JennyMorgan

SOB was built as a tough, well proven commercial workboat by a reputable boat builder with a national reputation to uphold. Standard engine installation is a Nanni, a well proven engine with a worldwide reputation to uphold. Like 'dnks' I find it hard to accept that it is just a humble spare parts issue. I believe that I am right in suggesting that reputable manufacturers guarantee spare part availability for twenty years. I don't know the facts, do any of us, but in this case things just don't add up. If she really was so necessary six years ago then why is she languishing at her moorings now? The forthcoming bank holiday will be the third that she's missed this year. Perhaps there will be a statement in the forthcoming Broads Briefing.

Sorry, but I can not agree. It is just a request, as you say, and, if we think it unwarranted, which it is, then we have the right to say 'no' or at least to question it. Part of the problem is that the Authority really does appear to have very little real understanding of what it purports to have authority over. In this case the Authority is asking for standardisation in order to make the job easier for the increasing number of Rangers that are themselves not in any way boat minded. Why? What is so hard in asking a Ranger to scan a passing boat, one that is doing four to six miles an hours? Boats are our precious possessions, we don't like being told what to do with them. I say 'told' because what should be a request has become an unwarranted command. On its own perhaps just a storm in a teacup but it's not on its own. Back to the old chestnut, we are told that it's a national park when it isn't for example. The Authority should stick to the requirements of the Broads Act, plain and simple. The Authority hasn't managed that yet, it doesn't need to start writing new 'rules'.

No, it's not 1966, more's the pity! Anyway, that aside . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Paladin, the wider Broads community has grown to rely on your in depth observations, please don't think that any of us are ungrateful. I don't doubt that on the surface protocol has been followed to a 't' but perhaps the wrong questions were asked, or at least asked by the wrong people. I don't think that I am wrong to ask but who at the Authority was suitably qualified to take the SOB project forward, to ask the right questions? Questions such what is the expected life of the engine? What should we, the Authority, reasonably do to ensure reliability?

Not impossible but I would be surprised. If the engines are playing up, and she has spent increasingly long periods moored up at the yard, thus I do wonder if she might be for sale pending a reliable solution. I doubt that there is any wishful thinking involved.

She came into service six years ago although she obviously older than that. She was a cancelled order so she could be seven or more years old so it wouldn't be impossible that the engine is a ten year old model. All in all a bit of a puzzle but it does appear to add up to her not being such a good deal after all.

I have heard that that she's for sale from two reliable sources, one of whom is in the trade & both people are trustworthy, not to say that they mightn't be wrong. I too have searched for an advert and can not find it but I suspect that she'll be advertised in rather more specialised publications than I have access to. Recent photographs of her show that Broads Authority branding has all been removed from her. She was bought from an impeccable source & I suspect that the whole saga is an embarrassment to them. In the meantime her engine problems are in the public arena. Whilst a Ranger told me before Christmas that the Authority was waiting for spares, more than six months ago, I find it surprising that spares are not readily available for what is a relatively modern engine. The delay can hardly be good for the manufacturer's reputation. Perhaps she's for sale but not being advertised until she's problem free. Wonder what it would cost to re-engine her?

Apparently the Spirit of Breydon is up for sale, offers in the region of 80K! A very expensive mistake or, as some might suggest, vanity project.

Long live pomposity and dogma!! Good tale though.

And Barton.

I suspect that Norfolk County Council has a part to play in this one. It strikes me that when the Broads Act was drawn up that no consideration was given to such a situation as we now find ourselves. As for JP I have no doubt that he will choose whichever clause in the Act best suits his agenda. Got to say that I don't see this as being quite as black and white as James has suggested but then I do tend to be the eternal optimist. As a matter of principle I concur with Paladin's conclusion on this one but regretfully we are seemingly not dealing with people of principle.

Amidships is obviously good enough for the Grey Funnel Line so why not for the Authority? Probably there because it is considered the most prominent position on the hull.

Satire, maybe, but the underlying facts are there. As I suspect most of you know so for those who don't our local authorities are entitled to have their representatives on the Broads Authority, Haydn Thirtle being one of them. Haydn has proven himself a remarkably supportive & compliant fan of the Chief Executive. When Dr Packman submitted his response to the present NP & members thereof review he sought to rid the Authority of these local representatives and also to extend the BA's area of influence, effectively a land grab from neighbouring authorities. It appears that Thirtle's boss, so to speak, is of the opinion that Thirtle should have made a stand on behalf of at least Norfolk County Council. Now comes the thorny bit, JP is intent, so it appears, on Thirtle remaining as chairman, at least until the new intake of carefully selected members to the Authority are in place. What JP doesn't want is a chairman with a mind of his own just at this inconvenient moment in time. Effectively JP doesn't want to lose the control that he has tirelessly worked at to achieve.

My thoughts exactly.

On its own perhaps it's just a fairly minor storm in a teacup which with a bit of common sense could easily have been sorted. However, consider it with all the other minor and not so minor episodes then perhaps it does have legs so to speak. It is indicative of an unhealthy, unwelcome ethos within Yare House, the void is growing, and it's through no fault of ours!

Her mast is colour coded!

http://www.broadsnationalpike.com/2019/05/lame-turtle-staying-to-finish-job.html?fbclid=IwAR1S-un10d_zYNs05WrcwuGUeAQhlIHk87rEHQgaK68DrF42yjf9Nnvnoeo

The numbers on the BA's SOB are arguably not 'near' the bow!

It also says that the bow numbers can be within two metres of the stem. Griff, are BA's numbers on the cabin side that far back?

Pathetic and pedantic. If I were the owner then I would play their game and put the numbers on the bow right against the stem.

There is a certain logic in having the stern numbers on the cabin, namely that when moored stern-on the number will be more visible, especially from the shore. In the case of my Drascombe I have a raked transom and I'm more than happy for the numbers being there, it makes it harder for them to be seen! I have a trail board above the transom, ideal and highly visible, but that is not where the guidelines tell me to locate them.

This is all just so unnecessary. As I read the guidance it says 'near the bow', whether that be on the hull or the cabin side. Near, well, how near is near? Surely Rangers are allowed to use a degree of common sense? This appears to be an illogical, unwarranted action on behalf of the Authority, perhaps by an inexperienced Ranger, a simple phone call might sort it. Regretfully it doesn't put the Authority in a good light, nothing new in that! Being bloody minded makes few friends.

That could equally be said of some of the Rangers & Department Heads if they insist on registration numbers being moved from where they have been for fifty years or more!

The Authority would do well to police those blasted lights.

Eyes can be useful! 😉