SW Sunk Beacon

[ QUOTE ]
Trinity House Do UK

[/ QUOTE ]

But not necessarily within the area covered by a harbour authority. Despite Trinity House's HQ being at Harwich, the buoys just outside their HQ are laid by Harwich, not TH.
 
Last time I took this route (southbound) there was so little water that I would not take this route again. The charts now seem to reflect the silting up. Havn't tried 'the next one up' but will do next time to see if there is more water. Either that or get there well before LW.
 
QOTD...

[ QUOTE ]
...your determination to do navigation in conditions where cultivation would be more appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ] This has to be the Quote of the Day! Congratulations!
 
At the Sunk Beacon, Chart 1975 records a least depth of 16 metres but in October 2006, I crossed northwards (from 51˚36'36N 001˚21'37E to 51˚36'48N 001˚14'79E) right at Low Water Neaps in not less than 3.7 metres of water. (on the same day I found 2.3 metres least depth at the SW Sunk).

Those waypoints are from Black Deep No 8 on the corner of Fisherman’s Gat, across the Black Deep to a northerly waypoint well clear of the extending shoal of the Middle Sunk Sand. Course was 351 (T). This route is less than half a mile longer than the Blackwater to Ramsgate via SW Sunk route so it seems the way to go in the future. For the Essex Rivers, the route from Spitway/Crouch needs to avoid that finger of the Middle Sunk which has extended NE over the last few years, hence the northernmost waypoint being well clear of the Sunk Sand. The pre 2003 Admiralty Chart doesn’t do the extension justice; current prints do.
 
Yeap, but the point is that 3.7metres was the shallowest even over the lesser charts depths nearer to the Black Deep. The 16 metre is a text error. I cut and pasted from Word where it was typed as 1.6 with the 6 in subscript but it didn't convert. I should have realised that, I guess. But that is the least charted depth over the Sunk at that point. It has nothing to do with the height of the Beacon which purely by coincidence is 16 metres. So what I was trying to say that there was 3.7 metres at the shallowest point on that route (which was before the Beacon was reached), ie 2.6 metres more than the least charted depth.
 
I have received an acknowledgement email from Trinity House (John Cannon, Navigational Services Officer, Navigation Directorate) promising a full answer as soon as possible. I will update this again when I recieve that email.

Thanks

Jim
 
Thanks for that - most useful.

When you did SW Sunk where exactly is the best water and how narrow is the channel? I passed pretty close SW of the beacon and crossed the bank at 90 degrees, but the depth sounder showed 4 footish and this was low water neaps. Looking at the updated chart for this bit it looks as though I could have been a tadge further NE.
 
I have now received the following reply from Trinity House. It is courteous and, like a consultant, gives me info I already have, without any clue as to how to resolve it.....

Dear Mr Dew

SW Sunk Beacon in the Thames Estuary

I am now able to let you have our substantive response to your e-mail
of 9.2.07 originally addressed to Vikki Gilson about the collapse of the
SW Sunk beacon.

By way of background, I would explain that the SW Sunk beacon was not
and never has been an aid to navigation. Our enquiries made after it
collapsed, revealed that it was originally constructed in the 1950's,
along with a number of other beacons in the Thames Estuary for the
Admiralty, Survey Training Unit, then based at Chatham.

The SW Sunk beacon lay outside the main navigational channels, which
are marked by us. Whilst it is appreciated that the structure had some
use for mariners as a fixed visual and radar reference point, I regret
that we are unable to justify it's restoration in the interests of
general navigation.

Yours sincerely


John Cannon
Navigation Services Officer
Trinity House
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

dgadee
Arzal?
Replies
12
Views
363
dunedin
D

Share this page

Top