Reedham Electric Points

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, KingfishersTime said:

Rightsaidfred,

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Perhaps instead of questioning whether the electric posts are fit for purpose etc. We should be questioning whether the BA should be providing such facilities in locations they don't have long term control over?

I can think of another similar location Hardley Mill. The pontoon is privately owned and indeed there is an overnight charge for mooring there. There are also electric posts which I am almost certain have been provided by the BA, on the basis they accept the same cards and have had the same upgrade to the meters. To the best of my knowledge this mooring doesn't close during the Winter? However if the owner decided he wanted the electric posts disabled during the Winter period, would he be entitled to? If he decided to close the mooring during the Winter period and wanted the posts disabled and covered over, or even removed, would he be entitled to? Much as I wouldn't want to lose the facility, at the end of the day, it would be the land owners choice, even though the posts may have been toll payer funded. I really don't see the difference between that possible scenario and the one at Reedham and the yacht stations.

It would be the land owners choice at virtually every BA mooring actually BA own very little mooring wise .

The point people are missing is that these posts were always on ovrr winter and BDC were in control then too and only the first winter after the upgrades this yr is the post turned off , further to that there are reports of the posts tripping out at high water levels which clearly didn't happen before , therefore there is defiantly a problem with the posts as all of this has happened since the posts have been worked on this yr .

I doubt that BDC have asked for the facility to be removed why would they ? And besides since only BA have made a public statement giving a reason and an entirely different reason should it ever come to light that the council asked for them turning off then clearly BA have mislead the public and stakeholders, 

I have no idea why anyone should question electric installations at the YS's and reedham they have been there many yrs and no one has to my knowledge objected .

As for the charge at reedham for get it its as I was  assured yesterday not going to happen .

As I was told yesterday BA are trying not to get onto a situation where they upset so to speak BDC over reedham quay which is why they are reluctant to ask to reposition the posts to an area where water can't get to them although I firmly believe that is not the problem as it never has been in the past .

What is become very clear on this thread is some don't really care about the loss of a facility , that's possibly because its not going to affect them who knows , but my point is and will remain so , is that it could well affect others and being a team player and thoughtful of others then that's where I stand on this subject .

 

[Guest ExMemberKingFisher]

4 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

It would be the land owners choice at virtually every BA mooring actually BA own very little mooring wise .

The point people are missing is that these posts were always on ovrr winter and BDC were in control then too and only the first winter after the upgrades this yr is the post turned off , further to that there are reports of the posts tripping out at high water levels which clearly didn't happen before , therefore there is defiantly a problem with the posts as all of this has happened since the posts have been worked on this yr .

I doubt that BDC have asked for the facility to be removed why would they ? And besides since only BA have made a public statement giving a reason and an entirely different reason should it ever come to light that the council asked for them turning off then clearly BA have mislead the public and stakeholders, 

I have no idea why anyone should question electric installations at the YS's and reedham they have been there many yrs and no one has to my knowledge objected .

As for the charge at reedham for get it its as I was  assured yesterday not going to happen .

As I was told yesterday BA are trying not to get onto a situation where they upset so to speak BDC over reedham quay which is why they are reluctant to ask to reposition the posts to an area where water can't get to them although I firmly believe that is not the problem as it never has been in the past .

What is become very clear on this thread is some don't really care about the loss of a facility , that's possibly because its not going to affect them who knows , but my point is and will remain so , is that it could well affect others and being a team player and thoughtful of others then that's where I stand on this subject .

 

I'll repeat it again,

"Much as I wouldn't want to lose the facility, at the end of the day, it would be the land owners choice."

Reedham has been turned off in the past, but not for a couple of years, as has Loddon.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

Without wishing to make this debate even more controversial I think we might do well to remember that the tolls we pay only grant right of access to the waterways, while the tolls money is then supposedly allocated to fund the upkeep of the navigation it is up to the authority which facilities they spend it on and in what proportions, like any public body they can and do provide or withdraw services according to demand and cost and we are all be up in arms when they spend money that could be better used, given that they have no control over this particular location at this time of year one which is also susceptible to flooding and fast tides  why would they maintain a facility that is of benefit to very few people particularly when there are other options for those that are that dependent on electricity, isn't this all a bit of a storm in a teacup when there are far more important issues that affect everyone.

Fred

Its only a storm in a teacup to those that this removal of a facility will not effect , as for being controversial I don't see it as that in what way is it controversial ? 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, KingfishersTime said:

I'll repeat it again,

"Much as I wouldn't want to lose the facility, at the end of the day, it would be the land owners choice."

Reedham has been turned off in the past, but not for a couple of years, as has Loddon.

 

We all know why loddon was turned off and it was nothing to do with this situation , iv spent the last 5 yrs at Christmas in reedham and not once was the electric off ! 

I did get the landowners situation the first time iv actually referred to the situation earlier in the thread .

[Guest ExMemberKingFisher]

7 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

We all know why loddon was turned off and it was nothing to do with this situation , iv spent the last 5 yrs at Christmas in reedham and not once was the electric off ! 

I did get the landowners situation the first time iv actually referred to the situation earlier in the thread .

Doesn't The Lord Nelson have an electric point? Used to be on the pub sign, that might be an option this year.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, KingfishersTime said:

Doesn't The Lord Nelson have an electric point? Used to be on the pub sign, that might be an option this year.

No it has moorings but no electric least it didn't have . besides I've very much fallen out with the owner of the nelson after the removal an subsequently loss of my late girlfriends memorial cross after he gave me his assurance it would be fine when he took the building over in 2015 .

[rightsaidfred]

Ricardo

Every debate becomes controversial when people with differing opinions are dogmatic,  its a storm in a teacup because nobody is being denied the opportunity to moor there subject to tidal conditions or maintenance work, if anyone cant exist without mains electricity for 24hrs they are in the wrong place at the wrong time nothing to do with an I am all right Jack attitude as you are suggesting, crusades are fine if reserved for important issues they loose their value when targeted at every minor issue.

Fred 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Ricardo

Every debate becomes controversial when people with differing opinions are dogmatic,  its a storm in a teacup because nobody is being denied the opportunity to moor there subject to tidal conditions or maintenance work, if anyone cant exist without mains electricity for 24hrs they are in the wrong place at the wrong time nothing to do with an I am all right Jack attitude as you are suggesting, crusades are fine if reserved for important issues they loose their value when targeted at every minor issue.

Fred 

Straight forward question Fred , are you using your boat this winter ?  , to me and clearly others  the loss of this facility is not a minor issue and this is not a crusade it an attempt to find out exactly why this situation has happened and to discuss it .

If anyone can't exist without mains electric suggests that they are in the wrong place at the wrong time ? Really what about those who's diesel heater might have packed up , what about all electric boats needing to charge battery's , alternator failure , to name but a few and all can happen to anyone who's out cruising in winter , to blame the boaters who cruise in winter for being in the wrong place is totally absurd , not everyone stops boating even hire boats are out in December so to label this as a minor issue is not really on ,yes there is electric at hardly mill and 6 sockets but can you get 6 boats on that pontoon ? .

I'll say this again there is a installation problem here , breaker's trip for a reason and purely resetting them does nothing to solve what is clearly a problem and the fact they trip out is the reason BA have given to the posts being turned off , to date that's the only official word on the subject though I would've very interested to here BDC version of events .

At the end of the day the system should work perfectly its had 22k spent on it in upgrades and I'm sure to anyone with any electrical  knowledge will know reedham has an electrical problem to cause the breakers to trip .

[rightsaidfred]

Ricardo

Yes I do use my boat in the winter and no I don't rely on electric points although I do use them as and when I am on one, we are talking one location here not the entire system there are other available points south side, unless Brooms have one there are no hire boats dependant on Electricity who should be that side of Yarmouth and the Northern yards that have those boats don't hire in the winter months anyway, as for tripping out they do at most locations at sometime or another as do the ones in private marinas its a fact of life.

Fred 

[vanessan]

Ricardo - well done for contacting the BA for their take on this issue. Will you now be contacting Broadland DC to get their reasons for the power being denied to boaters during the winter? It could be an interesting discussion. 

[grendel]

do we actually have any evidence that the posts keep tripping, other than the authorities statement as to why they have been turned off, I can see that if the new installation was controlled from inside the BA hut at the quay, then out of season, with the hut locked, if the electric did trip, then the council would not be able to reset it.

we appear to be making a lot of assumptions based on one statement, that the electricity is actually tripping, (from the Authorities excuse for turning it off).

we are assuming that if it is actually tripping it must be due to the installation being somehow sub standard, as someone who works in that industry, an installation that is weather proof enough to allow exterior installation, would of necessity be waterproof enough to take occasional immersion.

So, if the only the BA's wording of their excuse that is the evidence of this constant tripping, how do we get from there to the fact of a sub standard installation. do we have any actual proof it keeps tripping? or that the installation is sub standard in any way?

if it was a sub standard installation, there would be other evidence, people reporting getting a tingle from the posts, dogs getting a shock when cocking their legs.

Rather than everyone getting upset with each other over this, lets be sure we are actually quoting facts first.

The only Fact I can see here is that the electricity posts have (rightly or wrongly) been turned off at the rangers hut, as there is no access to reset them should they trip (for any reason) during the off season.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, vanessan said:

Ricardo - well done for contacting the BA for their take on this issue. Will you now be contacting Broadland DC to get their reasons for the power being denied to boaters during the winter? It could be an interesting discussion. 

I fully intended to take this up with the council concerned but being so close to Christmas I can image that it might be the new yr before I get if I get an answer .

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, grendel said:

do we actually have any evidence that the posts keep tripping, other than the authorities statement as to why they have been turned off, I can see that if the new installation was controlled from inside the BA hut at the quay, then out of season, with the hut locked, if the electric did trip, then the council would not be able to reset it.

we appear to be making a lot of assumptions based on one statement, that the electricity is actually tripping, (from the Authorities excuse for turning it off).

we are assuming that if it is actually tripping it must be due to the installation being somehow sub standard, as someone who works in that industry, an installation that is weather proof enough to allow exterior installation, would of necessity be waterproof enough to take occasional immersion.

So, if the only the BA's wording of their excuse that is the evidence of this constant tripping, how do we get from there to the fact of a sub standard installation. do we have any actual proof it keeps tripping? or that the installation is sub standard in any way?

if it was a sub standard installation, there would be other evidence, people reporting getting a tingle from the posts, dogs getting a shock when cocking their legs.

Rather than everyone getting upset with each other over this, lets be sure we are actually quoting facts first.

The only Fact I can see here is that the electricity posts have (rightly or wrongly) been turned off at the rangers hut, as there is no access to reset them should they trip (for any reason) during the off season.

Quite right Grendel we have only BA's word for the reason for turning them off but all through the conversion I had yesterday tripping out remained the reason , now iv seen previously reedham flooded and the posts working as normal so given that they have been worked on including removing the posts for the new metres then it to me at least point's to a problem , as for BA not being able to reset the posts I would have thought they would have access to what I thier but at all times its just if they wish to do so , clearly this tripping out has been a issue this yr even when rangers were on duty .

I'm not saying that the work / installation is substandard but I am saying it needs a thorough check as breaker's do not trip for no reason and simply resetting them is not a solution to the problem if indeed there even is a problem to begin with , I totally believe there's far more to this than meets the eye , BA must have known In advance of the end of the season and only when it filtered on to forums did they make a statement , now while not knocking BA but if this were an office etc at yare house then it would be corrected immediately . 

[ZimbiIV]

I think it is something more basic than anything discussed here.

SPITE.

BA weren't allowed to charge at Reedham so Reedham will not benefit from BA equipment when the council are in control of the moorings.

Lets face it there is not a lot at Reedham, 2 pubs 1 club, 2 half shops, a chippy sometimes open.

paul

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, ZimbiIV said:

I think it is something more basic than anything discussed here.

SPITE.

BA weren't allowed to charge at Reedham so Reedham will not benefit from BA equipment when the council are in control of the moorings.

Lets face it there is not a lot at Reedham, 2 pubs 1 club, 2 half shops, a chippy sometimes open.

paul

That's OK Paul but weren't the charge's scrapped quite some time back and its only this yr that the posts have been taken offine , I can see your point but its really a facility that's been there for a long time and working all yr round , reedham does get quite a few boaters over winter even if there's not that much there , n good point about the Chippy it would be great to see it open more often .

[Guest ExMemberKingFisher]

21 hours ago, ZimbiIV said:

I think it is something more basic than anything discussed here.

SPITE.

BA weren't allowed to charge at Reedham so Reedham will not benefit from BA equipment when the council are in control of the moorings.

Lets face it there is not a lot at Reedham, 2 pubs 1 club, 2 half shops, a chippy sometimes open.

paul

Slight correction to the above. The BA dropped plans to introduce a charge after responding to the concerns of Reedham businesses. They were concerned that an overnight charge might lead to less boats staying overnight and the effect on their business. BDC didn't oppose the charges and were to incorporate them into the terms of a new lease.

This also means that whilst plans to charge have been dropped, for now, the subject could always raise it's head again at any time in the future!! despite what some may think.

I believe at one time the BA even raised the possibility of charging at Ranworth, despite the fact that the mooring was gifted to the BA and to my mind should therefore remain free forever.

[Guest ExMemberKingFisher]

On ‎16‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 12:06, Ricardo said:

No it has moorings but no electric least it didn't have . besides I've very much fallen out with the owner of the nelson after the removal an subsequently loss of my late girlfriends memorial cross after he gave me his assurance it would be fine when he took the building over in 2015 .

Sorry to hear that.

The Lord Nelson definitely used to have electric in the form of a 13A three pin socket on the pub sign. Not proper official shore power as such, but I have seen many a boat plugged into it in the past. I'll check next time I'm there, the socket may have been removed during the refurbishment.

[KaptinKev]

22 hours ago, grendel said:

 

if it was a sub standard installation, there would be other evidence, people reporting getting a tingle from the posts, dogs getting a shock when cocking their legs.

 

I doubt that the problem is in the installation as these have to be inspected and tested yearly and a condition report has to be given. I would expect that the problem is with the boat owner, as it doesn't take much to trip out an RCD with a lot of condensation alive at this time of year on boats. Also with a possible 16 amp mcb protecting the supply, a kettle and a fan heater would be all that needed to trip it. They could mount the trips on the posts, but being made of plastic, the heavy handed public would all that be needed to break them.

So in the eye of the authorities, it's a pain in the back side to keep someone on hand to reset and more effective to keep the protective devices under lock and key. 

[Islander]

The posts have an rcd in them I think. Most boats will also have an rcd and 16A mcb. I would be interested to know if the shed trip/breaker has popped with no boats connected.

Colin

[JohnK]

The posts have an rcd in them I think. Most boats will also have an rcd and 16A mcb. I would be interested to know if the shed trip/breaker has popped with no boats connected.
Colin:default_winko:

If that’s true it also makes you wonder why they’re tripping in the shed rather than on the boat or in the shed (if they are) doesn’t it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Islander]

As I said John, I can't remember for sure. Ricardo will be able to answer this for us I hope. Being as each post supplies 3 outputs I would expect each to be protected individually. I don't know of any other moorings having the same problems.

Colin

[vanessan]

On 16/12/2017 at 14:04, Ricardo said:

I fully intended to take this up with the council concerned but being so close to Christmas I can image that it might be the new yr before I get if I get an answer .

You could try emailing Lana Hempsall of BDC, I reckon she would respond pretty sharpish. Her involvement with the BA might enable her to get to the bottom of the issue sooner rather than later. Worth a try surely? 

[KaptinKev]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

The posts have an rcd in them I think. Most boats will also have an rcd and 16A mcb. I would be interested to know if the shed trip/breaker has popped with no boats connected.

Colin

If the electrician has done his job properly and tested the insulation resistance of the supply cable and time testing/fault current on the RCD, the fault that may occur outside of this is beyond his scope.

Marina's have an obligation to provide a safe supply and I wouldn't be surprised that insurance came into it, but how many boat owners have their electrical installations tested yearly?

[Guest ExMemberKingFisher]

Those that know the forum where Ricardo originally sourced the info that started this thread. There is another informative update.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, vanessan said:

You could try emailing Lana Hempsall of BDC, I reckon she would respond pretty sharpish. Her involvement with the BA might enable her to get to the bottom of the issue sooner rather than later. Worth a try surely? 

That's an excellent idea I'd totally forgotten that Lana is a BDC member , email to be sent tonight