The SS Varvassi claims yet another victim

  • Thread starter Thread starter TQA
  • Start date Start date
VO5 said:
Yes, funny.
Wouldn't it be ironic if you yourself happened to prang it one day...:D
Click to expand...

Sorry, but if you "prang it" you're in the wrong place on the chart. Crossing the "bridge" inside the cardinal is risky for a number of reasons, cutting the corner so close you hit the rump of the Varvessi is chancing you arm; BIGTIME!
 
Topcat47 said:
Sorry, but if you "prang it" you're in the wrong place on the chart. Crossing the "bridge" inside the cardinal is risky for a number of reasons, cutting the corner so close you hit the rump of the Varvessi is chancing you arm; BIGTIME!
Click to expand...

Granted. And even so the danger imperils vessels with a shallow draft.
So tell me, why is it that after all these years that this wreck in such a prominent position remains unmarked ?
Why is it that Trinity House cannot be encouraged to anchor a green conical wreck bouy showing say three flashes and an appropriate topmark, why ?
Is it because they are short of funds or lack of interest or is it because as a result of collective complacency they do not respond or what exactly izzit then ?
 
VO5 said:
Granted. And even so the danger imperils vessels with a shallow draft.
So tell me, why is it that after all these years that this wreck in such a prominent position remains unmarked ?
Why is it that Trinity House cannot be encouraged to anchor a green conical wreck bouy showing say three flashes and an appropriate topmark, why ?
Is it because they are short of funds or lack of interest or is it because as a result of collective complacency they do not respond or what exactly izzit then ?
Click to expand...

Because Trinity house are in business to provide navigation marks for shipping and not what is essentially a racing mark.
Their augment being there is a mark called Bridge that does the job.
(as an aside there is talk about replacing physical buoys with virtual ones in the future which would defiantly reduce costs to Trinity House.)

ISC do provide guard boats to be left to port at the east end of the Island so my question would be why don't they do the same at the needles.
 
VO5 said:
Granted. And even so the danger imperils vessels with a shallow draft.
So tell me, why is it that after all these years that this wreck in such a prominent position remains unmarked ?
Why is it that Trinity House cannot be encouraged to anchor a green conical wreck bouy showing say three flashes and an appropriate topmark, why ?
Is it because they are short of funds or lack of interest or is it because as a result of collective complacency they do not respond or what exactly izzit then ?
Click to expand...

Oh yes, and why stop at marking wrecks? Why not remove all the sticky-up bits that might get in our way? :rolleyes:
 
NormanS said:
Oh yes, and why stop at marking wrecks? Why not remove all the sticky-up bits that might get in our way? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Now there is an idea. Can we just build a canal from Portland Harbour out to the West and avoid all that Portland bill messing about nonsense. Maybe a nice breakwater and small waiting pontoon on the west side as well.

and the channel islands could be improved with several tons of high explosive.
 
VO5 said:
Granted. And even so the danger imperils vessels with a shallow draft.
So tell me, why is it that after all these years that this wreck in such a prominent position remains unmarked ?
Why is it that Trinity House cannot be encouraged to anchor a green conical wreck bouy showing say three flashes and an appropriate topmark, why ?
Is it because they are short of funds or lack of interest or is it because as a result of collective complacency they do not respond or what exactly izzit then ?
Click to expand...

Possibly because Trinity House now use the IALA system.:)
 
claymore said:
Clearly, I bow to your superior bollocks - if you re-read what I posted you should be able to see that I was pointing a bit of harmless fun at the statement you made that - paraphrasing - if someone broke a rule on your ship they would be terminated. Seemed a bit harsh really, perhaps a word in their shell like to point out the error of their ways, perhaps pay them off at the end of the trip but terminatiing them.....?
Anyway 32 years isn't so much - you have some catching up to do, Junior
Xx
Click to expand...

Not just breaking rules - endangering the vessel and or crew as clearly happened here.

PW
 
VO5 said:
Why is it that Trinity House cannot be encouraged to anchor a green conical wreck bouy showing say three flashes and an appropriate topmark, why ?
Is it because they are short of funds or lack of interest or is it because as a result of collective complacency they do not respond or what exactly izzit then ?
Click to expand...

Or is it because a bunch of sailors really should be learning to navigate known hazards?
 
DJE said:
The racers wouldn't see a green buoy through the red mist!
Click to expand...

Ha Ha, I know....we have some of them around here too....they just want to go faster than possible...testosterone fuelled lot......they get affronted at rocks being in their path...dear oh dear...
 
VO5 said:
Ha Ha, I know....we have some of them around here too....they just want to go faster than possible...testosterone fuelled lot......they get affronted at rocks being in their path...dear oh dear...
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm having a sense of humour failure, but has anyone who has hit the wreck while cutting the corner on RTIR ever complained about either its continued presence or the lack of individual marks on the boilers? I've never heard such a complaint. Everyone knows the risks and decides accordingly, and if you hit it then the consequences have to be quietly accepted. The only people who seem to be complaining are cruising folk who all claim to never cut inside Bridge anyway, so surely a moot point?

You could argue knowingly sailing towards such dangers is taking advantage of the safety cover provided on the day, and I guess that's a fair point.

There seems to be a lot of anti-racer sentiment in this thread. Of course cutting inside the wreck is a risk that a cruising boat would never take and I don't think any of the skippers who do it on RTIR would argue that it constitutes 'good practice' for general sailing. At the end of the day the RTIR is part of life's rich tapestry, a splendid spectacle and brings lots of enjoyment to sailors and landlubbers alike, not to mentions toursism revenue to the island and south coast. Would you really want to get rid of it, or dumb it down?
 
Hambler Rambler said:
There seems to be a lot of anti-racer sentiment in this thread.
Click to expand...

Well that's gone straight over my head! In fact given the 'fine' words in common used on the track I would have thought this thread really quite mild ;)

Incidentally, you may find that the idea of a new buoy at the western end of the Solent is at least informally back on the table. There's no perfect solution here, but the status quo isn't great.
 
Hambler Rambler said:
Maybe I'm having a sense of humour failure, but has anyone who has hit the wreck while cutting the corner on RTIR ever complained about either its continued presence or the lack of individual marks on the boilers? I've never heard such a complaint. Everyone knows the risks and decides accordingly, and if you hit it then the consequences have to be quietly accepted. The only people who seem to be complaining are cruising folk who all claim to never cut inside Bridge anyway, so surely a moot point?

You could argue knowingly sailing towards such dangers is taking advantage of the safety cover provided on the day, and I guess that's a fair point.

There seems to be a lot of anti-racer sentiment in this thread. Of course cutting inside the wreck is a risk that a cruising boat would never take and I don't think any of the skippers who do it on RTIR would argue that it constitutes 'good practice' for general sailing. At the end of the day the RTIR is part of life's rich tapestry, a splendid spectacle and brings lots of enjoyment to sailors and landlubbers alike, not to mentions toursism revenue to the island and south coast. Would you really want to get rid of it, or dumb it down?
Click to expand...

I think this is a great comment on the topic

Regards Don
 
Hambler Rambler said:
Maybe I'm having a sense of humour failure, but has anyone who has hit the wreck while cutting the corner on RTIR ever complained about either its continued presence or the lack of individual marks on the boilers? I've never heard such a complaint. Everyone knows the risks and decides accordingly, and if you hit it then the consequences have to be quietly accepted. The only people who seem to be complaining are cruising folk who all claim to never cut inside Bridge anyway, so surely a moot point?

You could argue knowingly sailing towards such dangers is taking advantage of the safety cover provided on the day, and I guess that's a fair point.

There seems to be a lot of anti-racer sentiment in this thread. Of course cutting inside the wreck is a risk that a cruising boat would never take and I don't think any of the skippers who do it on RTIR would argue that it constitutes 'good practice' for general sailing. At the end of the day the RTIR is part of life's rich tapestry, a splendid spectacle and brings lots of enjoyment to sailors and landlubbers alike, not to mentions toursism revenue to the island and south coast. Would you really want to get rid of it, or dumb it down?
Click to expand...

Nothing of the sort. I agree it is a marvellous event all round. I have been on the island on three occasions as a visitor and enjoyed the atmosphere immensely. I participated once, and that was in the early eighties. so there is no question of getting rid of it at all, to the contrary.

Then to suggest that constructive criticism with regard to a blatant danger is dumbing down is ridiculous.

The point that is being made, and it seems is gathering consensus, is that something ought to be done about this pernicious danger. The fact that according to you victims do not ever complain about losing their beloved sailing yachts is neither here nor there in the argument. The object should be to eliminate this danger or at least constructively take steps to mark it, thus in some measure mitigate the threat it poses to everybody, whether racing or not.

I have just recalled closing the needles when cruising the south coast a long time ago, probably as early as 1973 and seeing a black mark at the outermost extremity of the Varvassi wreck. It may have been post Round The Island Race, I am not sure.

But it is certain that if it was possible to mark the wreck then as an act of prudence, surely the same value should apply today.
 
I've not had time to check every page in this post.. Hopefully this hasn't been posted before, but apart from sailing past and viewing the boilers in person, this is the closest thing I've found to show what was hit.. Thanks to a George Clennie for the video..

Wreck hunting by George Clennie
 
Last edited:
As far as cutting inside the Bridge buoy is concerned, IIRC a boat, chartered to the Met Police, lost people overboard whilst trying to enter the Needles Channel. At the time, it was blowing old boots from the SW and a spring flood tide.

In an article, published I think in YM, the coxswain of the Yarmouth lifeboat recommended that half way between the Bridge and the Needles gave the easiest ride, if for some reason, you couldn't enter via the North Channel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top