big difference!

Anyway - I am going to push the button to post this now, because even if I think I now know the answer, it's possible there is a better one, or I have overlooked something obvious. And I have taken the time to write this, so I'm flippin' well going to send it.

Thanks for reading this far. Please don't be too cruel with your replies.

That is indeed an interesting question and I agree with superheat6k, it's good to see old fashioned methods in action. I love all the electronic gizmos but also love a paper chart and the books and paraphernalia that go with tradition navigation.

Now, don't be cruel to me either but is the answer in part at least to the conundrum set by lampshuk that the Shell figures are for Bembridge Harbour specifically ? The figures quoted by lampshuk from Reeds are (if I read it correctly) the ones immediately under the heading of "Bembridge" but just underneath are differences for Bembridge Approaches and Bembridge Harbour. If we apply the corrections for Bembridge Harbour then the figures are

(MHWS/MHWN/MLWN/MLWS):
Shell: 3.1/2.3/0.5/0.2
Reeds (B.Harbour): 3.2/2.4/0.6/0.2
Reeds (Bembridge): 4.7/3.8/1.9/0.8

Allowing for the fact that AFAIK Shell references Dover and Reeds Portsmouth as their standard ports I guess that's close enough?

It does raise a further question in my mind though… As Reeds quotes differences for Bembridge Approaches and Bembridge Harbour, what are the main Bembridge figures referencing? Are they only there to use as a basis for the corrections? If so, why not just quote the approaches and harbour directly?

I await the replies of those more knowledgeable…

Paul

 

[gjgm]

When the GPS won't work having this ability to work up a basic DR & EP is crucial,

I think if GPS doesn't work, not being able to work out your EP will be the least of the world's problems...
Why not look up the harbour's web page and get the tidal info from there? I would expect that to be as correct as is possible and have local info about entering and exiting.

 

[lpdsn]

It does raise a further question in my mind though… As Reeds quotes differences for Bembridge Approaches and Bembridge Harbour, what are the main Bembridge figures referencing? Are they only there to use as a basis for the corrections? If so, why not just quote the approaches and harbour directly?

The height of CD will be different (higher) inside the harbour so the heights of tide referenced against it will be different and hence corrections from portsmouth will also be different.

 

[Elessar]

As title. I have used the Shell Pilot and found it excellent, but about to re-purchase this year and thought that I would ask others on here what the opinion was?

Are they basically the same or is one better or easier to reference than the other?

Thanks

Just bought a new shell channel pilot. It is truly excellent and Tom writes like he's speaking 1:1. He is not a sailing fuddy duddy he is truly skilled and knowledgable. For example he talks about paper charts as a backup which is the real world for most of us but it would be a 1000 post angry tailspin on scuttlebutt as some sailors - and writers - refuse to move with the times. It is an excellent book I would recommend, made better because its TC compiling it.

Like all books of their type they take a long while to compile and stay current for a while. Bits will be out of date, and heights are always predictions. You should never use one source of info, and when your sources agree you can be more confident thats all.

 

[Prhperio]

The height of CD will be different (higher) inside the harbour so the heights of tide referenced against it will be different and hence corrections from portsmouth will also be different.

I see that, but ( and I may well be missing something still here) where is the mythical "Bembridge" spot that the main corrections reference? Why not just quote in the "headline" figures the corrections for say the harbour itself and then below the separate corrections for the approaches (or vice versa). Put another way, if you have the data for the approaches and the harbour itself you pretty much have everything you need and without knowing where the data point is for the headline figures they aren't much use in addition as far as I can see. Sorry if this is getting a bit finickity but sadly it's an interesting minutiae that I'd never considered before (so thanks to lamshuk for raising it!).

 

[chuzzlewit]

Good to see 'old' methods being actively applied. When the GPS won't work having this ability to work up a basic DR & EP is crucial, and too many would likely struggle without the modern electronics. I bet a significant number don't even carry paper charts.

You are right that 6 minutes doesn't matter a damn, but the differences in predicted tidal heights is quite significant, but is this because you are using a standard port so far away. I haven't studied the differences close up but I assume these differences are on depths re Dover. Possibly one or the other is referring differences to a nearer Standard port, e.g. Pompey.

I have always preferred to use the nearest standard port, which for the Solent is Portsmouth (Southampton suffers the vagaries caused by the local seabed / coastline topography too much IMHO). I would also study the small print in the almanac and / or Pilot to check if a different SP is referred to.

Ultimately a decent sounder, log, and local knowledge are invaluable, and if in doubt prudence dictates caution, e.g. only chance touching on a rising tide, and if you have a twin shaft boat DO NOT RISK TOUCHING !

Why is touching extra risky with two shafts>

 

[alant]

Just reviving this thread because I'm scratching my head a bit over the tidal info in these 2.
I have recently re-started sailing and thought I would prep for a week mucking about in the Solent by calculating tide times for a couple of interesting harbours where depth matters (eg Bembridge).
Rather than just turn to my trusty iPad and look it up, I thought I would do it the old-fashioned way.
But I am now scratching my head. For example, for Bembridge the following HW time differences from Dover:
Shell Pilot : +0014
Reeds : +0020
OK. 6 minutes is neither here nor there .

But let's take ranges (MHWS/MHWN/MLWN/MLWS):
Shell: 3.1/2.3/0.5/0.2
Reeds: 4.7/3.8/1.9/0.8
Those differences are more significant. Though the ranges are similar, the actual heights are quite different.
(and don't get me started on why Reeds lists them in this order and Shell in the more natural HWS/LWS/HWN/LWN)

Other Solent harbours are similarly off (though Ryde is spot on). Christchurch is extremely different.

Outside the Solent it seems to correlate better for some harbours - eg Portland seems identical, while Dartmouth differs by some distance.

So: who to believe? Saint Thomas of Cunliffe - certified Maritime National Treasure off of the telly, or the Holy Bible ( or Koran/Torah/whatever) of Reeds. To be fair, the Pilot does refer you to the Almanac for "more accurate calculations" - but a >1m difference in a 3m data point isn't just a question of accuracy.

Anyway: am I overlooking something obvious? I couldn't see any mention of different datums being used, and there's no indication in either set of chartlets about where the tide heights refer to. I think the Pilot is always quoting lower figures than Reeds (in the non-exhaustive search I just did), so for my approximate pilotage purposes ("we've probably got at least that much") the Pilot is probably going to be the one to go with, while for more exact calculations you should use Reeds.

Which, thinking about it, is exactly what it says in the Pilot. And at the end of this long post I seem to have answered my own question.

But still: 2.3m vs 3.8m - that's a big difference!

Anyway - I am going to push the button to post this now, because even if I think I now know the answer, it's possible there is a better one, or I have overlooked something obvious. And I have taken the time to write this, so I'm flippin' well going to send it.

Thanks for reading this far. Please don't be too cruel with your replies.

Are you sure, that the tidal differences in Reeds, are using Dover as a reference, cos Portsmouth would normally be used as the principle Standard port for that area.

 

[lampshuk]

That is indeed an interesting question and I agree with superheat6k, it's good to see old fashioned methods in action. I love all the electronic gizmos but also love a paper chart and the books and paraphernalia that go with tradition navigation.

Now, don't be cruel to me either but is the answer in part at least to the conundrum set by lampshuk that the Shell figures are for Bembridge Harbour specifically ? The figures quoted by lampshuk from Reeds are (if I read it correctly) the ones immediately under the heading of "Bembridge" but just underneath are differences for Bembridge Approaches and Bembridge Harbour. If we apply the corrections for Bembridge Harbour then the figures are

(MHWS/MHWN/MLWN/MLWS):
Shell: 3.1/2.3/0.5/0.2
Reeds (B.Harbour): 3.2/2.4/0.6/0.2
Reeds (Bembridge): 4.7/3.8/1.9/0.8

Allowing for the fact that AFAIK Shell references Dover and Reeds Portsmouth as their standard ports I guess that's close enough?

It does raise a further question in my mind though… As Reeds quotes differences for Bembridge Approaches and Bembridge Harbour, what are the main Bembridge figures referencing? Are they only there to use as a basis for the corrections? If so, why not just quote the approaches and harbour directly?

I await the replies of those more knowledgeable…

Paul

I think you've cracked it, Paul. That would make sense. I will try a couple more of them (eg Christchurch) to see if that resolves the question there, too.

I would have thought that it would make sense for Reeds to list the mean ranges for all the points they quote differences for. When you're doing a quick-and-dirty calculation the range is the quickest reference. It's almost as though you need a user-friendly version of the data.

Oh, wait a minute: just like TC puts in the Pilot...

 

[lampshuk]

I think if GPS doesn't work, not being able to work out your EP will be the least of the world's problems...
Why not look up the harbour's web page and get the tidal info from there? I would expect that to be as correct as is possible and have local info about entering and exiting.

Interesting. The Bembridge Harbour website doesn't quote Mean tidal ranges, but VisitMyHarbour seems to use the Shell Pilot info. Both do have handy links to the current tidal predictions, but of course you need to be on line to view that. The whole point of the exercise was to extract the key info in case I need, like the constipated mathematics teacher, to work it out with a pencil.

 

[superheat6k]

Why is touching extra risky with two shafts>

If I touch bottom it is my props that do the touching - I used to be happy to feel my way into a harbour at slow speed with a huge great keel poking down on a rising tide, and wasn't that bothered on my last boat where the prop was shielded by the keel.

Even on outdrives you can tuck them up if concerned by depth.

Touching on two shafts is too expensive for me.