teadaemon

The Hunter fleet most definitely have fin keels, albeit not the kind of deep, NACA foil that modern production seagoing yachts tend to sport.

What's more important than speed per se is manoeuvrability, particularly speed through the wind when tacking. If you look at traditional Broads yachts, they were using fin keels 50 years or more they started to appear on seagoing yachts, and tend to have very large, balanced rudders. These design features are there because they lead to a boat that will respond quickly to the helm and will turn reliably in a very small space compared to the typical seagoing yachts built at the same time (which would mostly have had deep, full keels with smaller rudders attached directly to the keel). Heavier boats aren't necessarily slower, they just carry more canvas, and have the mass to carry it in higher winds.

That looks very much like an Alphacraft 31, in which case the chipboard is probably in the decks, if it hasn't already turned to mush and been replaced (a really nasty job whichever way you go about it).

Strictly speaking, the first outboard motor (incidentally an electric one) was built in 1870, and the first petrol models in 1896, so an outboard bracket is not completely anachronous for a film set in 1901, although it is highly unlikely.

To be fair, if you show any rigger who only works with seagoing boats a Broads River Cruiser, their first reaction is likely to be "how does she carry so much sail?" Raisena is a pretty extreme example, but she's not the only one, especially when you consider the gaff riggers with huge topsails. Of course they can do this because they're sailing on relatively flat water, where roll due to wave action isn't a consideration. They need to carry so much sail as it's not feasible to change sails during a race (and indeed for the River Cruiser class not permitted IIRC), so to win they have to have as much as possible all of the time, and deal with being over canvassed on some points of sail by technique (and being prepared to sail at ridiculous angles of heel, like when I was crewing at Barton Regatta a couple of years ago and trying to work a jib winch that was under water).

I was going to ask if you'd taken the opportunity to go for carbon fibre instead of aluminium. Is it the decreased weight of the rig that allows you to carry the extra sail without changing the righting moment, or are you putting more lead on the keel too?

True, although in recent years I've come across one that went to the Fens, and another that's being exported to Australia (after being restored in Norfolk). A few years ago I also came across a Gay Lady that'd been moored in the floating harbour at Bristol (presumably sailed on the Avon), but was being sold for a song after sinking at her mooring. She did sell, although whether the new owner was able to restore her to her former glory I don't know. The furthest I've heard of a Broads yacht going on her own bottom was the original America, which made it to the Caribbean (albeit after some modifications, including re-rigging as a yawl).

Lift bags on the port side and she might well go in, but upside down. Seriously, given that she's in a reasonably safe, stable position where she is, waiting for the next set of spring tides is by far the safest option.

Now that's excellent news.

I think part of the problem is that it went aground at a high, near (if not actual) spring tide, and the tidal range has been decreasing since then, so getting enough water just to float it off is tricky (and will probably have to wait a week or so for the next spring tides). If you were going to try to use brute force to drag it off the bank, unfortunately the swing bridge is exactly where I'd want to put the tug, and even if you managed to put the tug on the other side of the bridge and get a clear path for the tow rope, if she came free the boat would be heading straight towards the bridge. If you try to drag her off the other way then you're risking damage to the stern gear, which could quite easily mean you go from a boat that's aground, to one that's afloat but sinking rapidly. Also, with her being so close to the bridge, I'd wonder if there's anything other than soft mud under or around her. I'd want to check carefully for old piling, bits of old stone, etc before I tried dragging a boat through mud in that position (actually I'd probably want to check anywhere on the Broads, but I'm cautious like that).

It's ok, I didn't think you were that serious, but I also thought it worth mentioning that salvage law isn't quite as simple as a lot of people believe it to be. (That's why there are a small but significant number of lawyers who specialise in it.)

I've got into big arguments on other forums about where salvage rights do or do not apply, but to give the short answer, the Broads are tidal waters navigable by seagoing vessels, so yes salvage law might apply. Now before anyone jumps in a boat and heads for Somerleyton, they should probably note that: 1) In order to board and attempt salvage on a derelict vessel without first obtaining the permission of the owner, it must have been permanently abandoned by it's owners, which is not the case in this situation. 2) In order for there to be a claim for salvage, a vessel must be 'in peril'. In this case the vessel is on dry land and it's situation is unlikely to change for the next 7-10 days or so. Is she really in peril at the moment? 3) Even if she were, and she was refloated, she wouldn't be yours (although you'd be responsible for getting her to a place of safety and keeping her there). You'd have a claim for salvage, which (if it were accepted by the relevant court) would only ever be a proportion of the value of the vessel. You would hold a lien over the vessel while your claim was open, but in practise the boat's insurers would probably put a sum of money in escrow in lieu of you actually retaining the vessel itself. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but is my best understanding of the situation.

This does not surprise me in the least.

Might I suggest that the historic use of a number of staithes as ferry landings might explain why this was permitted? The law on staithes and their use is actually fairly complicated, and I don't profess to be an expert on it, but I do know that there are several different sorts of staithe, with different laws regarding what is permitted to happen at each of them (quite a few are in fact regulated by act of parliament and their uses are explicitly stated in the relevant act.) It may be that the use of this staithe as a ferry landing for a ferry crossing the river at this point is explicitly permitted by statute, and it may even be the case that the Town Council is unable to prevent it's use for that purpose, even if they wanted to.

At the risk of opening an even larger can of worms, might I perhaps mention that there is another source of water entering the upper Thurne - seepage from the sea into the land between the coast and Horsey/Hickling, which is then pumped into the Thurne system via drainage dykes. Apparently this is why the upper Thurne is somewhat brackish, which is why it's prone to blooms of PP (which is naturally found in salt water, not fresh).

She does look very nice, at least from the pictures. If you're going to go for a traditional wooden boat, then teak is definitely the wood to look for. It's always been the best, but most expensive wood to use, so is a sign of top quality construction. It's also far more rot resistant than most woods used for boatbuilding (Iroko aka African Mahogany comes close, but is hell to work with due to the interlocked grain and interstitial silica. It can also have interesting interactions with oak if the two woods are used together). Is she worth £22.5k? Well, if she's in as good condition as she looks, and somebody is prepared to buy her for that price, then she is. Certainly building a replica using the same materials would be close to impossible, and if it were possible then you wouldn't get much if any change out of £100k. Possibly the biggest downside I can see to her (and some people would look upon it as a feature) is the original Stuart Turner engine. Personally if I had a boat like this and money were no object, then a sympathetic re-engine to a small modern diesel would be high on my wish-list, but that's just me.

Slip me a million quid or so, and I'll happily run a hire yard on Oulton Broad (or indeed any other location on the Broads), but don't expect a massive return on your investment.

Has he been bionically enhanced, a la Robocop or the 6 Million Dollar Man? (How's about that for a couple of references that really date me?)

While I'm at it, many congratulations on the new addition Clive.

If you're going to bother with having templates (and the investment is only going to get a marginal return for the numbers of boats built in this situation, I'd guess), then cardboard is not the material to be using, I'd be looking to use sheet steel. Having said that, the modern way would be to have the dimensions of all the parts recorded electronically, and get the pieces cut by a company with a CNC router. Again, this is probably a method that only becomes economical for larger numbers of boats, but I know at least one company that makes kits for wooden boats using this method. Incidentally, for non-structural, interior use, it's already possible to get pre-kerfed plywood, ready to cut to size and bend. Robbin's Timber in Bristol have been selling it for years, there are probably plenty of other suppliers too.

Congratulations. If you need any advice on BSS compliance, I'm happy to help if I can.

Is the difference in navigable area in 1946 down to water level, or might it be due to 6 or 7 years of little or no navigation, and consequently no maintenance of the waterway (such as dredging or reedcutting)? I would suspect mostly the latter.

Having now watched the video, I'm even more dubious. It appears that in order for it to function as designed, the seacock needs to be functional. Why would you want to replace a functional seacock as an emergency? (Since if it's routine maintenance, it can surely wait until the boat is out of the water anyway.) In general, if seacocks fail they either seize in position, or corrode and break off. I can't see how this device would help in either situation.

Jon did you make it to the Underfall Yard at the end of the floating harbour? It's a little gem of a yard, run by a co-operative, they have a decent sized patent slipway, a couple of large sheds, and smaller units for half a dozen or so small businesses (when I was there this included somebody casting custom bronze hardware to order, amongst others). I went a few years ago with a group of surveyors, looking at a Bristol Channel Pilot Cutter being built (IIRC she was called Morwenna, and has been in a number of sailing magazines and on TV a few times).

I didn't see the episode in question, but I find it difficult to imagine a device that would reliably seal off the area around a seacock sufficiently to replace it, or that would allow the part on the outside of the boat to be worked on or examined. Perhaps the more pertinent question is: "would your insurance company trust this device if something went wrong and sank the boat?" Although getting a boat on to dry land to work on it does cost money, in the grand scheme of things an annual lift for inspection, antifouling, and any other routine maintenance is only a relatively small part of the total cost of owning and using a boat. It seems to me that this device (like many gadgets) is a solution in search of a problem.