Vaughan

I seem to remember that Blakes office number in Hoveton was Wroxham 2871. My number in Womack was St Benets 323. Have you tried adding a 6 in front of it? Going back to the diamond on the sail, it occurs to me that it would have been difficult to stitch a star, that didn't look like a diamond. When Southgates was owned by Herbert Woods (which were both owned by the Caister Group), they hired their yachts with a red star instead of the Herbert Woods blue star. So this yacht could well have been a Herbert Woods Fine Lady, but hired out from Southgates. I imagine this needlework must have been based on a photo, or maybe a painting, so this would date it as late 60's, in the days just after Jenners closed down.

I think it used to be called "planned obscellence".

Yes it is, but I am assuming the cooker is maintained in good order. The chemical formula for butane is C4 H10. Four parts carbon to 10 parts hydrogen. When mixed with the right amount of air : 2X C4 H10 + 13X O2 will give off 8X CO2 + 10X H2O as exhaust gas. If the primary air is restricted in some way, there will not be enough oxygen to create the full amount of CO2, so for example: 2X C4 H10 + 9X O2 will give off 8X CO + 10 X H2O A smaller restriction will give off some CO2 but also some CO. The indication of "incomplete combustion" is when the flame burns with a yellow tip. If it is a perfect blue flame, it is not giving off CO. A restriction can be something as simple as a dead spider in the burner, at the end of the winter. It can be also be caused by two much pressure in the regulator of the gas bottle, which mixes too much gas with the air. This can only be checked by a Gas Safe fitter. I also remember that one cubic metre of butane burned on a cooker will give off two and a half litres of water into the air in the boat. That is why you get so much condensation, when cooking. I hope you enjoy your supper this evening!

Yes, and yes! I have an old photo of Maidie sailing past the Ames bungalow but I am not sure quite where to find it!

Or it might have been the chalet bungalow just up from Womack dyke, on the Thurne. I am not sure if that is still there now.

There is a simple answer to that. In the Great Recession of the 80s, the new BA were pleased to see the decline of the boatyards as they thought the Broads was too commercial. So as long as you were closing a boatyard, the BA would automatically give you a section 52 agreement to build houses. They were handing them out like get-out-of-jail cards. I admit that I did the same thing, as the only way to sell my business at that time, was to close it down and build houses on the site. This what happened to Horning as well, where Southgates, Banhams and Percivals were all replaced by houses. Clifford Allen's at Coltishall and many others. Neither Horning nor Wroxham can ever call themselves the "Queen of the Broads" any more. And the Broads themselves have little or no decent infrastructure left except for private mooring basins. The BA have a lot of "previous" on this subject.

Me too. Me too.

John Loynes was hiring half deckers on the Wensum at Cow Tower, in about 1860 before he moved to Wroxham, where I think he built yachts. He was one of the founders of Blakes, in 1908.

In fact, the exhaust gases from a propane or butane burner contain only CO2 and water. There is no other pollution whatever. How much there would be, if trying to generate enough power to cook electric on a boat, is another matter!

Had a look at some old catalogues and the pennant could have been Hunters at Womack. Still can't find any yachts with a red diamond on the sail.

The chalet looks like the "bishop's bungalow" at Thurne but I don't think so. There is (or was) another building like that, all on it's own, at the top of the moorings on the south bank above Acle bridge. It was owned by the Ames family, who owned Maidie at the time. It is obviously a steam pump chimney, which could have been near Upton dyke, as replacement for the old wind pump there, on the east bank. The yachts are not racing, as one is towing a dinghy. They are probably hire boats but I don't recognise the pennant, or the emblem on one of the sails.

Oh, no, it hasn't!

I notice that a lot of your posts about the Broads are in strong support of BRAG on Facebook. Has it not occurred to you that Peter Waller is one of the main contributors and driving forces of that organisation? And yet you denigrate his contributions to this forum. Exactly! That is exactly what the management of the Broads used to be, and it worked! I have sometimes suggested here that the management of Blakes, and the Commissioners, was more like a "league of gentlemen". They knew each other well, they worked together in a common cause and they achieved great results. Hardly what we see in front of us on the Broads these days, is it?

Excuse me but that one is "below the belt". He is a very old friend of mine, largely because our fathers were as well. They both played a leading role in the first Broads Study and Plan, by the Nature Conservancy in the 60s, and upon which the present day management of the Broads area is still very largely based. Peter himself is an ex member of the BA and as such, was the only one I know who took the trouble to contribute to this forum in the way that he has. His criticisms of the BA are based on his own (somewhat bitter) inside experience. In other words, he knew what he was talking about. There is no-one on the present forum who can say the same on this subject, including me. Yes, he got a bit passionate at times and was eventually muzzled by moderation. When we look around us at the shenanigans going on right now, we might reflect that he had very good reason!

I suppose one can hardly blame him!

I notice that Rogerbarnes, who dug up this discussion on Thursday, has not yet returned to read the results. Still, we seem to be getting on fairly well without him!

Oh. I thought he was Alladin?

Sennybridge in Wales certainly doesn't support human life! The amazing thing about Dartmoor is that you clamber up the side of a small hill, or tor, and find yourself knee deep in a bog, right on top of it!

Am I reading something in between the lines, there?

This is correct of course, but I was trying to define the very big difference between maintaining the landscape on the Broads, as opposed to all the other, older and more natural areas. I know one or two of the national parks fairly well, as I have tromped all over them in big boots when I was in the Army. The Army actually own a fairly large area of the NPs and look after them pretty well. Apart from all the shell holes, of course! Perhaps the Corps of Royal Engineers should become involved in maintaining parts of Broadland? I am sure they would soon make pretty short work of Potter Heigham bridge!

Come on Batrabill, what are we getting in to here? Let's just step back for a moment. I cannot see anything in what I have posted today that should cause such a reaction from you personally. I took this as a throw-away, joke remark. What else was it supposed to mean? When this question was raised again this morning I tried to post in a way that looked at this "NP" thing from a more broad based perspective. That is to say : what is it, exactly, that we are all trying to preserve? Do we all see it the same way? Does its future mean the same thing to all of us? I then explained my reasons for suggesting how I feel. You have since quoted a long post from 6 years ago which, may I say, largely refers to what people said on Facebook. I am not registered with Facebook : I have never posted a word on it and I certainly never intend to. So your feelings on that, cannot refer to me. All the same, there is a great deal I agree with in the long post that you have just made. But this morning, I tried to give a fresh subject for discussion on what has, very naturally, been discussed at length by all of us who hold the Broads dear to our hearts. So, rather than what you said 6 years ago, what are your views on what I said this morning?

That's just your opinion! It is a very good question and it also applies to the decision, by those who lived, worked and were concerned with the Broads, back in the early 80s, to vote against a flood barrier across the Yarmouth Haven. We could see the point, in principle, of having a surge tide barrier but in no way, could we trust all the various agencies and authorities, not to bugger about with it!

I wonder if you realise how much that reminds me of the committees, societies, charities and even boards of directors that I have been part of in the "old days" where we would attend for a serious discussion of Broads future but someone, towards the end, would always stand up, having contributed nothing to the debate, and say "Mr Chairman, I have sat here and heard nothing but rubbish, from start to finish"! They would then sit down again, without saying anything further. One of the worst proponents of this tactic was Philip Wayre, of the Otter Trust, who had the arrogance to assume that as everyone knew who he was, he was therefore right. If you feel that my carefully considered post of this morning is rubbish, that is fine. This is a forum. But genuine criticism is only valid if you can offer a reasoned alternative. So what is yours?

This is the eternal problem with shower trays : they are below the waterline! Which is why traditional hire boats all have a "shower button" which , when pressed, empties the shower tray by way of an electric pump. The good old Jabsco "Water Puppy" was good for the job! But it will still not sink the boat as the Water Puppy has a vaned impeller which acts, in fact, as a non-return valve.

Oh, the joy of forum discussions! I do hope you agree with the point I was trying to make, all the same?