Loch Tarbert, Jura

Tell us where you've been, trade information
User avatar
DaveS
Yellow Admiral
Posts: 1341
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 1:10 am
Boat Type: Seastream 34
Location: Me: Falkirk, Boat: Craobh

Update

Post by DaveS »

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.
User avatar
little boy blue
Old Salt
Posts: 662
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:53 pm
Location: CLYDE

to resurect this thread ... a question

Post by little boy blue »

for dave s.
have you resolved your dispute with ukho anent the third set of markers ?
User avatar
DaveS
Yellow Admiral
Posts: 1341
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 1:10 am
Boat Type: Seastream 34
Location: Me: Falkirk, Boat: Craobh

Post by DaveS »

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 Having splashed out on the first edition of the W Scotland Leisure Folio to find it almost immediately superseded by the second edition, I wasn't about to buy that.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.
User avatar
claymore
Admiral of the Green
Posts: 4762
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 2:55 pm
Boat Type: Claymore
Location: Ardfern or Lancashire

Post by claymore »

aahhh
The old flat battery routine again Davey......
Regards
Claymore
:goatd
User avatar
sahona
Admiral of the White
Posts: 1992
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:17 pm
Boat Type: Marcon Claymore
Location: Clyde

Post by sahona »

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.
Post Reply