Ba's Latest Dredging Trial Cut Short!!

[Guest ExMemberKingFisher]

Whilst cruising down the Bure yesterday we came across this piece of plant firmly stuck in the river. Looks like a job to remove it.

 

untitled.bmp

[JennyMorgan]

Is it BA plant then?

[Guest ExMemberKingFisher]

Not sure to be fair. It was being held by a tug with Ipswich on the back. Was on The Bure upstream of the mouth of The Ant just before the first bend. Couldn't see any sign of a barge under the digger, but I'm assuming there must be judging by the way one set of tracks are nearly out of the water.

[grendel]

classic example of the 'bejasus' digger, only one track can walk on water.

[marshman]

I may well be but to me doesn't look like a bit of BA kit.

Bit unfair to label it as a BA farce if its nothing to do with them......!

[MauriceMynah]

Oh come off it Marshman, We must never let facts or the concept of fair play get in the way of a bit of BA bashing! Not the done thing old boy. :)

[Guest ExMemberKingFisher]

Yep sorry hands up guys, I did think this was the light hearted forum, you know where you can poke the occasional bit of fun. I did forget the cardinal rules that only certain people are allowed to bash the BA and then the rest of you all stand up in defence of the BA

Since the BA do hardly any dredging, let alone trial new ideas, I did think you would guess it was a bit tongue in cheek

Still the real fact is that there is very much a big digger (who ever owns it) in the river and a hazard to navigation. Doesn't look like an easy rescue, and I guess that is the real news here. Thought that at least would have been of interest to some of you, or at least to those of us who are still out and about on the rivers at this time of year. Hopefully it's removed by the time the rest of you de-winterise.

Quite surprised to see quite a few hire boats still out and about on the Northerns. Probably saw around 20 or so over the last few days.

[JennyMorgan]

KFT, I suspect that most of us read your dialogue in the spirit in which it was intended, light hearted Micky taking rather than acrimonious bashing. Yes, probably a difficult recovery without adequate muscle, which I suspect that the BA could provide although whether they would wish to be involved in salvage is open to question. 

For the record the BA does, when it suits, a great deal of dredging. A bit more alacrity wouldn't go amiss, agreed, but they are shifting a great deal of the stuff from Oulton Broad at the moment, despite a month off during the summer. 

[MauriceMynah]

KFT,

The usual way these things work is that someone makes a post. Someone uses that post to take a gentle dig at the BA. Someone else (or the OP) then fuels the fire (feeds the dig) After a short while someone defends the BA, and then someone else takes a dig at the BA supporter (we take turns in being the BA supporter as nobody wants that job for too long).

A little later the BA supporter gets backed up by people informing us that the foot soldiers are great, It's just higher management that needs a good talking too. (We normally leave that job to Peter or Jimbo.) and we all clap hands and agree.

As time goes on the arguments against the BA management focuses on one person (who I'm starting to wonder if he really does exist) and we as an entity slag him off unmercifully. Finally we tire of this and all go to read another thread where someone has made a post. Someone uses that post to take a gentle dig at the BA..... and so on.

It's been going on here for years :) 

[JennyMorgan]

Not entirely true, John. Marsh, bless his dragonfly emblazoned t-shirt, has held that job for several long years now! Don't suppose the dear old buffer will change now and, in truth, we'd all miss him if he did. Anyway, he more than makes up for it with his wherry input, long may he continue!

[Paul]

Perhaps we could have a bit added to the avatar displaying our stance towards the "Authority", Slagger, Supporter and perhaps various various stages in between, determining the names of which could be used to fend off our winter blues? Perhaps somewhere in the middle would be "undecided", or perhaps "floating voter"?

[JennyMorgan]

7 minutes ago, Paul said:

Perhaps we could have a bit added to the avatar displaying our stance towards the "Authority", Slagger, Supporter and perhaps various various stages in between, determining the names of which could be used to fend off our winter blues? Perhaps somewhere in the middle would be "undecided", or perhaps "floating voter".

Floaters tend to wash out to sea, eventually.

[dnks34]

I took it completely tounge in cheek I presume as it was meant!

Even if the equipment did have BA logos on it the OP would still somehow have been made to look bad, all I can say is whoops! 

[marshman]

Of course I do realise it was not meant but what does slightly hack me off, and I don't even work for  them, is that STILL people even with all that in mind, repeat statements they believe to be true, such as "...the BA do hardly any dredging..". If you had bothered to check this out, you would see , and perhaps understand, that this is just not true!! Actually it doesn't really bother me simply because I realise that that is just a throw away line made in ignorance seeing as it is just not true, but that is read by others who will pick up on this, and believe it to be so!! Its a classic example of "fake news"!!!

Even PW has admitted that dredging is being carried out and if you could find their dredging schedule, ( it no longer seems to be available for some reason ) you will see that they are moving annually a big amount and indeed more than they have made provision before - their report would show that they have annual dredging targets and currently this is being exceeded.

In many cases it is not especially their fault that people think this. Hickling more example is a case in point - they cannot dump spoil anywhere and  I suspect the number of permissions required to actually dredge is huge, and then another lot to decide where to dump it. A similar instance to this is the riverside cutting back of trees - how many of you realise that you actually require permission from the Forestry Commission first of all and then everyone else in the world wishes to stick their nose in the Civil Service trough and get involved to justify their jobs!! The Forestry Commision I ask you - the damned things are weeds!! Don't ask me how I know - I just do!!

Sadly life has moved on these days and everyone wants a share of the action and I would hate to work in that environment where I need a six inch file of permissions just to do a straight forward job - see the constraints under which the BA are forced to operate and you begin to get some idea of the problems facing the NHS.

But that sadly seems to be the way of the world and I guess it will just get worse....!!

 

[Vaughan]

4 minutes ago, marshman said:

The Forestry Commision I ask you - the damned things are weeds!!

Excellent post Marshman.

I have quoted that particular bit as the growth of trees on the Broads these days is out of control, on both the north and south rivers. They are largely the result of fen, which has become carr, and has not been managed properly. It doesn't affect "the navigation" specifically, but whose responsibility is it?

The landscape that I remember has changed radically. You can grow a very large tree, over 50 years!

[JennyMorgan]

7 minutes ago, marshman said:

 

Even PW has admitted that dredging is being carried out and if you could find their dredging schedule, ( it no longer seems to be available for some reason ) you will see that they are moving annually a big amount and indeed more than they have made provision before - their report would show that they have annual dredging targets and currently this is being exceeded.

 

It is not so hard for the BA to exceed targets,  especially ones set by the Authority itself!

[marshman]

PW - I agree but they are dredging now, and that at least is an improvement!

Figures are meaningless really but the target for 2015/2016 was 50000 cubic metres - that is 50k more than nothing and the costs are not just those of the dredging crews but everyone who has to fill in a silly form and answer a stupid question from another body!! 

And as you are well aware, any additional cost has to come from somewhere and you and I know what pot that is! The fact is they are doing a lot more than they did a few years ago when they seemed to do none at all and those about on the rivers etc can tell you quite a lot of places that have seen activity on that front recently. Its always nice to see more being done but sometimes we have to take on board a dose of realism! 

[JennyMorgan]

I largely agree with all that, Marsh. However, and there has to be one of them, other bodies don't tend to find nearly so many forms to fill in as does the BA. During my Nav Com days it became laughable as an officer, often Trudi, would gleefully announce yet another hindrance to much needed dredging. I well remember DEFRA giving the BA £1.5 million in order to catch up on the dredging backlog. Did it happen, did it heck! Projects such as Dragonfly House and the Broads Bill wasted 2/3rds of that,  such was the Authority's alacrity towards dredging. I'm not sure that there wasn't a department within the higher echelons exclusively tasked with finding reasons for not dredging. Now, of course, it's realised that for every pound spent on dredging means another pound to spend on another 'vision' but at least they are now dredging.

[riverman]

Just my tuppence, the semi sunk amphib digger was rescued by yours truly, it doesn't belong to BA but rather a private contractor. 

BA's dredging is a farce. Where they've been working towards Yarmouth they've been ferrying the mud so far that they've only been managing 2 loads a day. 

Too many 'experts', with too much money and not enough accountability who refuse to speak to anyone else about more efficient methods. 

[Guest ExMemberKingFisher]

Riverman,

Do you know how it ended up where it did? It didn't look like an easy recovery.

You're right about the dredging. At one point they were taking spoil from dredging the New Cut to somewhere upstream of The Chet. Those kind of distances mean most of the dredging budget is going on diesel transiting waste to spoil sites.

[JennyMorgan]

Riverman, shhhhhhush, you might just be absolutely right about them ferrying spoil silly distances but please don't rouse the minions! Was a time when dumping the stuff on the nearest convenient bank was seen as cost effective and efficient, indeed doing so served the Broads well for generations.

[riverman]

The operator made a mistake when coming off the marsh and tried to turn turtle, very easily done. Not a bad recovery at all, took me longer to steam round to it than it did to get it back upright. 

It's very infuriating as somebody who does similar work to see them doing such ridiculous things. The whole move away from clam dredging to long reach dredging is mad, using powered wherries instead of lighters and tugs, dumping material miles from where it's needed. It's all just crazy, minions should be roused.

 

[marshman]

C'mon PW you know as well as I do that the real issue surrounds getting permission to dump the spoil, and its not just the landowners permission that is required. Indeed I would not be surprised if you need Forestry Commission approval to dump it on the banks there are so many noses in the trough. I bet you can certainly find the EA and /or Natural England getting their noses in as well - too many public sector noses and pensions relying on keeping busy and well fed. The solution - lets call another meeting to discuss it!!!

[riverman]

I'd find it hard to believe that BA would need FC's permission to dump spoil on a rhond with no trees in the middle of a marsh that has no trees but if they do, that's just another ludicrous situation that's needs some sense applied. 

Natural England, The Wildlife Trust, Rspb almost certainly stick their oar in, which in some situations is understandable but generally unnecessary over all.

The problem is as you say, public sector noses and pensions. If a job is easy and straightforward, they'll make it difficult to justify there own roles. What's needed isn't a meeting, it's a public enquiry. 

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, riverman said:

I'd find it hard to believe that BA would need FC's permission to dump spoil on a rhond with no trees in the middle of a marsh that has no trees but if they do, that's just another ludicrous situation that's needs some sense applied. 

Natural England, The Wildlife Trust, Rspb almost certainly stick their oar in, which in some situations is understandable but generally unnecessary over all.

The problem is as you say, public sector noses and pensions. If a job is easy and straightforward, they'll make it difficult to justify there own roles. What's needed isn't a meeting, it's a public enquiry. 

Yes, Yes, Yes!!! Was up in the Black Country the other day and got talking to a Canals Trust person. They don't seem to have the problems on the canals with spoil disposal that the BA does. Seems to me that the BA looks for problems rather than just getting on with the job and doing it.