Vaughan

It is unlikely that a boat would sink by ballasting as modern ones have to have all skin fittings 40cm above the waterline, unless they have an accessible sea cock inside near the skin fitting. Older boats such as Bounty have skin fittings at the waterline but these go straight up to the galley sink or washbasins, so would not take water until the decks were almost awash! All the same, as modern boats are built with very little access to the bilges, it would be impossible to make sure that all water had been pumped out afterwards and was not hanging around in under-floor compartments that you can't get at. I think the best way is Richrdsons' method, of putting big plastic oil drums on deck and filling them with river water from a motor pump.

You say "don't they want them to be protected? This is a fair question and I hope you have found some answers by reading back over this thread, as I have just done this morning. Apart from the legal arguments, I have always had a priority reason why I don't want a national park and I quote from the first page of this thread : The Sandford Principle talks of the conservation of natural beauty. Dartmoor, for instance, is pretty well exactly the same today as it has been for hundreds of millions of years since the last ice age, so it can really be considered as natural. All the maintenance it needs is the local farmers grazing sheep on the uplands or coppicing the woodlands and natural forest for firewood and timber. I suggest that the "national park" function has more to do with controlling the public and providing all the car parks and signage, than actually maintaining the "park" itself. The Broads stands out on the list above, as the only one that is not natural. It is a lowland basin that was artificially drained and re-claimed from the peat bogs hundreds of years ago. Since then, it has had to be maintained by Man, as he has seen fit. So the real question, for me, about preservation and conservation (as per Sandford) is this : At what point in its evolution over the centuries, do you want to "stop the clock" and preserve it? It is not natural beauty, so you can take your choice. Clearly the RSPB as a major landowner, would like it to go back to the 1600s, as a wetland marsh. Others would yearn for the 1800s, in the heyday of the trading wherries. I would rather see the navigations as they were in the 50s, than just what little is left now. The farming landowners of course, would prefer thousands of acres of oilseed rape. I don't see much evidence that the BA can answer this question or have even seriously addressed it, so I don't think that a national park structure would be any help at all.

Admiraly Manual of Seamanship.

I think, to get it noticed, you need to click @BroadsAuthority and I quite agree with you. If relationships between the authority and the hire boatyards have been allowed to deteriorate to this extent, it is very serious indeed.

I gave a "thanks" to your post as you took the trouble to share it for us. The actual letter should have had a "sad". My father was chairman of Blakes for 8 years, in the 50s and 60s and I shudder to think what he, or Jim Brooker the M.D., would have felt if they found they had the need to write a letter like that to the River Commissioners. Is this another example of the authority "working with partners? Lamentable.

I believe Simpsons boatyard in Stalham have a couple of small dayboat/cruisers that they would probably let out for several days. If not, I have found Richardsons in Wroxham to be most accommodating.

Funnily enough, it was only when I "came back to the Broads" in 2017 that I found Surlingham Broad was navigable all over. It was opened to the navigation by Blakes in the early 50s and from then on I had always known it as a buoyed channel across the centre, with a lot more sunken wherries than there are now. So someone must have dredged it all out in the interim. I remember that the broad and the dykes were also only navigable at high tide.

Except that the BA decided for themselves to increase the number of rangers long before the report was published. The report itself didn't actually tell them to do anything. I repeat what I have said in other threads : Since 2020 there has not been a "similar incident in future" and I don't know of anything beforehand either. It was a one-off accident and I cannot see, in my job experience, how an increase in rangers patrolling would have prevented it - or would have any effect whatever in preventing a hypothetical repitition.

I quite agree with you, but perhaps this is a different subject, in that we are talking about the BA's perception that they need more rangers, to make sure that hirers have had a proper introduction to what has always been, an adventure and activity holiday. Half the fun of hiring a Broads cruiser, is learning how to drive it! Please don't let us forget that. It is a bit like "letting the fledglings fly the nest".

Let's be quite clear about this : Opting out of having a trial run is a positive and conscious refusal on the part of the customer. It does not mean that the boatyard has not bothered with them or has not cared whether they can drive the boat. We do not let a quarter of a million Pound's worth of boat go out on hire without a proper instruction unless we know the customer and we are sure of their experience. Contrary to popular belief, we did not come down with the last shower of rain.

I would recommend the VETUS hand anchor winch which can be used with a chain but also has a capstan drum for winching rope. No wiring, no extra batteries and just a handle to swing back and forth. So you can drop the weight free in the normal way and then if you can't get it up again * you can just take two turns on the capstan drum and wind it up. This way you don't need a chain locker, kinks in the chain or mud in the bilges. Just make sure it is strongly bolted to the deck. * Not sure if I am allowed to say that but it might be an appropriate sentiment!

Very interesting letter from the BHBF. In the c.e.o's report it says that members wanted to retain the extra seasonal rangers in the interest of public safety particularly in light of : 1/. The tragic accident in GYYS in 2020. 2/. The increase in paddle boarding. 3/. The increased risk of climate change. I shall ignore 3 as this is now the blanket excuse for making any changes or spending any money. What precisely can seasonal rangers do about the "risk" of climate change?? So we now need more rangers paid by boat river tolls to look after paddlers and canoes, many of whom pay no toll whatever except to their own associations. And what difference would the presence of an extra ranger have made, to the accident in 2020? Reading further into the report at 4:1, it seems they are being used to go around doing a survey to ask hirers whether they have had a trial run or not. It fact it turns out that 10% of hirers said they had not had a run - although they certainly would have had one if they had asked. Considering that a decent boatyard, even these days, can look at around 30% repeat custom from loyal hirers, I would think 10% is perfectly normal. By the way, it seems 59% of hirers had some sort of run and 10% didn't. So what happened to the other 31%? Are they saying they "don't know" whether they had a run or not? Or is that how the BA do their figures?

They could also "farm it out" to Haines, who would build them lovely boats, but at their own profit. On a yard of that size, it is normal to use your own staff, who you need for maintaining the hire fleet, to build new boats, and thus replace the old ones once they get to their "sell by date". Others have said here that a hire boat can last 40 years - but not 50 years. I disagree with that as I think a hire boat is knackered after 20 years. Would you expect Hertz to hire you a 20 year old car? Richardsons have proved me wrong by maintaining and upgrading their boats so well that they have lasted so long and in such good condition. But they can only do that because they have the extensive facilities to do the work on their yard. If they are now to demolish all this in favour of chalets, wellness sheds and outdoor learning centres that is fine and the BA seem to be delighted at the prospect. But they will no longer be able to look after old hire boats and keep them to the standard we have come to expect, if they pull down all the boat sheds. If that is their choice then I wish them well and I hope that they (and the BA) will turn out to be right. But I don't think it is good for what we call "The Broads".

Also interesting that a previous planning permission by the then tenants of the Acle yard, for glamping pods on the ground behind the river bank, with parking and toilets, was turned down flat by the Highways Authority on the grounds of dangerous access onto an A class trunk road with a 60MPH speed limit. Whilst at the same time, it didn't look as though access to the BA's new project, even closer to the hump bridge on the other side, would be an "issue". I see they have moved the new acesss by a few yards but it doesn't look any less hazardous to me. It will all be all right on the day though, as this application includes a National Park visitor centre.

But they can't do that if they have pulled down all the boat sheds. For that matter, they can't build the shiny new ones, either.

Thurne, coming soon? Surely they already have a lovely new phone box. Funny they don't mention Ranworth Staithe and I thought they had failed to renew the lease on the Whitlingham gravel pits. Or is it all just yet more expensive national park signage?

Provence rosé with lobster? At the least a Vin des Sables du Golf du Lion or at best, a Pouilly Fuissé.

There is a great deal of truth in what you suggest and I agree with ChrisB's assessment as well. It is a large site in a strategic area and if it is no longer viable for the purpose that it was dug out of the marsh for in the first place (and I remember it happening) then we have to move with the new "National Park" times. Many other traditional and famous yards have gone the same way since the 60's, such as Jack Powles in Wroxham. And look what happened to Horning, since the demise of Southgates main yard, H.C. Banham, H.T.Percival, Turners, Chumley and Hawke and others. All now in very different use. The trouble with this new era of National Park thinking - which clearly runs right through this plan like a coal seam - is that it is yet another body blow to cruising on the Broads navigations. They used to say the Broads can only be seen and appreciated when you are out on the water, by boat. Very soon at this rate, they will only be best seen in National Park visitor centres, or phone boxes with clockwork bird noises.

As you say, these new moorings will probably be filled by second-hand hire boats. At Richardsons I have counted 242 private mooring spaces on the new plan, including those in the wet shed today. I don't know how many private moorings they have there already but let's say there will be an increase of 100 boats. Where will they come from? It's hard to get exact figures but I think I am safe in saying that a large hire boat ( say over 38ft) pays £1200 more in river toll than a private boat. So, including the 50 new moorings at Acle, my "ball park" figure would be a loss of well over £100,000 a year in river tolls to the BA. That is, of course, if they don't lay up the spare hire fleet on shore while they are being sold and don't pay any toll at all. It would not be the first time - or even the second - that a large chunk of Richardsons' fleet have ended up in the nettles behind the engineer's shop. In that case, 100 boats laid up would be a potential loss to the BA of over £200,000 a year. And where are all these new moorings going to get service? Diesel for instance, or toilet pumpouts? I don't see any planned facilities at either Stalham or Acle. And where can they be hauled out, for winter maintenance? On the Acle moorings I don't think there are even enough spaces for all the boat owners to park their cars. Excuse me but I now begin to understand why the CEO, as a member of the BA nav committee, has not appeared to be making a lot of noise about toll increases. Probably keeping his head down!

Sure, but it doesn't look to me as though this is going to be the major Broads hire fleet any more, in a few short years. So what effect will that have on income to the navigation (river tolls) or to the infrastructure of Broads river cruising? I "see the signs" and I don't like them.

If you are running even a reduced fleet, of 130 boats at an average 6 berths in 3 cabins, that is the logistical equivalent of running a hotel with 400 bedrooms. In addition it is self catering, so facilities must be there to clean and store kitchen utensils. Dirty pots and frying pans will simply be replaced on the day and then cleaned in the stores during the week. Linen may be shopped out but you still need a large amount of storage space to stock it, and sort it into stacks, ready for each boat departure. Cleaners don't just step onto a boat and start cleaning : they have to have a large workshop to store all the materials, as well as an upholstery shop for quick repairs to mattresses and curtains. Servicing engines means workshops. To do the repairs as well as to have a large stores for all the spare parts that are necessary. If something breaks down on a hire boat, there is no excuse for saying "we have ordered the part and it should be delivered next Monday". The part has to be there : on the yard, ready for use. Boat repairs need a lot of materials : wood, paint, varnish, GRP matt and resin, etc., a lot of which is flammable and hazardous. This needs safe storage as per the Factories Act. This also means another separate workshop for the boatbuilders and laminators. The shed that will be left is called "The Ponderosa" because of the nicknames that a lot of the staff had in the old days, (such as "Hoss" and "The Wonder Horse") but is nowhere near the operating basins and was meant for winter maintenance. The reason why Richardsons' hire boats always look so clean and tidy is because they are all hauled out in winter to be repaired and re-painted. If all the facilities I have noted above will now also have to have space in that shed, then there won't be much left for boat maintenance in winter. When I worked for Richardsons back in the mid 70s as assistant yard manager to Gerry Thrower, the main part of my job was to ensure the efficient repair and preparation of the boats on turn-round days, which were Saturday and Thursday. And that was when half the fleet were still wooden boats. I would not like to have that job now, under the new plans for the facilities. I still think we are looking at a long term plan to get out of cruiser hiring.

You're not the only one, Garry!

Well well. My immediate reaction is - how are they going to maintain their hire fleet or service it on turn-round days, if they are pulling down all but one of the boatsheds? I see that there will be moorings for 130 "charter craft" which is well less than half of what the site had originally. So where will all the cleaners be, or the linen store? Or the engineers' shops? As a hire fleet operator, I think I am looking at a long term plan to get out of hiring weekly cruisers. Watch this space. I notice that both plans, for Stalham and Acle include a National Park day visitor centre. No doubt a great help when getting planning permission out of the BA.

Excuse me if I group your three posts into one reply! I have always, on the forum, referred to the re-claimed lowlands in the lower reaches of the Broads as grazing meadows. The whole point here, is that re-claimed wet grassland used for cattle grazing is not badly affected by occasional brackish water flooding. You can get the cattle back on the fields very soon after and the grass will not suffer much. The Norfolk Broads area has traditionally been given over to dairy and beef cattle produce. Ah, but! The farmers began to find they weren't making money out of dairy any more and so they wanted to grow arable crops. But the problem here is that salt water flooding will ruin "arable" land for about 3 to 5 years afterwards. So the farmers deliberately lobbied parliament to have the EA (or whatever name it was, then) to have the river banks built up to protect their fields. As they have largely gone back back now, to dairy cattle rather than arable, especially around the Bure, there should be no reason why the EA cannot make gaps in these flood banks to re-create the traditional grazing meadows, which can flood during surge tides. The Dutch taught us how to do this when they reclaimed the whole area hundreds of years ago. But now we have agencies, authorities, alliances, committees and assorted experts, who are all convinced that they know better.

I have just remembered another factor, which may well be having its effect on the high water in the rivers. Wherever you look in Norfolk these days, they are building yet another vast dormitory housing estate, or out of town retail park. Including what they call the "growth triangle" which will quite soon fill in the whole area between Norwich, Acle and Wroxham. But what does all this building actually mean? Thousands of acres of tarmac or stone flagging, so that rainwater which used to irrigate what used to be farming countryside, now runs off into the drains and into the river system. Recently, all new planning permission in Norfolk was halted, because of this very problem. Unfortunately, it now seems to have been allowed again.