Vaughan

It seems the "ex contributor" is fighting his corner, on this one. I think more info may follow soon.

I can't resist this : From Blakes catalogue of 1969. Not forgetting the network of around 100 boatyards, Blakes and Hoseasons, all offering free moorings and all the services to go with them. This, however, is not the only problem! I think Broads cruising really started to change in the early 70s when river banks were built up and piled to make flood defences for deep drainage of the meadows. At about the same time pubs (with Horning Ferry in the van) decided they could make a bit over the odds by charging their own customers to moor on their premises. The local farmers and landowners soon caught on, and used these new flood defences (which looked like moorings) to charge boats to moor on what had previously just been a riverbank wild mooring. The BA, to their credit, took on certain staithes and moorings (such as St Benets) and maintained them out of toll money. I don't remember the River Commissioners ever having their own moorings. These were normally provided at Parish Staithes, whose upkeep was heavily subsidised by Blakes. The only paid moorings were at GYYS and Norwich YS. We have now reached the stage where even the BA have caught on to the "fast buck" and started charging as well, which leaves Broads cruising in future as simply "pay up or else!" Another question : why do we need such fancy and expensive made up moorings? Looking at old brochures of the 60s and 70s reminds me that almost all moorings were just earth banks with a footpath through the grass on top of the bank. I include the whole of both sides at Acle; both sides of Thurne Dyke; likewise Ludham Bridge; all of Salhouse Broad and you wouldn't believe what Coltishall common was like, in those days! St Benets was just as popular as nowadays but just an earth bank. Thorpe Green was only half made up, out of old railway sleepers. The rest was just grass. So that is where history has brought us and I think if nothing else, it shows us how much the area has so vitally depended on the hire boat business. How do we reverse this creeping malaise before it is too late? I wonder, more and more, if we ever can.

Call me cynical if you like but I can't help reflecting, that paddle boards and canoes don't need made up moorings.

A gas cooker - in good condition - does not emit CO. There is a big difference between CO2 and CO.

Thank you for that Chris. I am amazed by this report from the Nav Committee and I will try to get my thoughts in some sort of order : Para 1.1. says the Nav Com was "favourable" to the idea. Does that mean they were unanimous? We are not told. Nor are we told whether the three members who are actually directors of boatyard and boat hire companies were allowed into the meeting, or allowed to vote! After all they were summarily excluded from the previous discussions about this year's rise in river tolls. Para 1.2 says that the mooring charge has always been argued by the late Charles Cator, whose family also now charge £12 for the island moorings on the other side of the Broad. This land used to be leased by Peter Mills as a syndicate duck flight, on about 40 acres of otherwise useless marsh. After his death the family gave up the lease on this land, for which the Cator family now happily rake in £12 a night for where the BA report admits "there are no facilities". I find it saddening that the BA in a report, should seek to quote the landowner's evident greed as an excuse for their own actions. In Para 1.2. it says that the Granary Restaurant has taken on extra staff to cope with extra demand. It fails to mention that the Granary has also changed its business model to concentrate on offering luxurious breakfast meals. Presumably so as not to compete with the pub, or with the existing pizza outlet? Apparently this is successful - but be careful not to overstay your "welcome" on the moorings and get "banged" another five Quid while you finish your breakfast! Para 3.1. Here is where "the lines", get blurred! They say the moorings are additional income to the navigation budget but : It also has implications on the allocation of Ranworth costs between National Park (their words not mine) and navigation. Hidden away in this paragraph it says they have received 1627 mooring fees paid in the last 2 months but we don't know whether these are £10 or £5, so no idea of actual income or whether they are likely to meet their projected annual "budget". Para 3.3. The visitor centre has "national park sales" of £15,500 but only has costs of £3000 as the land is already owned by BA. (And maintained by river tolls but they don't mention that). There are, however, staff costs of £55,560 for the visitor centre alone. I thought someone said there were volunteers? If I were trying to run a business like that I would have gone out of business very fast. Perhaps that is why the other visitor centre on Ranworth Broad was a failure and had to be given over to the NWT? So here is the sting in the tail! The report says that as visitor centre (national park) staff are being used to look after the moorings, then income can be apportioned between navigation, and national park budgets. Even though the staff are not looking after the moorings as many witnesses have stated. All they do is come out of the office as soon as you have tied up, and "rattle a collection tin". So where are we now? You have paid your river toll for the use of the navigation and its facilities but when you get to Ranworth, you are also obliged to fork out again, to subsidise the cost of the national park visitor centre. Is this centre even necessary? Perhaps that's another subject. Sorry but I just see this as the casual and underhand extortion of a "captive" audience by devious means, to satisfy political accounting. I think it stinks and want nothing to do it.

I think you are talking here about the effect of hairsprays, etc., on gas detectors, since the propellant for aerosol sprays is actually butane gas. It is perfectly possible that the fumes from the exhaust of a diesel heater have found their way in through the windows. I have often been suspicious that their fumes, on a stern-on mooring, are a lot more pollutant than a diesel engine running but no-one seems to bother about them.

I have a strong feeling that Fred is right about this but it may need historical research. The Malthouse staithe may have been both public and parish : in other words serving not only Ranworth but other villages close by and would have been a large facility, in the days when wherries transported everything to and from the local communities. Coal, marl, farm produce, supplies for the villages, reeds from the two broads and the big marshes to the south of the staithe. The quay may not be the same shape nowadays, but it would have been a big one. A staithe, traditionally, is for the transfer of cargo to and from water and road. Let's consider the size of Barton Turf staithe in the old days : Or the length of St Olaves staithe, with reeds stacked on the quay ready for loading into wherries : These last two photos were taken in 1952. Not long ago, in terms of the rights to moor free of charge at a public staithe!

But you have already paid. That's my point.

Well, time will tell which way is best. One way or another something must be done to stop this, or we all know that next Spring there will be charges for BA moorings all over the Broads. I can't imagine any boat owners are going to like that. It's the old saying : You give them an inch; they'll take a mile.

Except, to use MM's analogy, you wouldn't pay for a restaurant meal twice, even if you were satisfied with it. But at Ranworth you are now demanded payment twice. Once in the river toll (+13%) and twice, on the spot.

This is an extremely telling witness statement, especially as it happened at the height of a very important Bank Holiday weekend. I very much hope that @BroadsAuthority will be reading this post carefully, when their office resumes work tomorrow.

I don't think I described that very well just now, let's try it again : Light the oven on max heat setting, door closed and let it warm up normally for about 4 or 5 minutes. Then open the door (so that you can see the flame) and turn the temp setting right down. If the flame doesn't die down, then the thermostat has got stuck in the same position and isn't doing anything. Obviously, if the oven hasn't got properly hot first, the thermostat won't cut in anyway!

If the cooker is working, although slowly, then it is not a problem with the thermocouple or the gas tap. I would suspect the thermostat. Try lighting the cooker on max heat, with the door open, for about 2 minutes, then turn the temperature to minimum and see if the flame dies down. If it doesn't, that is the problem. Next problem might be finding a new one!

They do indeed! To my simple mind, an inverter is converting 12v DC to 220v AC to supply power to certain appliances, such as a TV. Shore power is converting 220v AC via a charger, to provide 12 DC battery charging. Said batteries, will then provide 220v AC via an inverter, for the TV. If the inverter is now also considered as the charger, this seems to me like the rare Japanese Oozlum Bird. For those who don't know the old rugby song ; it flies around in ever decreasing circles until it dis-appears up its own circuit breaker! One thing I would definitely emphasise : VENTILATION. These ever more complicated voltage converters give off a lot of heat (which is why they are inefficient) and you must install them in an open space near to a hull vent. If you hide them away in a little cupboard, or under the helm seat, they will overheat and burn out. This is the most common cause of failure.

On the north rivers with little or no tidal range, it is 3ft.

I see no comments to this so far, so I shall have a try! For a start I am not sure what a shore power multi battery isolator is, but I can perhaps help with some basics : I agree with having an inverter powered by two separate batteries, especially if they have their own dedicated alternator and you may well be better off to stick to this set up. Use of an inverter usually means quite a high current draw but only for short periods, which is why you need 2 batteries for it. Domestic use is normally less current draw but for longer periods, such as running a fridge overnight. I have googled the Argofet and it seems to be a conventional charge splitter, on the blocking diode principle, which connects the batteries when charging but separates them when the engine is stopped. It does not equalise them, as the diode only allows current to flow in one direction. NOT to be confused with a battery combiner, which is often used in caravans but doesn't have much application in a boat unless you have twin engines. Shore power is a separate matter. Shore power is normally connected to a battery charger and marine ones will have 2 or more outputs. In this case they are doing the charge splitting for you and can be connected to the batteries, usually at the master switches. Shore power will normally have a second circuit of 220v plug points in the boat, for plugging in microwave and TV direct to the shore. The inverter will have its own circuit of plug points, for use when you are not on shore power. You can still use the inverter when on shore power, since the shore power is charging its battery bank. The starter battery is not normally connected to the shore power charger as in theory, it is only supplying circuits which are in use when the engine is running, such as horn, nav lights and wipers. The starter battery should therefore be fully charged at all times, in the same way as a car. Hope this is helpful in terms of the basics!

Thank you very much for being public spirited. Having the boom crutches blow over the side in a strong wind is just one of the many "pleasures" of Broads sailing!

Exactly as it did when I used to sail at Horning Regatta as a boy, back in the early 60s. It is certain that lilies will only grow in healthy water. It was also Jimmy Clabburn who taught me that lilies only grow in 3ft of water. So you can safely tack a White Boat right up to the bank through the lilies, without going aground!

We all complained in the 70s that polluted water was killing all the plant life in the rivers. So now, we have much cleaner and healthier water, after much campaigning and much expense. So sure enough, the weeds are growing in the clear water. Don't forget the reed fringe has also returned, to protect the banks from wash erosion. Perhaps it's the law of inertia : To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

They are not all called Sabrina these days as they are no longer hire boats. If in doubt, ask the River Cruiser Class on their website.

Could possibly relate to a yacht built by G.Smith in the old days but now in private ownership. Fittings like this were always branded and even if the fitting has been scraped down and varnished over the years, they are impossible to remove. Perhaps try the River Cruiser Class, on their website. Could have come from an old Sabrina class yacht.

George Smith and Sons, in Wroxham?

I quite agree with you, me old mate. I am waiting for them to arrange a website, where we can express our opinions with care and consideration and have them discussed in the same spirit. Just as we do already, right here. Until then, I have no intention of entering into the "bear pit" of Facebook.

Would you be handed a piece a paper like this, if you parked your car to go shopping in Sainsbury's?

Surely manipulating is not the same as massaging. Except perhaps in Soho on a Saturday evening. Seems I am not the only one confused.