marshman

I am sure that if you ask the BA they will tell you exactly the type of tests that are being carried out to ensure any change in the quality of the water is picked up at an early stage. I suspect however that no one really knows what actually causes these outbreaks - in the past there has always been a lot of supposition but the very least you can do is to carry out checks to ensure the dredging does not cause a significant change in the water quality. If it does at least it will be picked up and should be acted on accordingly - not sure what else you can do though except don't dredge and that in reality is not an option

Yep - Goodchild won the contract to dredge the southern bit of Heigham Sound. The bit done last year was from Deep Go Dyke down to Duck Broad and that was done by a contractor from Burton on Trent but this year Goodchild are doing the bit from there southwards - some of the spoil will go to recreate the island between Duck Broad and the channel and the rest will be pumped down into the soak dykes surrounding the marsh behind the Eel Set which the NWT are working on and raising the water level. It really is questionable whether the outbreak had anything to do with earlier dredging - certainly there was no sign of one this year after the dredging overwinter but I do know that the water in the area is being monitored on a regular basis to see if there are any changes which have occurred in the water quality. Usual question - dredge and contribute to the navigation remaining open or give in to the fishermen and close it to boats!! I know what I would prefer!!!!!

I too have noticed the trend to steer with the bowthruster, prevalent amongst some private owners too. Not sure why they cannot spot the rudder works better but it takes all sorts....! Plenty of room on the S Rivers to just go past them and leave them to their silly games...!

Lets just take the Quayside Assistant away then - i have no issue but the hirers may prefer he stays to help them. Strange though isn't it? You all pay to park your car in a carpark, having already paid for it through your Council Tax yet somehow it seems different!!

There are indeed many limitations of the Ludham Field Base and as has been said there are practical issues on turning it over to a traditional Broads boat yard type operation. Having said that I can think of some uses for associated business projects although traffic restrictions for the lane won't help any prospective users. My guess is that the prospective lease costs are just too high for the type of business that can in all probability use it. The actual workshop facilities are fine but the basin is very small and it has no slipway, just a manual hoist. In all probability it is in reality best suited to the current occupiers and if money was not so tight, they would probably keep it. The central location is well suited to much of BA,s operations and they may indeed be forced to retain it if it cannot be successfully let I suspect. Currently many of the staff spend a lot of time moving around from their new Thorpe Depot which is hardly close to a lot of their operational area.

Just for your info ,not only did they look at other new boats they looked at buying secondhand ones and adapting them. Given that they selected the type of boat, would they be able to go out to tender - presumably only Goodchilds will have the mould? I cannot remember the other boat they looked at closely but I guess there was more than one in the frame. The existing boats are getting pretty long in the tooth and do lack a few creature comforts - such as toilets!!! Cannot really blame them for wanting one on board i suppose!!

I think someone spoke too soon - the latest forecast does not look like spring in particular!!

Sadly Strow is right (again!) and the old NW & D canal suffered badly from a lack of water - even the Aylsham navigation was never flush (!) with it, the common factor being lack of maintenance in the upper reaches to enable water to actually reach the various extensions. In times of high rainfall perhaps it was not too bad but even this spring there was virtually no water going through the old mill at Horstead. Perhaps I am being controversial as ever (!) but I believe whilst there is some support for the restoration of these extended reaches, it would only be for unpowered craft and it is inappropriate to expect them to be opened to general traffic - it would certainly not have my support. These reaches are idyllic, far removed from the hustle and bustle of the other bits of the Broads and long may they remain so. And as for a canal from the sea - that would be handy altering as it would the whole ecology and appeal of the Broads. What would the fisherman say?

Hi Jonny - it is of course sad that the ferry operator has brought this to an end but it is not,IMHO, the fault totally of the BA. Yes I know the tolls are set by them but why should one operator receive a special discounted rate when others have to pay the full rate? Where do you draw the line? I can think of other operations that "deserve" a special rate too if the ferry service does!! And lets finally knock on the head this fallacy that the BA has introduced "new" regulations. The regulations adopted, I believe, are almost word for word, probably plus a few extra bits, the recommended practice that has been the Inland Waterways Small Passenger Boat Code for many years and that has previously been under the auspices of the MCA. I accept that it has always been a recommended Code of Practice and the BA are now actually going to enforce it. Is that a bad thing when passengers safety could be at risk? You could of course argue that as it was "recommended" you did not have to abide by it, but to me, if you run that kind of operation, then "recommended" means you should operate within that Code and if you don't then as a business you stand at considerable risk if an accident WERE to happen and you were operating outside that Code. So whilst I agree the BA can sometimes be at fault, I am not really sure that this is entirely the case here - it may be a contributory factor but other operators are presumably adapting to the Code and complying without blaming the BA? Nontheless I am sorry that an enterprising yard owner has had to stop any service for any reasons and it is I am afraid, in part, just a sign of the times in which we live. Sadly.

Does RYA PB Level 2 have an age limit on it? I cannot see one!!!!! Nor do i have to prove continued usage do I? Or do I need to go to Specsavers?

Hang on guys - you are all going over the top. I would suggest that an appropriate qualification such as the RYA Powerboat Level 2 is more than ample and the BA would I suggest accept this as being adequate. Anyone with a pretty basic knowledge of boat handling should be able to manage that and perhaps you should talk to a local RYA examiner to see in the circumstances, what might be involved. And these are not the BA's new regulations but merely those within the Inland Waterways Small passenger Boat Code which I believe has been in existence for a long time but which have now been adopted by the BA and which will be enforced by them rather than being under the remit of the MCA. What you might be saying is that the MCA never bothered much!!!! So it is not so much a question of the BA bringing in new regulations, but just taking over the policing and enforcement of conditions for all passenger boats on the Broads - not hire cruisers which are covered elsewhere. Is anyone suggesting they be unregulated? Not entirely stupid as some would suggest then perhaps?

Then some of us must think differently - I see nothing wrong at all in expecting professionals to have a qualification. Powerboat Level 2 I believe would suffice and thats fairly easy to achieve. I can actually see the difference in the circumstances you quote. If you are in charge of a boat and taking fare paying passengers then I don't think it at all silly - if the worst happened and there was an accident, how kindly would a Court look upon any business allowing an unqualified person to be in charge? Whilst an analagous situation may be hiring a minibus, I would certainly expect a driver ,if hired with the vehicle, to be qualified. Its no use saying that that is how its been forever - equally now you raise it, perhaps anyone giving tuition should be qualified too. And perhaps it should be for a minimum time as well. It will never stop people being idiots but it might absolve any yard from being responsible if the handover was incomplete. That has not arisen yet but given society as a whole, it cannot be too far away - sadly!! I really am sorry that the ferry service has ceased, primarily I guess because of the lack of cost effectiveness, but as a potential passenger ,I would like to think the skipper had some experience and knew what he was doing and could prove he had had training. Yes even on the Broads!!

I am not sure many of these regulations are new - I thought the Inland Waterways Small Passenger Boat Code always existed and that the BA legislation merely brought it all under one heading rather than it being scattered around in different places. Tolls are a different issue but they exist everywhere and to be honest, I think BA tolls are no worse than elsewhere - I seem to remember reading on another thread that the Gt Ouse was pretty expensive. Nonetheless it is a shame that the ferry service has to shut - I suspect that like a lot else around here it is a case of use it or lose it.

Isn't there already a Coachman dealer in Norwich - they might find Rackheath uncomfortably close!!!!

Well? Did a journalist actually make a comment that could be relied upon to be factually correct and appropriate? That might be a first!!!!

Oh dear ,another serious case for iwitness24 to solve!! This subject unsurprisingly is well documented elsewhere but I remain unconvinced it was caused by anything other than very very unusual conditions. However, what it must never do,is provide further ammunition for the anti boating lobby north of Potter Bridge. Ecosystems will recover but once closed to navigation, boats would find it hard to restore navigational rights - you only have to look at other local tidal waters which have been "snaffled" by their owners who do not want to share with others, what probably these boaters probably have a legal right to use. Now that would be SERIOUSLY bad news!

As you say correctly, the posts were originally put in to charge electric boats. Over a period of time given the fact that electric boats a) were conspicuous by their absence and could never get near them,the posts have encouraged people to use them for "living" a more comfortable life. Why should there be more points? The existing are adequate as most people do not need them - its a chicken and egg situation. However a lot of BA moorings are in remote spots, by electricity standards, and the cost of getting electricity to them, disproportionate to the added value. Cannot comment on the cost as I never use them but perhaps the posts should be self funding - new ones only funded by an excess in the "electricity" piggy bank? Must admit I don't really mind either way but should the BA, facing the kind of restraint that it does, fund the trend developing to encourage the spread of, particularly hire boats, to "need" to be attached? No doubt this thread will now develop into a "for" and "anti " discussion!!!!!!

Its not the pick up time thats of issue but whether you will get under the bridge!!!! And that you will not be able to judge that until the day before by talking to the Bridge Pilots!!! Seriously. I would plan an alternative simply because it is never guaranteed - it depends entirely on the weather. With Sparkling Light you stand a better chance than most,but you cannot guarantee anything with the tides.That time of year you often get bigger tides and that may help - or it may not!!! Helpful?

But they have one huge advantage - you can chain the kitchen operative to the area and they can still see where they are going. Endless tea, bacon sarnies and food without complaints they cannot see where they are going!!!!!!

Lots of interesting info and knowledge flying around and to me it goes without saying that the auto inflates are the ones to have. Not are they so easy to wear but they do work! Cannot remember who, questioned whether a busy yard would have time to check them properly EVERY time they went out. The answer to that is of course is no but there are very easy and simple checks you can carry out as you hand a jacket over. It is easy to see if it has been fired but the key is to just check the bottle is screwed in as they can work loose. I don't think anyone would expect a full service every time that they are used BUT it would be important to be able to show a regular programme of checking. Neither IMHO is it absolutely necessary to put on crutch straps if they are put on right - if you adjust and put on reasonably tightly, in Broads conditions they are more than adequate. However the old buoyancy aid, especially an overlarge one, is impossible to keep on without straps and are just next to useless. However much it cost I just would not send out people with those old jackets on - I know its an expense but to see kids running around feeling safe in a jacket which clearly isn't just sets me into panic mode.I think some yards take this so lightly its beyond belief I know you cannot make sure people wear them but it should be an integral part of the handover - the issue of proper jackets rather than apologies for them, and instruction on how to fit and wear. I do not believe the issue of old type buoyancy aids meets that criteria, even if they are bright orange!!! Private owners should also have them on every time you move out onto deck. Do I? No of course not - I just suggest whats needed and do not necessarily follow my advice!!!! Sadly!!!!

Disagree with the last two posts entirely - the Broads bridges are fixtures and I see no reason to change them. Why alter the character of the Broads just to satisfy the minority who chose to buy boats which will not navigate the system? However I do agree that to make a bridge LOWER is inappropriate but to be fair it will not affect many boatowners. It is not just a question of "I'm all right Jack" but why should bridge heights be increased just to allow larger and larger cruisers to navigate the system? There are lots of cruise liners that will not go through Tower Bridge or indeed up the Thames to nearer London but on that basis you could just call for more dredging just because it suited some cruise operators? In fact I really do hope there is someone thinking as DB suggests - there is after all a huge selection of boats that WILL go through most bridges, with perhaps the exception of PH, and long may it remain that way!!!!!

Yep I was as Its an unusual article and I am trying to rack my brains where it was published? I don,t think it was in Wherries and Waterways or was it?

Believe me Senator I do agree with you but I suspect that like all similar bodies, the thought of discussing it with the BA never crossed their tiny minds!!! They just think noone else is important!!!!

As always I shall be accused of jumping to the defence of the BA but I believe the bridge and the navigation fall outside their jurisdiction - surely it is the Port of GY so how can you be surprised? When have they ever even acknowledged the existence of either their responsibility or even cared? In reality it will make little or no difference to the vast majority.

If you take a quick look at the tide tables you will see that it is not a good time to go south either given the evenings drawing in. So avoid the issue and tell your crew member that the tides are "wrong" to go down!!!