SPEEDTRIPLE

Penny Gate Staithe.

Penny

Went in there for breakfast this morning, came out with a couple of take out bacon sarnies and 2 take out teas. I think like a lot of places, you can't sit inside, but can buy take out food only.

I forgot to offer my condolences to his family.

This is very sad indeed. He's been a member of this forum for very many years (like me), and we finaly had the pleasure to meet him at Oulton Broad last September. Sadly, we were to be leaving soon, so never really had the chance to get together and have a chat and a cuppa, and I feel very sad to know we won't be seeing him this week. R. I. P Alan, and may you be cruising the the rivers of heaven.

Hi Andy, welcome to the forum. There are many excellent public slipways both North and South, so if you can be more specific about your preferred area, we can give you more relevant info.

Some interesting points there John, and although I disagree in a certain way, I respect your (and everybody elses) opinion. But your post just increases my belief that if "the person" DOES'NT use something, they shouldn't be expected to pay for it. Like you, Karen and I have no children, and it really bugs me to have to pay into the education system. And before people claim that's what my tax is paying for, my parents worked hard and payed their taxes for my education.

Errrrr, yes it IS actually, grade 1 you cannot change a thing, grade 2 you cannot change the structure but CAN change the interior fittings etc, grade 3 you have to keep the facade, but can change anything behind it. My father once worked as an engineer for the GLC, and then the Polytechnic of central London, later to become the London University. They had a great many listed buildings, listed to different grades, of which he went into great detail about how the grading system worked. Skip forward many years to modern day, and a good friend of ours is a civil engineer who has recently been involved in building restorations and has also recently told me about listed buildings he`s worked on, and the limitations allowed. The limitations applicable to grade is still pretty much as was when my father was in charge at the London Poly, and that although there are strict rules, there are also "guidelines" which one can work with to overcome certain issues. As for the removal of historic bridges, how come bridges such as Acle, and Wayfod, which were equally as historic allowed to be replaced?. It seems that the claimed importance of Potter Heigham bridge only relates to peoples preferences and not progress, that progress which has been applied elsewhere, yet nobody has complained?. Dare i use the word "hypocracy" in case someone gets offended?.

Yeah, judging by the side arches listed to one side

On this thread maybe, but how many members does this forum have, how many have replied, and how many that HAVE`NT replied either agree or disagree with me?. Yes, the vast majority that have replied have disagreed with me, that`s their parogative, and that`s democracy, so i accept their views. I think i`l bring it up with the BA though, as if i`m never going to be allowed to use many miles of the broads, why should our syndicate have to pay for it?. You said yourself Grendel that you regularly use the Dartford river crossing, if you use it 100 times a year, how would you feel if the tunnel bods said you would have to pay for 150 crossings to do the 100?. I doubt you`d be very chuffed would you?. It`s exactly the same scenario.

I have to say John, yours is the post that best sums it up, "is that so unreasonable?" is exactly the right question. It`s not as though i`m saying it should be broken up or replaced with a footbridge only etc etc, i just think that it should be made more usable by taking it back to the way it was years ago. I know there are a selfish minority that don`t want others to be able to cruise the area, "keeping for themselves", but if they don`t want others to be able to use that area of the broads network, but they can, then surely it should only be payed for by those that use it. If you don`t use a road vehical, do you expect to pay road tax?. It`s also worth knowing that on other historic threads on here, certain members who had to pay road duty on petrol for their petrol engined boats complained that "they`re not using their boats on the road, so why should they pay road duty on petrol"?. If you can`t use something or other, you SHOULD`NT be paying for it, and that includes the upper Thurne network. I wonder if BA Tom is reading this, and whether he`ll take the idea to the BA?. As for the bridge allegedly being grade 2 listed, only grade 1 listed have to remain the same, grade 2 and below can be changed. It`s also worth knowing that the if grade 2 listing meant the bridge had to remain in its present state and condition, it DOES`NT mean it has to remain in its present state and condition "IN THE SAME LOCATION. It can quite easily be removed and rebuilt exactly as it is in a field over a stream, so for those that like to walk over it, you would still be able to do so.

No, she was built in the 90s, and went into syndicate use in 2008. I bought my share in 2014.

If the BA were NOT to allow Potter Heigham bridge to be raised back to a proper usable height, do you think it fair that ALL boats that were originally designed and built, and regularly used to, but no longer can transit the bridge, pay a lower toll than those that can, who in turn should pay a higher toll to redress the possible loss in the revinue the BA will stand to lose?.

Hi all, I`ve long been an advocate of Potter Heigham bridge being made passable by all those designs of boats over the decades that were originally designed and built to do so, by raising the original structure by around 10"-12". I`m not talking about "replacement" of the bridge, but to keep its original appearance, but just raise it by a small amount. What are your views, should the bridge be raised to allow passage of ALL those designed to do so, or left to get even lower thus disallowing an even greater number of boats to pass?.

Can you please post your OFFICIAL public survey results to prove that marshy?, no?, why am i NOT surprised. Why should we have to pay EXTRA for another boat able to get under the bridge, when we already pay to navigate that section of the Broads through our tolls?. If the BA are not going to raise the bridge to a height for all lowliner designs to transit the bridge, then it`s only fair they REDUCE the tolls for ALL boats that cannot get under at ALL states of normal tidal ranges, and INCREASE the tolls for those that can. I`m not advocating the complete destruction or replacement of the bridge, although it would`nt bother me personally if they did, but showing consideration for other people, keep the existing bridge, but raise it so it`s at a height to allow those boats that were designed to go under to do so all the time. Back in the 60s 70s and 80s, even a lot of the 90s, nearly all broads lowliner designs used to go through the bridge at most states of the tides, and nobody complained about the volume of river traffic (mainly hire boats, and lots of them) back then. Nothing has changed, except for the selfish who want to use that section of the broads, at OTHER TOLL PAYERS expense. Back in the day, there were more pubs in Hickling village, a shop, and other facilities around that network that have all gone, due to the lack of use by visitors.

As was Lightning in the 90s, sadly no longer though. As nice as it is, it`s well past time the bridge was raised, and if the substructure is as sound as people say (because i always get told i`m wrong ), then it would be a simple civil engineering task to raise it to an airdraft of around 7ft 3ins at average high water standings.

Talking to somebody in the industry, they did`nt book that well, so had to stay in the hire fleet for some years to pay for themselves. I do think they are nice spacious boats for 4, but i would be putting a bigger engine in it for safety. As i said above, a geared 1.5 BMC of around 35-38hp would be fine for the north rivers, but for the south, i`d want at least 50 horses in order to have that little bit in reserve.

So you`ve hired a high top design, and are concerned about Ludham Bridge, and always like to moor above Wroxham Bridge? ............................... hmmmm

With all that top hamper, she will be a real handful in high winds, which we`ve had rather a lot of lately. Yes, we hired an Alpha 42 back in the beginning of the 90s, which had a BMC 1.5, with a 3-1 gearbox. A lot of weight to push, and to gear the relatively low powered engine to provide enough propulsion would put a lot of strain on such an engine. Imagine pushing a hard tide with all that high GRP in a strong wind across Breydon. There`s no substitute for cubes as they say. Also, as Cal says above, she would need a total re-fit, which would be VERY expensive, so when you add it all up, it might work out cheaper to buy a much newer boat. My last point is that with such a high top, she would more than likely be used mostly on the southern rivers, and with their much stronger and faster tides, she would struggle if you had to go against the tide and wind on numerous occaisions.

With that length of boat, and that extra height, i would want a bigger engine.

That survey someone posted about was from the highways and byways bunch from a local authority (or so i remember?), and was to do with the roads to and from the bridge, but NOT the bridge structure itself. It was also reported on another thread that there is no significant change in the depth of water levels at normal tidal levels, so if the distance between the river bed and the pinnacle of the arch has reduced, where has it gone, the only way is down?. I totally agree with marshman re the difference between the Yare, Waveney and Bure, in that the Yare / Wensum, and the Waveney are much deeper and wider, so faster flowing with a higher tidal rise and fall. All of the Bure, Ant, and Thurne network have to flow down through a relatively narrow channel around the curves just east of Gt Yarmouth. Add to that the volumes of water in the upper Thurne Broads and dykes etc, and the Ant above Ludham bridge are being held back by the natural blocking effect of the narrow bridge passages. That bloody stone bridge is what i call the blockage, how to unblock the natural course of something, simply remove the blockage .

Yes, we hired her twice, and she does indeed have a bow thruster and a 240v socket for phone and laptop charging etc.

it`s unfortunate that people on this forum WON`T accept that they don`t know everything about the broads, especially the land structure, and that things happen that are different to what THEY are told and prefer to believe. I won`t go any further on this, it`s all been argued before. As for Wroxham bridge, correct me if i`m wrong but has the clearance lessened to the same amount as Potter Heigham bridge, because my belief is it HAS`NT. That would suggest to me there are other reasons.

Rubbish, Howard (Norfolk Nog) does it every time 😂.

Totally agree John (sorry to disappoint you 😂) there are several reasons why the Thurne blockage airdraught has decreased, the whole of the east anglia region is gradually sinking, plus (contrary to what some want you to believe) the blockage Has sunk into the river bed. Fair enough, it may not be sinking any further, but with the report of sea levels rising, but as you say, nowhere near as much as the bridges airdraught has lessened, there's precious little else it can be. Grendel reported last year that the east anglia region is sinking, so this will also have an effect, the only problem being others willingness to believe it, along with evidence gained by scientific study, which I mentioned in a thread elsewhere that the bridge HAS sunk into the substructure.