As to "why go there?" I suppose the trite answer is "because it's there." Loch Tarbert is actually both rocky and nice. (Bit busy in August though, there must have been at least 10 boats in the loch!)
The HO have responded: they accept two of my proposed changes but don't like the third. I want the hat trick and am arguing! I'll let you know how things develop.
Loch Tarbert, Jura
- little boy blue
- Old Salt
- Posts: 662
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:53 pm
- Location: CLYDE
to resurect this thread ... a question
for dave s.
have you resolved your dispute with ukho anent the third set of markers ?
have you resolved your dispute with ukho anent the third set of markers ?
- DaveS
- Yellow Admiral
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 1:10 am
- Boat Type: Seastream 34
- Location: Me: Falkirk, Boat: Craobh
In short, I don't know. Having splashed out on the first edition of the W Scotland Leisure Folio to find it almost immediately superseded by the second edition, I wasn't about to buy that. I'm waiting for the 3rd edition but, despite lots of N to M notes to the effect that this or that major change will be reflected in a new chart edition, the 3rd edition of the L F has yet to appear.
The point in dispute was the 247 / 243 transit. I was quite happy that my re-positioned line led clear of all rocks on the approach to the Cumhain Mor, but the HO seem to think that it should also show a safe line clear to the east of the headland at the entrance to the inner (or middle) bit of the loch - see Silkie's copy of the CCC chart. I don't believe that the transit was ever intended to do this, and it's purely coincidental that its line extends close to this headland. Indeed, if you assume the CCC transit line is correct then its extension does not clear the headland. There is also the practical point: having safely reached the open entrance to the inner / middle loch, why would you want to scrape past rocks to the N instead of going straight in?
I did, however, make another excursion, scrambling round the rocks on the headland with a view to taking a definitive picture of the transit beacons which would prove or refute this "headland clearing" proposition. This was tricky, as the strata is not ideally angled for excursions like this, but eventually I got to the right place: hanging on to the rocks I could see the beacons virtually in transit, i.e. relying on them to clear the headland would definitely be unwise. I carefully removed the camera case single handed (the other was holding me on to the rock), lined up the shot, pressed the button, and nothing happened: the effing battery was flat!
I have not yet returned to prove the point.
The point in dispute was the 247 / 243 transit. I was quite happy that my re-positioned line led clear of all rocks on the approach to the Cumhain Mor, but the HO seem to think that it should also show a safe line clear to the east of the headland at the entrance to the inner (or middle) bit of the loch - see Silkie's copy of the CCC chart. I don't believe that the transit was ever intended to do this, and it's purely coincidental that its line extends close to this headland. Indeed, if you assume the CCC transit line is correct then its extension does not clear the headland. There is also the practical point: having safely reached the open entrance to the inner / middle loch, why would you want to scrape past rocks to the N instead of going straight in?
I did, however, make another excursion, scrambling round the rocks on the headland with a view to taking a definitive picture of the transit beacons which would prove or refute this "headland clearing" proposition. This was tricky, as the strata is not ideally angled for excursions like this, but eventually I got to the right place: hanging on to the rocks I could see the beacons virtually in transit, i.e. relying on them to clear the headland would definitely be unwise. I carefully removed the camera case single handed (the other was holding me on to the rock), lined up the shot, pressed the button, and nothing happened: the effing battery was flat!
I have not yet returned to prove the point.
- sahona
- Admiral of the White
- Posts: 1992
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:17 pm
- Boat Type: Marcon Claymore
- Location: Clyde
I've been through the inner loch to the other bit past one tree island and didn't bump into anything. The boat was 39' and drew 6'6" Maybe just lucky? My main thought in retrospect was to consider tide height/flow next time.
http://trooncruisingclub.org/ 20' - 30' Berths available, Clyde.
Cruising, racing, maintenance facilities. Go take a look, you know you want to.
Cruising, racing, maintenance facilities. Go take a look, you know you want to.