MauriceMynah

I have to say that "Eel in the thruster" sounds like a best seller in the gay erotic section of Waterstones.

You are a very bad man Grendel. :D

BatraBill, You have not come across as aggressive in any way, and I thoroughly enjoy crossing swords with you as we both respect each others views when we differ. (I accept that "crossing swords" is tricky to do in a non aggressive way) I must however take you to task on where you quote me as Where in fact I really said... You also say Yes I am aware of that trap, and it's one I do try to avoid, just sometimes I fail !!! Yes, ok I hold my hands up for that one, a bit naughty, but I wasn't sure of the best way of phrasing it. I agree it is, at the moment, both, but the fewer boats able to use the navigation, the more insignificant the minority who can, will become. That in turn will strengthen any argument in favour of closing it for those who might wish to. Oh, and one last thing, You too should sit a while on the "naughty step" for trying to bring the National Park issue in. Sandford myth indeed !!!

Ok Kingfisher666, I do understand your point but please allow me to explain the perspective as I see it, my opinion. I was the only one in this particular thread to mention the RSPB. In my opinion which I developed over the years from reading various things from various sources, is that the RSPB has become far more a political pressure group than it's origins had intended. Like any organisation, it has within it's membership, various levels of vociferousness. Where the RSPB differs from so many other organisations, is firstly the size of it's membership, second, the obvious good intentions it's name and origins indicate, and third, the royal warrant. Again it is my opinion that whilst any one, or even two of those conditions might not be a problem, to have all three acting within a pressure group, makes it incredibly powerful. If given the choice between an area being a holiday hotspot or a bird sanctuary, which do you think the RSPB would favour, and if the latter could be achieved by doing nothing, how easy would it be. Logically therefore the RSPB could, if they wished, encourage "nothing" to be done. It is my opinion that the RSPB would take that route. That covers the RSPB, Now to the other two, the Broads Authority and Natural England. I shall take Natural England first. I know little of this department except that the first thing I came across was their plan to let the Happisburg cliff face fall into the sea and not only "not defend it", but stop anybody else try to do so. They seemed not to care that people lived there, that they had their houses there. No! Those people counted for nothing. I know little else of what they have done, but that was enough for me. Now, the BA. I am not against the BA. I am not against Dr Packman. Hells teeth, I was the one that started the thread asking what the membership of this forum could do to help them. I am all for interested parties doing whatever they can to assist the BA in whatever way the BA suggests. That is not saying I agree with everything they do, far from it, and when they do something I disagree with I voice my disapproval, usually on this forum. At the moment especially if the problem with Potter bridge is lack of dredging, and that dredging is a BA responsibility, is it unreasonable for me to shout out about it. One other point I would make. "Conspiracy Theory" No, I think not. It's more a case of several departments being in the "same boat". I doubt if there is a government department not under the pains of "spending cuts". Doing nothing is significantly cheaper than doing something. Can it really be so surprising that the Acle bridge situation causes uproar when the lower reaches of the bure seem to be in such a poor state due to insufficient dredging. Marina Quays was a major mooring place. Now there are warning signs saying it's dangerous to do so. Why? Because it's too shallow at low water. Sorry Marshman if all that was "Obvious" :-)

H If the water permanently freezes under the bridge I'm really stuffed!

Whilst I am not doubting that the 'experts' statements regarding climate change are more often than not, made in good faith, I cannot help but believe that many such statements are used by political parties to support their own agenders, and as a result Scientists statements are cherry picked without mercy. Schoolboy physics tells me that if I float a cube of ice in a glass, as it melts, there is no change in the level of liquid in that glass. (ref. Archimedes). Further, Schoolboy Geography tells me two things. The North polar Ice cap is floating, and that over 70% of the Earth's surface is covered in water. From those two (simplistic I admit) facts is it unreasonable to suggest that the increase in water levels as put forward by Government departments might be somewhat exaggerated, and therefore that the Measurement of 7" increase in water level may also be slanted. Before people start suggesting that I'm acting like an ostrich, burying my head in the sand, I have to ask why I should take on face value statistics, produced by organisations known for massaging figures and cherry picking the results. We know the problem in this instance. Clearance under Potter Heigham bridge is reducing.. It seem sensible to me that the cause of the problem needs to be established before looking to remedy it. Flood relief work had been suggested to me, so I am trying to look into it. Thus far, it looks like a diminishing likelihood. Lack of dredging has also been put forward. That is looking increasingly likely. I have brought "Climate change" i9nto the equation but fairly quickly discounted it. The diminishing clearance has been happening over the last ten years. climate change somewhat longer. So. What else could be causing the problem. Any suggestions welcomed. After that we should start looking into possible solutions. As far as I can see the possible options are as follows, 1, Remove the bridge. Unlikely. 2. Bypass the bridge, unlikely but doable 3. Lower the water level. Also doable and the most likely solution. 4. Do nothing and eventually let the Hickling area become un-navigable. This would be the preferred option by the "Natural England", the RSPB and of course the BA. But should we toll payers just sit back and let that happen?

Thank you Expilot, that gives me much to think about. We always had Royall Ambassador 2. The fact that the change has been gradual tends to favour dredging problems over Flood alleviation works. I had a friend (well perhaps more like an acquaintance with whom I was friendly) who had the green chalet. I think he had a boat called Speckled'un or something like that. He was an entertainer called Mark though some knew him as "Elvis". Perhaps you know the fellow I mean mean. When he first had his chalet, I believe he suffered from flooding problems. That would have been the early 90s. Anyway, thanks again for your answers.

And a case well put sir, but I still have to ask a few questions. (to anybody or everybody who knows the answers) 1. You still seem to be ignoring the flood alleviation works. Is there a reason for that? 2. When were those flood alleviation works done? 3. Was the reduced height at Potter Heigham sudden or gradual ? 4. When did that reduction seem to start ? 5. Is there a definite correlation of the bridge clearance reduction to both or either event? 6. Who was responsible (Which Government Dept.) for having the flood alleviation work done? 7. When did the BA take over the relevant dredging responsibilities? 8. We have concluded that climate change is not responsible. Are there any other possibilities? 9. In the late 90s and early 2000s We would regularly have the pilot take Royall Ambassador under. What clearance did that boat need? 10 And finally (for now) How often have the chalets up river of the bridge been flooded in the last 18 years?

Yes, but what if... and it's a big "what if" the dredging is not the sole cause of the problem and that the flood alleviation played a far more significant part in causing this problem?

Ahh, Griff, Thank you, it was 6' 6" not 7' 6". I did say my memory was pretty fickle. Webntweb, the height guides are not taken from the top of the span. I don't know about the BA Tide table. I wonder which would be cheaper. A canal from near Phoenix day boats round to the sheds between the two bridges including a lock to keep ebb and flow as is, and a swing/lift bridge, or even a standard bridge the same height as the main road bridge. or regular dredging of the whole river Thurne and the Bure from Thurne mouth to Breydon Water. As it seems possible that the flood alleviation works has impacted the situation, perhaps other Government departments may be obliged to 'chip in'. Yes yes yes, I know, I'm in Walter Mitty mode here, but it's worth a thought. Said canal would re-instate the navigation to those who used to be able to go through without massively altering the character of the area. It will be much cheaper to have it re-join the main river between the two existing bridges, rather than have two bridges on the canal. It might even be possible to close the road that goes over Old Potter Bridge permanently so no bridge over the canal would be needed. That would help preserve the old bridge as well. Now, there's a thought!!!

Yes ChrisB I too have wondered about that and have a possible solution. If you look at the lock on Oulton Broad, it caters for the water level to be higher at either side. One of those installed on the bypass would achieve two things. Firstly it would mean that that the ebb and flow would not be significantly changed, and secondly, if operated by the bridge pilot, a charge could be levied on boats going through keeping their income stable.

Another post I made reminded me to mention this. Many of you will remember that the BA have started sending out reminders/requests for tolls in early February. Being a thoroughly decent chap, I sent them my money straight away, also requesting two copies of their Tide tables. I didn't check them when they arrived but put them straight in my 'boat bag". Just imagine my surprise when I needed to refer to one only to find they had sent me two "current" booklets, that is to say covering the period they received my order April 2017 to March 2018. Yes, that was indeed irritating, but I really 'lost it' when I tried to acquire this years at the Reedham office and again at the Beccles yacht station, only to find neither place had one. Some very naughty words were thought!

You may well be right Chris. Sadly I don't have a tide table, and am relying on my (highly fallible) memory. Either way it's wrong, just I thought it was wronger

Oh no, not at all. Basically it boils down to two sides. Mine and those who are wrong. :-)

That measurement comes from the BA tide tables, That always used to be my view too, but it has been suggested that flood alleviation works have also had an effect. Now, we often hear about some motor cruisers being "the wrong boats for the Broads" yet we rarely hear people talking about some yachts being unsuitable because of excessive keels. If one were to go to hire one of Martham's yachts or perhaps from Womack, would going aground be a problem?