Vaughan

Could this be translated from American into English, please?

This is what was always known as the Iron Bridge and the photo is looking from the main part of G.Y.Y.S. upstream on the Bure. This bridge fed the M&GN railway from Yarmouth Beach Station southwards over the Breydon swing bridge, where it joined the line from Yarmouth Southtown Station and went on to Beccles, Lowestoft and then Ipswich.

Phew, I am glad about that, as the area has changed greatly since then. Chrisdobson's photo would have been taken from the old Vauxhall railway bridge and the coal wharf in those days was a railway yard, fed by "kick back" sidings from the North Quay and Fishwharf, in Yarmouth Haven. Nowadays, you would not recognise the Coal Wharf as it has been developed, and you certainly could not moor there to lower the mast any more! In 1954 the Breydon swing bridge would still be there, in more or less the same place as the present Breydon bascule road bridge, although it had been closed to rail traffic the previous year, in 1953.

On the right is one of Percival's "Peter Pan" class. Very popular little boats in those days. I seem to remember they had the engine up in the bows. The white house on the front at Acle Bridge was the restaurant in those days and a very good one it was. The main building of the pub was just for drinking in! Another converted lifeboat moored in the cut.

My guess would be the old "coal wharf", where wherries used to lower their masts at the mouth of the Bure, where it joins Breydon. Behind the houses at left would be the Haven Bridge and off the photo to the right would be the infamous "yellow post". I remember how a lot of private boats in those days were converted from old ships' lifeboats. There are two in this photo.

Lets just hold on a minute! This is a fascinating discussion about a situation which is obviously unclear but which clearly concerns us all. If Meantime and others have taken the trouble to research the legalities as far as they are able, I am grateful to them. If they are confused and are still asking questions, that doesn't surprise me! Paladin's experience of the law in all its convoluted forms is also extremely valuable to us and I am most grateful to you as well. In my Broads experience, as a layman, I think we should not confuse 24 hour moorings with the ancient rights to moor on a public or village staithe. These rights also concern the right of navigation to that staithe, which is why Blakes took out the lease on Malthouse Broad back in the early 50s, to stop the landowner from simply keeping it closed to navigation, as it had been during the War. The BA naturally do not want boats "squatting" on their public moorings and so have imposed a 24 hour limit. That is fully understandable, even though they have made no effort to accommodate residential boat owners by any other means. When they say that the mooring is free to parishioners this means to me that they have realised that they have to accept the ancient right to use the staithe for the loading and unloading of cargo. Blakes took out the lease of the Broad in order to keep it open to navigation and mooring was always free on the Maltsters quay - part of which is the staithe. They passed it to the BA in the honest belief that it would be maintained in the same way. I wonder what opinion Paladin can offer us, between the "letter" of the law, and the "spirit" of the law?

That is a fine comment coming from a wherryman, who knows that anything from a paddle board up to a large hire boat, will simply bounce off the sides of the Albion! There will be an awful lot more venting of spleens next time, if someone is killed or injured on an overcrowded river. As you say, this time nothing happened, so we were lucky. In the assessment of public safety, for all concerned, "lucky" is just nowhere near good enough.

The obsession is with the BA in the person of the CEO, not with me. I come from the days when the Broads were managed by those who really knew them, and understood them.

Very interesting!

Which I just see as a perfect demonstration of what they really see as the future of the Broads "National Park". To allow an event such as this to take place in this area at this time of year is nothing but dangerously irresponsible. I said this on another thread on Thursday and I still stand by it now. Yes, it all went well but in my view, as a hire fleet manager, we were all very lucky. Perhaps my risk assessment of this event would be rather different. I can imagine a 45 ft centre cockpit hire boat, in the rain with the canopy closed, coming round one of those sharp, blind, narrow bends in the trees around Irstead, and driving straight over a paddle board or canoe without even seeing it or being able to avoid it. I have offered an alternative route, which doesn't even have to start at Coltishall : it can easily begin in the old Porter and Haylett (ex Broads Tours) basin above the bridge in Wroxham and go up the Bure from there. Very little other traffic and above all, no hire boats either returning to or leaving a boatyard base. But I fear the BA are looking at this through a different set of "eyes" more related to their dreams of a national park. I have often said that paddle boarding doesn't need river dredging ; nor does it need made up moorings. Just a bit of car park space with some public toilets. Just like a national park. But to the BA they see this as ticking their boxes by "opening up the Broads to a wider public". Watch this space folks - this is the future of the Broads, if we are not careful. But I suppose in my scenario above, even if the hire boat were within the speed limit on the right side of the river, it would still end up as "the boatyard's fault".

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Having been a special constable in Ludham for 7 years and thus been advised by phone of any incident reported in the area and having set off to deal with it in whatever vessel I had available : either the boatyard launch or one of my hire boats, I think it may be you who is missing the point. Accidents can happen miles from anywhere on the Broads. In "my day" the boatyards used to deal with it as often as the River Commissioners' launches. Nowadays we can no longer rely on the boatyards - nor the "village policeman" - so a volunteer service such as Hemsby has taken over a vital - but not always obvious - role in getting to the scene where others cannot penetrate.

But would they arrive, in a motor ambulance, equipped to deal with an emergency which may have happened a mile or two from the nearest road access? In which case they would be available to transport the ambulance paramedics to the scene of the accident. Something I have done more than once in a boatyard towboat, because it was there and readily available.

The EDP reports this morning that the Hemsby rescue boat was delayed in heavy traffic when attending an incident at Acle Bridge yesterday without the use of blue lights. At least it seems they have decided to continue to attend incidents, rather than withdrawing their service, which they had suggested a few days ago.

Otherwise known on the canals and other rivers as "portage", where a suitable slip and path is provided for carrying canoes, rowing skiffs and small boats past locks and weirs. Exactly that facility has been provided at Coltishall lock and Horstead mill : In the second photo the portage slip can be seen to the left of the lock. A decent facility obviously installed at some expense, for a good purpose. What a pity the organisers didn't have the consideration to start their rally on Coltishall Common and then go as far as they like up the upper Bure, which is a lovely river that they would have all to themselves apart from the otters. If I were a canoeist (which I used to be) I would enjoy that a great deal more than the Ant at Ludham Bridge!

No, but it is for all to "boat" in safety and consideration. If all these are experienced and trained, we can be sure they will come with an entourage of "officials" who will probably be the ones causing the real trouble if previous events are anything to go by. Let us not forget that water-skiing is also an activity allowed on the Broads navigation. But it has its appointed places and that is not all the way down the Ant on a summer Saturday!

I remember the infamous "wild swim" that took place on the Waveney a little while ago, where the river was effectively closed to other navigation, not by the BA or the Police but by the organisers, in hired day launches and hi-vis jackets, assuming the "authority" to force other traffic into the bank. The BA allowed this to happen while their own rangers sat there and watched. Is this what will happen at Ludham bridge, on a summer Saturday?

I have been reading the last few pages carefully and very much thank Meantime, Rightsaidfred and others for taking the trouble to research and provide so much detail of the legalities. All the same I think Floydraser's remark above is what it is really all about. The BA appear incapable of understanding the resentment and bad feeling that they have been creating by this and other policies over the last few years, to the extent that most of us, by the sound of it, no longer have faith in them as an authority. They try to ram a national park down our throats, for what can ONLY be political reasons ; they contravene their own planning regulations in order to come up with wild schemes for a visitor centre that no-one else wants ; they impose yearly increases in river tolls, which they are unable to justify by any kind of increased performance ; they casually fire their own members as soon as someone tries to offer "Broad-based" opinion ; and now they impose a mooring charge which they MUST realise will have a seriously bad effect on boating tourism in future. And now we have this latest idea of a "Paddle Skedaddle" rally along the most congested areas of the waterway, in what is now high season, which I just see as a perfect demonstration of what they really see as the future of the Broads "National Park". To allow such an event as this to take place on this part of the Navigation at this time of year is nothing but dangerously irresponsible. We were shown a link to the minutes of their latest authority meeting. Have you read it, with their list of "progress" with projects? It is just a load of "Yuppie - gabble"! They are not achieving, or doing anything - they are just "working with partners" to accumulate ever more statistics and figures. Sounds to me more like serious "mission creep". These are the things which need "reforming" before it is too late.

It was a cattle swim, of which there were many in the old days. The name can still be seen on the map further downstream, at Mautby Swim and Runham Swim. The so called "horse water" in Thorpe was also a cattle swim which, before the railway was built, connected the village of Thorpe on the north bank, to the Crown Point meadows on the south bank.

It would have been a him, as the booming is their mating call. If he was calling all night, he obviously didn't have much luck!

Hello Rory and welcome to the forum. I have a suspicion who the "last mechanic" may have been as he also disappeared halfway through a job on our boat, even leaving some of his tools on board. In which case I can recommend Daniel Austrin, who has taken over most of his business. He is very thorough and his prices are most competitive. 07781 631694. The glow plugs are negative returned through the engine block, so the positive wire goes across all of them and thus connects them in parallel. The start key is wired to the dashboard from the "battery side" terminal of the starter solenoid and the plugs are wired direct from the "heat" terminal on the key. There is a draw of about 25amps all the same, so you would be wise to install a relay somewhere near the engine, to reduce any resistance in the wiring.

The protest being, that you have already paid for the maintenance of the mooring through your river toll.

Excellent information, Meantime and thank you for taking the trouble with a complex explanation. I also thoroughly agree with your comparison between the BA and cowboy carpark sharks. I too remember when the public were fined £100 for not realising that they had overstayed their "welcome" at the Whitlingham gravel pits. I think there is one important difference here, though: You are talking of a parking charge notice, but the BA are talking of their existing MCN, which is not a mooring charge but a mooring contravention. In other words mooring where it is not allowed or an obstruction. I don't see how they can apply that principle to the staithe at Ranworth.

Surely an MCN is served on boats which are moored illegally in places where mooring is forbidden, or where the boat is causing an obstruction to the navigation. I can't see how this would apply to a purpose maintained quay heading, part of which is a public staithe, where mooring is invited by the Authority and where its upkeep is maintained by river tolls. I get the impression they are trying to make their own interpretation of an MCN as they have not found any other way of enforcing their surcharge.

It was fitted when they were still in France. Difference being, In France you can use it but on the Broads there are nowhere near enough shore power points so it cannot be relied on. It's that ever-recurring word again : infrastructure.