riverman

£200+ Per metre for timber, realistic life span of 10 years? £500-1200 per metre for steel/galv steel dependant on length, profile and contractor

From what I understand "the bunch that bought it" done a lot of good there, I think maybe you've got your idea of what happened backwards. Back to Len, not that I'm one for conspiracies but I'm sure there's some sort of scheme behind this. Time will tell. The guys on the yard seem happy enough with it though.

The old joke about throwing the anchor out the window to slow yourself down. Evidently no longer a joke....

Best one I had was about 10 years ago. Pushing a pontoon, was probably about 50ft long total length, loaded with 8ton of piles, powered and steered by a 30hp Yam, so not manoeuvrable. They were fishing in the middle of the river and I went straight through about 5 sets of lines. They were quite angry to say the least. They followed me back to the site we were working on, moored up, came storming onto the site to find about 8 builders/piles etc holding hammers and chainsaws..... They rapidly calmed down. It's kind of like playing football in the road when you were a kid, you expect to see cars so you get out of the way. Evidently this is too much hassle.

I was working on the summer house on Horsey Mere once, when I walked around the corner to find some old dear having a poo on the grass. Evidently the sailing boat didn't have a toilet. As for the flicking dog turds into the river, in nearly 10 years working on the broads, I'm yet to meet a dog owner who doesn't. In fairness, there is a lot worse in there.

Just a clarification from living locally, and being very in the know about this particular scenario. If Luke Paterson had his way (this was a few years ago so he could have had a change of heart) would have gates across his section of the canal, restricting or stopping use entirely. Luke is also brother to Joe, who owns Anglian plant, so he could probably achieve what needs to be done for a lot less cost than perhaps it would other section owners. Don't get me wrong, Luke is a nice man however, I would strongly urge anyone looking to help the revival of the canal to look towards Laurie or the canal trust if they are looking to volunteer.

Don't worry, we don't have coots anymore.

Run what you brung, scaffold pole thickness can be welded 5/6mm successful by any means. Personally, I would go Mig, I wouldn't go gasless but that's personal preference mostly. Once you get your settings right, you'll fly along. Alternatively, stick, but stay with a good quality farmer rod (6013). Weldingtipsandtricks.com. Hes got a YouTube channel and the videos are really helpful.

I couldn't agree more, it would get rid of all the old coffin dodgers who can't maintain speed or keep up with traffic, all the lost idiots on holiday preforming illegal manoeuvres, all the mid-life crisis lot on there Harleys and Sports bikes, and all of those with too much money who can afford a nice car, that makes a offensively loud albeit beautiful noise.

I would agree that it's pretty anti social, however I don't think the way they treat there car shows a lack of respect for there own property. Any money you like, they all wash there cars before they take them out, clean inside and out, are probably serviced (oil change etc) more regularly than a lot of cars that are on the road. Also, massively unpopular opinion, if the engine wasn't meant to rev to 9k rpm, why does it. So although they don't perhaps particularly respect others, I would strongly suggest they respect there cars.

But surely the fact that cranes are equally likely to land in a corn field shows that we don't need to commit millions to conservation projects to encourage the cranes. I'm sure the lowering of water table hasn't done catfield fen any good (although I doubt it has done much harm), however I'm quite confident that digging all the dykes 20ft wide, and buring no end of forna and flora in the process has done the lions share of the damage. I'm all for conservation, and I don't actually disagree that the Carlton marshes project is a good one. However, how many nature reserves do we need, how many more places do people need to view a few birds. As for reed beds, if they are productive, they get managed essentially for free. The vast majority of broadland that has been lost, has been lost because of lack of management, however this previous management was most certainly not for the sake of biodiversity. I would argue by letting nature take hold in this man made environment, biodiversity has on the whole probably increased. The issue is as always, what point in history do we want to take the broads back to.

Sorry but I don't believe that's all entirely true. Nature doesn't need half the help these self serving ecologists believe, nor does it need millions wasted spoiling productive land. I have seen significantly more cranes on the arable marsh's at billockby by the junction than anywhere else. I see more otters in central wroxham than anywhere else. When you spend 5-7 days a week on the broads, you see that in many places the money is being spent in all the wrong places. There are plenty of places on the broads where wildlife can thrive without much input. Most of these places are virtually inexcessible, but are we interested in doing the best conservation job possible or being able to view the wildlife? There are also places where the input of do gooders has done more harm than good, catfield fen for instance. A better balance must be found, one where local knowledge is as equally valued at as a degree.

It's not subsidence. I heard about this the other week from a local builder. Apparently one side was steel piled the other year but the other wasn't. The old timber side just gave way all of a sudden and kind of concettinaed in on itself, with by all accounts with an almighty bang. Luckily nobody was inside. Apparently the thatch is very recent and there are plans to remove and save it. I would imagine it will be a pull down and start again job. I've jacked up houses, that one has gone down so far I can't see it being cost effective.

Has anybody got any idea of the 'usual' water depth on hoveton little broad? I have been invited to take part in the 70th anniversary floatilla, however the vessel I will be using carries 3ft+ underwater. Slightly concerned I'll carry enough momentum to get on the broad, and then just beach myself. Any thoughts would be hugely appreciated.

Although this is a good idea, I don't see it practically working. For this to work there would need to be an industry body, taking a mandatory and proportion toll off all boat owners so as to make it fair for all....isn't there already something like that? If just the boat yards paid for moorings, then there would be people mooring for 'free' or people being restricted from certain moorings. It would be a better idea for BA to allow managed expansion of the larger yards or reasonable devolpment by land owners in exchange for substantial river front 24hr moorings.

Just my tuppence. There has been much talk about how the decline in moorings are a complex issue and this I can't dispute. However, to some extent this is self inflicted. Much in same way it's been said that farmers (land owners) can be too short sighted/greedy with regards to moorings, I would also argue that BA has the same issue. BA/Besl/BAM had the opportunity to increase moorings (wild or otherwise) when undertaking the flood alleviation work. They could have also had a lot of free dredging done but that's beside the point. They could also undertake there own mooring repairs, which would save money and they would get a better job *see hoveton viaduct current works **don't take a spirit level. BA tend to rub people up the wrong way, if they handled there relationships with land owners, farmers and boat yards in a better way, then there might not be so much of an issue regarding moorings. There has to be more give and less take, bearing in mind that these are for profit operations, that the broads is not natural, and that we can only go forwards in time not backwards.

All a bit odd. No mention of prymnesium or how it emerges. Boats stir silt up but dredging doesn't? In fairness, it's a deeply strange project but that's par for the course.

'And Pete - what company goes around asking other people what to do before making decisions? Why should the BA be any different?' I think that's quite a strange comparison to make. In what way do BA behave the same as a private for profit company? Also from my experience, it's not uncommon at all to quietly consult your competitors when you're a bit stuck or trying to improve how you do something. Usually not the bosses asking each other mind you. But that is entirely beside the point, BA don't listen to anyone, not even their own staff. It's entirely correct that nobody is irreplaceable, however some are more cost effective to replace than others, something BA would understand if they were a business.

The problem with elaboration in regards to a lot of information coming from within BA is that those at the top know exactly which members of staff such information would come from. I have no interest in making any of there staffs lives any more difficult. However I believe this is relatively common knowledge. There has been an agenda for some time to completely do away with crane dredging in favour of 360 excavators, even though it has a lower cost per m3. In regards to suction dredging/mud pumping, it's all about density. Equipment to pump high density mud is (probably) prohibitively expensive for a public operation like BA. A cutter suction machine like a Watermaster that will achieve 80% density is well in excess of a million per unit. Just a little context and the reason why I say 50000m3 isn't a lot. Our last large scale dredge, 4 men, 2 barges, a crane to load and a 5t 360 to unload was comfortably achieving 1000m3 per week. All this with a 2 1/2 mile return trip with the spoil. The equipment and barges are all at least half the size of BAs. The real answer, with the benefit the hindsight, would have been to make BAM remove spoil from the rivers whilst undertaking the flood alleviation works. Unfortunately that ship sailed. Please don't take any of this as BA bashing. I know plenty of people with years of knowledge and practical understanding of the broads that could help BA become more efficient, myself included. Unfortunately, they just don't want to know, probably because we don't have a degree.

Not to further BA bash, but doing piling and dredging for a living gives me some insight. 50000 cube, for an operation on that scale is pathetic. Toll payers are already paying for an efficient dredging solution, however (and this is fact rather than just BA bashing) certain individuals within the authority have decided on a preferred method irrelevant of efficiency.

Subsidence? They only repaired them in the summer? Speaks volumes.

Not a problem at all. I would be more than happy to take a look, if you want to PM me your details. If I can't help, I can certainly point you in the direction of someone who can.

To anyone looking to volunteer some labour, I personally think that's a much more worthy cause than BA. And from what I've seen Lori and the NWDCT lot really crack on.

Difficult one without seeing it with my own eyes although a hole any lower than your front board shouldn't usually be there. I don't know about that, excellent advice, you'll be doing me out of a job. The only thing to really add to it would be if putting in decking, make sure your back supporting uprights are long enough. Quite often see boardwalk that's sunk at the back after dredgings have been put on a plot and it looks terrible. Also, wood waste, chippings, shreddings, all brilliant as backfill underneath a boardwalk. Light, gentle on the piling, easy to move, usually free. There's no point wasting good money on soil you'll never see again.

In all seriousness, and without any spite towards my peers, you would probably be just as competent.