marshman

Horning Ferry me too.

Met Office have downgraded it a bit - perhaps the low going through is not as deep as it could have been. Still looks pretty breezy though. One of the reasons for the discrepancies may be with shore stations and a w s/w at the moment, you can knock at least a Force off as it it is off the land. Offshore it will be that bit stronger. Can't find the website with all the buoys on at the moment but it still looks a bit brisk in the Southern North Sea but easing somewhat as that low scurries northwards. Why not ring up the forecaster and have a chat with him? On balance I do think the Met Office overcook it a bit but to be fair they are only erring on the side of caution when they do that and they don,t always!!! Good luck in your conference and have a good one if you go!!!

Just checked out XC weather - not sure where you are looking but they are showing 25+ mph for the Sandette tomorrow thats not gusts either!!! By my reckoning thats F6/7 at a minimum. Still your skippers call though!!!!

I would NEVER disregard a shipping forecast - thats just how accidents happen. A good website for wind is here http://www.windguru.cz/int/index.php?sc=47929 Dont forget these are with a westerly wind so offshore it will be worse. Its going to be a pretty breezy week except perhaps for a pause in the middle ,even more so later so it is not one where I would be happy out there - weather does not fit your timetable sometimes but whilst they do tend to overdramatise at times, and err on caution, better that way than the other. All decisions have to be made by the skipper who is ultimately responsible and not a decision to be influenced by others whilst sitting indoors at a computer!!! Take a very close look at the synoptic charts too - they can be found here http://www.mwis.org.uk/synoptic.php Good luck but make your own decisions and on your judgment.

And of course it will be Barton Regatta that weekend - that will make the Ant a no go area for some of that weekend!!! Either that or a big laugh!!

Perry - that was really great!! It reminded me of the times I went "foreign" - now that just entails going to the Southern Rivers!!!!

Sadly guys Lord Roberts is not a viable option - she is just too far gone. To me the best option would be to build from scratch a smaller version of Albion/Maud - everyones conception of a Wherry are the large examples seen today but look at the evidence and you will see their were many smaller wherries. How about a 45/48 footer? Conservative estimate to build? Around £1m but you then have to have the money and the individuals to run and sail them - no small task. Good idea but not sure it would get off the ground - both the Norfolk Wherry Trust and Wherry Yacht Charter Trust are always looking for volunteers and new members. Why not support them?

Trouble is on the broads they don't really work. Or do they? Because of the river flows, normally the ebb flows for longer and the flood for rather less. Certainly up here on the Northern Rivers I always tend to use 5 hrs of flood and 7 of ebb!!! So that b*****S that up then if i am right!!!!!

Manko - i apologise that I misread your post but not sure it alters my overall opinion. Whilst it is so easy to knock the BA and its planners, I do see where they are coming from. Whether in the end it ends up with the desired effect, I do not want to see creeping onto the Broads what has happened in some other waterside locations.Again i am probably out of date , but I recall many moons ago thinking how the approach to Cambridge, a very beautiful waterside town, was spoilt by the string of floating shacks. Just shows i suppose how one can be influenced by things from the past. There is perhaps an analogy with residential caravan sites where again there is a real reluctance on the part of Councils to approve new ones. Perhaps it is again perceptions but even you must agree that your cause is not helped by SOME of your neighbours and those others close by. The problem is how do you stop them and encourage the better ones? And at the same time regulate expansion just as planning laws have always done on land?

Usual old rubbish now popping into this post so like Rod i will put my head above the parapet too and have voted no!!!! Cannot see why the old National Park red herring came into the story - it isn,t, it won't be and for the life of me cannot see why, even if it were, you would expect to see boats banned and wildlife encouraged!! It has not happened in other Parks - they exist to encourage visitors and please don't throw into the equation the Sandford Principle until you can give me an example of when that has been invoked!!! The argument that residential boats help prevent crime is totally falacious - since when has a next door neighbour being around prevented theft in a housing situation - it does not happen!!!! So how many of you would vote for a caravan to be parked outside just to prevent crime - cannot see the difference. Manko proudly says earlier on that the Thorpe Island residents do not pay Council Tax - why ever not? I suspect some of them actually step off the island to use facilities which they take for granted but now get free!!! In fact i would be seriosly worried if I did not pay tax - payment gives a degree of legitimacy and it is for that reason and that reason alone the Council will not claim tax!! They do not want them around either and to stop residents paying is just that, not a victory for the residents!!! And none of you going on about the demise of the smaller yards and their development seem to be aware that it is in fact BA Planning Policy to insist that a yard remains. Now I know that the Pegasus situation is ongoing and yet to be resolved but the intent is there - it is no good keep going on about yards closing if you are not prepared to put your money where your mouth is - how many people in Norfolk apart from 1 or 2 are prepared to invest into new yards and new facilities? And no doubt many would be up in arms if you were prevented from developing the bottom of your garden for housing if you were able - it just would not be possible to invoke a policy banning this type of ongoing development especially as the yards such as Topcraft continue to decline. These places close down often for many reasons and the Topcraft situation is typical following the tragic death, but are you really advocating denying an individuals freedom to perhaps sell to another person? Try selling it with such a restriction and see the kind of offers you would get!! Sorry JillR and all that but you can see why they wish to regularise the situation. And if you have to start from somewhere without any precedents being made , you start from a Nil situation - although in the end i hope common sense prevails!! So its a no, with reservations!!! But you must admit your cause is not helped by the fact that many, but not all, give the cause a bad name. Generally people like the romanticism except when they are in their back yard!!! Of course these comments will be picked to pieces by many but hey, whats new!!! Its water off a ducks back!!!

Used to able to get faced WBP; not sure if its still possible. But you can stick very thin facing marine ply to WBP - still a lot cheaper than marine ply . For interior work the possibility of rather larger voids in WBP is neither here nor there. Staining ordinary WBP produces what it sounds like - a lash up!!! It never really looks the job!!!

Rhond anchors too? Perhaps we can differ on those as well???? A nice straight spike about 2' long with either a ring or an eye on the top is much more secure - rhond anchors as supplied are in my view next to useless and will always pull out if someone nips past a bit quick - you try and pull out a stake set in at an angle. All you guys are right about anchors to a point but up North cannot ever really see the need for them and when I venture South I will rely on my two mudweights - but then I only have a normal Broads cruiser with a bit less windage than some of our Southern cousins. I think that anchors are a tad unnecessary except if you want holding as you race downstream at Yarmouth and whilst I like to think of and prepare for most eventualities, its almost impossible to prepare for every one!!! As they say each to their own....!

Mudweights are aptly called and work in mud!!! Anchors in the Broads do work but primarily by their weight alone - generally speaking the suction effect of mudweights in Broadland mud is more effective lb per lb. Thats of course why boats have them, not because we cannot think of anything else

Just a word of caution - this is monitored closely by the EA and they get very upset if they find pots. I assume it is because you could catch the wrong ones but i am not sure there are many,if any, of those left.

Jonny - you are right . The Sedan is very nice but I suspect the fly bridges book better. And sadly thats the key. Expilot is right too - they can hardly be called attractive especially the shorter ones but its a business, not a fashion show. Inside they are nicely fitted out as you would expect and I particularly like the forward facing galley - it looks nice and the punters like it too. But it does little for the wash if too many stand in the front!! And i wish he had not used the black surrounds - for a little more chrome or stainless or even aluminium might have looked less "cheap".

Hi Dan - as we said at the outset, the longer and bigger the boat, the better they look. Not one for the purists, but I bet the punters like them!!!

The beauty of the Danforth type is that they do fold flat and if I was you, which i am not, I would relegate the Danforth to the kedge as it can be kept in a locker more easily and buy a CQR type or Bruce type for the main anchor!!!! Personally i have never been especially keen on the Danforth type in mud, although i know others swear by them. Ask a question on any Forum and you will get loads of advice, but then you are faced with which to select - almost as difficult as the original question!

Don't want to encourage peeps to look elsewhere but the "other" Forum has a post by a member who was sitting in the Hotel at the time and who who went to their aid. Shame people cannot read either notices, bridge gauges, maps or indeed boat info. books supplied by the yard!!!! Still at least it has not put them off for life!!!!

Those wheel hoes were quite common and you could have bought one right up to the '50's. I don't think they were American and as was said had a variety of attachments. Cannot remember the make but might have been Atco or Ransomes. The only attachments that really work were the hoes - two flat blades like Dutch hoes and the cultivator consisting of some 4/5 tines . That must have been a posed photo as you could not do a field - a row was difficult!!! My Dad used to harness me to the front to add motive power but it was still nigh on impossible! For years we had a plough attachment which you could only have used immediately after you had dug it by hand!!!

Well Strowager, perhaps you have not read the right books!!! It seems much of the changes to the Ant took place in the 19th C. Very little record of the changes actually occurs but if you read Robert Malsters book on "The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads" all will be revealed. It seems that a lot of the work was done following the opening of the NW & D Canal and indeed if you look at the old parish boundaries you will see they often followed what was the old river. Above Barton the old river is still in evidence if you trudge around the marshes as I do in the form of old dried up riverbeds - it then followed a course to the east of the existing Broad and that dyke is also still there although not very obvious if you didn't know. Oddly south of Irstead I think it went straight on but around the back of the How Hill it took a large detour westwards and that is still very evident and deep. The Electric Eel disappears down it opposite Johnny Crowes Staithe and it reappears at How Hill Staithe itself. Yes the new bits are still very windy but it was certainly done about that time. Of greater interest however is the belief that the old Hundred Dyke was diverted by the monks of St Benets - you may or may not know that the hospital at Horning Hall was linked to the Abbey by a causeway and prior to the Ant emptying into the Bure where it now does, the Hundred Dyke was the actual river which then emptied into the Thurne. Records themselves are non existent but the Thurne may have still been flowing north out of the Hundred Sream as late as the 13c- still again in evidence disappearing off at Dungeon Corner until as late as some great tidal surges themselves documented around 1287 and 1292!! Fascinating stuff of which much is conjecture but if you do not have Robert Malsters book then I highly recommend it as a good source of info. and some fascinating facts - or conjecture!!

Strowager is almost right - the rivers were not actually dug but in the case of the River Ant very little is original. Almost all of the Ant now being used is man made, dug by wherrymen and others either because they preferred to sail in a "nearly" straight line or the original bit was to narrow/shallow. Going back to the original topic it is perhaps not a surprise that the loudest voices now campaigning against dredging are those who villify the BA most. To be fair they are not campaigning against dredging per se but against the methods proposed to be used. Almost everything the BA wish to do is critisised and whilst they deserve some criticism, surely some things they do are right? Anglers and their supporters perhaps carry too much weight, see Bramerton, but it is hardly a surprise that some people see the opposition as a personal vendetta - or so it might appear to some outsiders. My guess is that hopefully the BA will ignore the opposition this time and get on with a long overdue piece of dredging. As someone said on another place, if the very worst came to the worst, fish stocks would recover, but lose the navigation and that would be gone for good.

I am almost positive the answer to that is , he did!! When I was a lad i used to love those boats and still do - there was another i think being worked on in the yard at Belaugh. Talk about a sleek and lovely design. Would go a bit if you incorporated some lifting gear to raise it up a bit out of the water!!

This is an old chestnut - unlike Plesbit I rarely have any trouble in Wroxham except for the 6 weeks of the school holidays in summer. I use it normally at least twice a day and apart from banning the right turn by Roys into Church Road, would think it a total waste of time. I don't think the Bailey bridges have a weight limit - if they take a tank they will take a crane!!! Seriously though there must be places far far more worthy of a bypass than Wroxham!!!

And me? I always liked the Diamond - could never understand why relatively few were built. Perhaps I like them 'cos I own one but several of the hire fleets still have them, including i know Freedom. Do the punters like them?

Len is currently fitting out a large "transit" in his Horning shed - I think thats 42' or so which of course is the smaller one with bits added. But it is good to see that individual builders are putting new designs on the water, almost as a matter of necessity. It will please Dan no end!!!! It is great to see the skills are not being lost to Broadland so keep it up!!!!!