.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
Meantime
-
Posts
4,040 -
Joined
-
Days Won
48
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by Meantime
-
-
1 minute ago, Philosophical said:
Why do the people who have issues not complain... like the boat that collided with the bridge?
I raised awareness with the ranger on duty at the time, but I repeat, my real question is, Does Reedham need a quay ranger?
-
1
-
-
I am not going to say anything that identifies which ranger, but I did also say, and it's in your quotation of me,
"It is not the first time I have noticed issues at Reedham, and with more than one ranger."
The ranger may not have prevented the collision, but it was his indifferent attitude once informed of the issue that quite frankly hacked me off.
-
1
-
-
You need forward motion through the water to get any steerage. If your coming in to moor and manage to slow the boat down enough but find you are still to far out from the quay heading, or the back is being caught by the current, or you are starting to be carried sideways, the only real way to correct this is to apply throttle to regain steerage. Off course any speed gained again is extremely hard to scrub off again if the tide is underneath you.
On the other hand when coming in against the tide you can easily scrub the speed off, have excellent steerage and manage to achieve everything at a much slower and importantly safer speed. At places like the Berney I have been able to stop in the water and use the rudder to take me sideways to the bank.
Like MM, when helming solo I prefer to moor port side, so on the South side am very aware of the tide times and where I intend to moor to ensure the tide flowing in the right direction for a port mooring. One of the reasons it is so annoying that Burgh Castle is closed. At any state of tide you could get a safe port side mooring at either Berney, or Burgh Castle. The direction of the tide dictated which one.
-
1
-
-
Russell Marine South Walsham diesel £1.05 per litre. Pumpout £10 for a single. Have heard that Boulters are holding their price for diesel for another week, then £1.05 per litre. Think it is currently 99p, or £1 not sure which.
-
I purposely didn't provide a date for my trip and observation last week, in exactly the same way as I didn't describe the ranger. My concern is more as a toll payer why is there a quay ranger, and perhaps more importantly do we need one?
I have already covered off the safety issue. The Blessed Authority's mooring prices for Yarmouth pay NO attention to safety otherwise they would be more flexible. There are also other free BA moorings that are equally as tidal and do not have rangers in attendance. If one is needed at Reedham on the basis of safety then one is needed at these other moorings. If one is needed at Reedham on the basis of safety then he should leave the hut a little more often.
It is not the first time I have noticed issues at Reedham, and with more than one ranger.
I witnessed a hire boat a couple of years ago collide with the support for Reedham bridge so hard that a passenger on the bow who was about to fend the boat off got catapulted onto the wooden surround. I was sitting at the pub and witnessed this and looked towards the hut and saw no response. I walked over to the hut and the ranger had his feet up looking the other way. I told him about the incident and he told me he was at lunch and that the bridge was outside of his remit!!!! I did suggest that even so, I thought he might still have informed Broads control, which he reluctantly agreed to do!!!!! He might have been at lunch, but even so a dangerous situation still warranted more of a response than that.
-
1
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, Bound2Please said:
Only if you arrived at low tide
Which as a hirer if you follow the advice in the skippers manual, and the BA's advice in Broadcaster, you should do!!!!
-
I wonder how many boats leave Yarmouth on an ebbing tide without enough clearance to pass under the bridge and then proceed to turn before the bridge, due to the fact that the overnight mooring fee only lasts until 10am. The Blessed Authority is meant to be concerned about safety, then the simple thing to do is allow 13hrs from when you arrive in Yarmouth which would take you through to the following low tide, rather than the blanket daytime or overnight mooring periods. The rangers at Yarmouth do a good job, but what may work in Norwich where the tide is less of an issue, is positively unsafe when applied in Yarmouth, in terms of the mooring periods you pay for.
-
Seems to me to be a waste of toll payers money, unless it is genuinely for safety, but if it is, then he needs to get out of the hut more and provide some value for money. Not the first time I have noticed this at Reedham, hence forewarning the friend I was with, who was amazed at just how little the ranger did. Anyone can have an off day, but this ranger has more off days than helpful ones!!
-
I think if you own a boat, or have hired a boat, or been on The Broads enough you will know the tell tale signs.
The number after the dash that tells you how many the boat is licensed for.
The colour scheme of yards you recognise.
The agency or hire yard logo on the bow.
You don't have to be an anorak to know, but most of us do just know.
Last week I was travelling South to North on Friday to grab a spot to watch the forthcoming three rivers race. Tides and travel times dictated that we couldn't cross on the low and so we timed our crossing as I have done a few times before to go across Breydon against the last of the flood. I have done this a few times and whilst I wouldn't recommend it to hirers, it does have certain advantages. If you time it right and turn up the Bure with the last of the fading flood, you get a fairly easy ride up the Bure and can stay ahead of the turning tide. You also get a much higher view over the surrounding countryside on the lower Bure rather than just staring at endless reeds. Off course you need to be able to pass the low bridges at Yarmouth and if timed incorrectly you may have to wait for the tide to turn and fall which in turn means you do push the ebb all the way up the Bure.
Just as we are approaching Breydon Water I see The Spirit of Breydon tied up at the NRA mooring. After a little while on of the two rangers on board appears at the back of the boat complete with loud hailer and announces that they are The Broads Authority and could I proceed over to them?
So I head over and the conversation is as follows;
BA "Are you aware that there are some low bridges ahead"
Me "yes and I need 6ft3in clearance" The gauge at The Berney showed 7ft.
BA "Are you sure you don't need 7ft3in clearance?"
Me "I need 6ft3in clearance with the windscreen folded down"
BA "ok, no problem then"
I then set off and after a few seconds he calls out again, "Are you a private boat?" I was that speechless I almost couldn't reply!!!!!!!
For the record my boat is ex hire, but has been in my ownership for 14 years. It has never had a dash number after the reg and all hire yard decals and agency logos have been long removed.
I would have known it wasn't a hire boat, and it's not my job to know. The BA have super doper high powered binoculars on board S.O.B and should have been able to read my reg before calling me over. They should have known it was a private boat and assumed I might know how to read a bridge height gauge. I believe they also have access to a database that tells them whether the boat is tolled or not. I would assume the same database would tell them the owner details as well?
-
1
-
-
Can anybody answer me why Reedham has a quay ranger. I stopped there last week and spent a couple of hours outside the Lord Nelson and watched as a number of boats came in and had trouble mooring. I also watched as a few boats were having issues leaving, either leaving with the tide and not reversing off or struggling to get the ropes off in time. I pointed out to my mate that the particular ranger who was on duty was unlikely to be offering much assistance and during our stay I didn't see him help one boat!!!!
This makes me angry because I was under the impression that the ranger is based at Reedham as a safety precaution. Now I understand he cannot be at both ends of the quay at the same time, but he could at least attempt to help some of the people.
So why exactly does Reedham need a ranger? The only other locations that do have rangers are Norwich and Yarmouth, both where a charge is levied for mooring. Norwich is a fairly still mooring, so I assume the ranger is based there to collect the mooring fees and operate the pumpout. Yarmouth on the other hand has a high tidal flow, and big rise and fall, so on pure safety grounds it probably warrants a ranger or two being based there. Reedham on the other hand is a free mooring and there are other free BA moorings with as strong a tidal flow that do not have BA rangers. The Berney Arms, Burgh Castle (now closed) Polkeys Mill, so why Reedham?
I'm sure the reply will still be on the grounds of safety. Well consider the pricing policy of the mooring fees at Yarmouth and tell me how that promotes safety? Leave by 10am at what ever the current state of tide happens to be, or pay another fee for the daytime period!! Leave with the tide under you pushing you towards a bridge you may not have clearance to go under, or pay another fee!! If this authority was truly concerned about safety it would put an active ranger at Reedham, and would revise the charging policy at Yarmouth to ensure that the period you pay for is valid until the next low tide AFTER the period you have paid for. If low water was at 1pm, then in my book on the grounds of safety, the overnight mooring fee should last until the 1pm low water, not 10am as it does currently. All boats should be encouraged to depart Yarmouth at the appropriate time for low or slack water, rather than leave early or be fleeced for an extended mooring fee.
-
Just as a quick straw poll, how many people on here reckon they could identify whether any boats they see on the river are private, or hire boats?
-
1 hour ago, BroadAmbition said:
Hmmmm, crew still slumbering, looks like a solo mooring when we arrive at Acle then.
Griff
Fenders down and a hard nudge against the quay heading should dislodge them
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Bound2Please said:
Having just read this from start to finish after a nice long weekend in Guernsey, my view as a MEMBER are its all about one thing. I dont like it, if I was some one pondering joining NBN to find out about the broads, I would be put off joining this forum having read this from begining to here.
Please if anyone else feels like starting a similar thread, think, think, think and then think again, if you dont agree just walk.
I feel this should be locked who agrees?
Probably a good idea to end it sooner than let the inevitable happen. Think that's the why its going to go!!!
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, grendel said:
This is something that we might be considering adding to the TOS.
If that gets added to the TOS, then that's it I'm leaving
-
1
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, CambridgeCabby said:
Font size may indicate such , but is not grammatically correct .
A full stop in the correct place is.
Which makes all the mooring sign across the broads wrong then?
For instance,
North Cove Broads Authority Free Moorings Maximum stay 24 hours No return within 24 hours No fishing Danger: Do not swim from these moorings
I'm sure we all manage to read those without confusion? or maybe not! Perhaps that is why some overstay the 24hrs because of the lack of punctuation
-
9 minutes ago, CambridgeCabby said:
Just goes to highlight the need for correct punctuation use when writing anything , a simple addition of a full stop would have made the sign 100% clear with no ambiguity .
Although the two different font sizes should also indicate that they are two separate sentences.
-
34 minutes ago, marshman said:
As Malanka quite rightly says, trespass is a civil matter and generally there is not a lot the landowner can do, apart from ask you to leave.
These large estates in Norfolk love their signage but at the same time deny public access - Ranworth is the same!! Time all National Parks had a right to roam!!!!!
I guess you have to take each case on its merits. Looking at this particular example then they have worked to provide access to the mill from the Somerleyton mooring and a permissive path across the estate from the Somerleyton mooring to the mill and back up to the road forming quite a nice circular walk. So there has been some give and take. For whatever reason they don't want to permit public access beyond the mooring at Herringfleet which is leased to The BA.
So people could be bloody minded and yes it is a civil matter of trespass, but if the estate want to be bloody minded in return then they can end the lease, or not renew it when it runs out. So respect the fact that there has been some give and take, and respect the fact that if you really want to access the village you can from Somerleyton mooring. That's my opinion anyway.
And yes I will bite, I agree that all National Parks should have a right to roam, but how does that help this situation? The Broads are not a National Park, but a marketing brand.
-
12 minutes ago, TheQ said:
That sign sort of contradicts itself,
PRIVATE LAND NO ACCESS
and separately
Access to village from Somerleyton Moorings...
You can't read it as one sentance as it makes no sense.
Private land no access access to village from Somerleyton Moorings...
Bearing in mind that the sign is at Herringfleet, then I think it's quite clear what it means. If you want to access the village move on to Somerleyton mooring. The land beyond the mooring at Herringfleet is private with no access.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Vaughan said:
In the conclusion they made it clear that where highways, by road or water, converged there was a right of transference between the two which cannot be taken away simply because there have been changes in ownership over the years.
In the case of Thorpe Green I notice they say that ownership cannot be proved but that it was quite obviously common land, as part of the road and they clearly define it as a public staithe. No "probably" or "possibly" in this case. I wonder if Roger Wood has read the report?
I think that maybe the BA haven't announced it yet as it simply lists the existing situation as far as can be known by their research, but it does not make any recommendations.
If a public staithe and the right of transference exists, how does this relate to the right to moor for an extended time? By this I mean, is anyone allowed to pass byelaws restricting the right to moor for say no longer than 24hrs? and the no return within 24hrs rule? or does the right to moor only exist for as long as someone is loading or unloading? In which case does this mean that no one should leave a boat of any sort at a public staithe?
I wonder how this affects the BA decision to install bollards at Potter Heigham staithe to restrict vehicle access. Again thinking about Potter work boats are often left unattended for a period.
-
Similar size boat and I have used the ropes to swing either the stern or bow out by reversing against the stern rope, or going forward against a bow rope. Both work well. Make sure you use a good post and not rings in case the rope snags as its being pulled through.
One word of advice when using the bow rope to push the stern out and reversing off is to make sure you go far enough across the river before attempting to go forward again. A tide coming from behind can help the stern out and you can end up almost sideways across the river. By the time you have gained forward momentum and some steerage you can almost be back alongside again, and I have seen people panic and the revs go up and then they are heading fast for the stern of the boat in front, often with the front just missing the boat in front, but not realising that the side or stern quarter is still on a collision course for the boat in front. I have been known to use this method to reverse off and if the tide takes me sideways enough, back off all the way across the river and then with the steering wheel hard to port turn against the tide and head off in the opposite direction to what you intended and find a wide enough spot to then turn around again.
-
10 minutes ago, Vaughan said:
Let's put it another way. When a member who has become known for his interesting and well intended contributions feels uncomfortable with forum reactions to the extent of deciding to leave, I would not think it is something to make light of.
It's probably worth reminding ourselves that it was only ONE person who complained about John's post, and in his own words, he isn't even worried that someone complained. His issue is that admin upheld the complaint and gave him a warning. Now I don't know what sparked the original complaint, haven't seen the original post and to be honest am not that interested, but do feel that the issue is really between John and admin, not the rest of the forum. He has already made it clear he is not leaving because of members reactions, or complaint, but the handling off. That should surely be private?
-
2
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:
To all those who did not immediately realise that the "good riddance" post was a joke, and please think carefully before answering this.
Do any of you think, believe or even suspect, that ANY established member of this forum would actually make a post like that and mean it?
I guess to expand upon that a bit more,
Do any of you think, believe or even suspect, that any of the mods would have left the comment without taking action, unless they'd seen it for what it was, a joke?
-
3
-
-
5 minutes ago, vanessan said:
Ricardo is absolutely spot on, the signs do say ‘no access’ and I believe the moorings are actually fenced off now. I think, from memory, the signs say something about using the Somerleyton moorings for access to the village.
I'm fairly certain the signs say "no access to Somerleyton village from the moorings" For access use Somerleyton mooring. On the basis there is permissive access from the mill to the main road and therefore the village, that to me would indicate there is no permissive access from the mooring to the mill. The ends of the mooring are indeed fenced off, and more telling, there is no stile!!
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:
Thank you, hugely interesting, blowed if I could find it before!
Although it says final final draft, it is in a folder entitled 2016! Be interesting to see the published report that appears after the BA's discussion on the 25th April with Professor Tom Williamson. Have a saved copy just for reference.
Why Does Reedham Have A Quay Ranger?
in Broads Chat
Posted
I suggest you reread my post again. At no point did I say it was the responsibility of the Ranger. I actually said that I went to the hut to report what I'd seen and saw him with his feet up and looking the other way. That is a full admission that he may not even have seen the event. When I appraised him of what I had seen it was his reply that hacked me off. I'm at lunch and the bridge is not my jurisdiction. There was still a person stranded on the bridge support at that time. I don't care if it was his bloody lunch or not. Common sense says as a matter of safety he should show an interest and at least inform Broads control in case a launch was in the area. The ranger on that particular day was as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.