The Haven Bridge

[KatieR]

8 hours ago, BroadAmbition said:

I can inform forumites that I have received a reply to my points / questions raised with Peel Ports GYA

Some of the questions have been answered satisfactorily,  However some of them have not, so I have discussed it with Robin then sent the document back electronically for them to look at it again with a bit of encouragement from yours truly

Griff

I’m pleased to hear that Peel Ports have responded in such a timely manner, but its disappointing that they have not managed to deal appropriately with all points raised. 

Good on you and Robin for not letting this lie. Whilst I’m sure there are no answers in the world that could make up for both the personal and emotional impacts Mondays situation caused for all of Team Indy, nevertheless it’s the very least you deserve. 

Let’s hope Peel Ports manage to deal with this properly now, and don’t add insult to injury! 

[Regulo]

 Hope you get a better outcome than the last debacle at Mutford lock. These companies seem to employ people to deliberately waffle ad infinitum, hoping you'll get fed up and go away. And the way they can fill a page with the answer to every question you haven't asked makes you think they'd be better off in politics. Keep at 'em, Griff!

[ranworthbreeze]

29 minutes ago, Regulo said:

 Hope you get a better outcome than the last debacle at Mutford lock. These companies seem to employ people to deliberately waffle ad infinitum, hoping you'll get fed up and go away. And the way they can fill a page with the answer to every question you haven't asked makes you think they'd be better off in politics. Keep at 'em, Griff!

The situation with Peel Ports will not improve if they do move all their operations to Liverpool.

Regards

Alan

 

[Smoggy]

10 hours ago, BroadAmbition said:

In between customers today, I set off to Donny to visit my main suppliers in the GriffTile van, I met mysen coming back before I had got there

Griff

That's normal for yorkshire, last time I went there I set out in 2017 and got there in 1973, or at least it seemed that way.

Going to scotland today so hoping for the same century will be the best I can do.

[Snowy]

To the moderator that removed my reply to Griff, it was meant as a joke, funny comment or witty remark call it what you will, but it wasn’t meant to upset anyone,

I’m quickly learning here, not many have a funny bone

 

[BroadAmbition]

Snowy - Sorry, I missed it.  Usually if you add an aptly chosen emoticon thing or two then the mods will obviously know it's tongue in cheek / joke etc

Griff

[Snowy]

Just now, BroadAmbition said:

Snowy - Sorry, I missed it.  Usually if you add an aptly chosen emoticon thing or two then the mods will obviously know it's tongue in cheek / joke etc

Griff

Ahhh that’s where I went wrong

all I said was.... I hope you added to your reply “do you know who I am” 

 

but it forgot to put  I know for future now 

[Londonlad1985]

That's why it wouldn't let me add a "haha" emoji earlier! 

[Snowy]

10 minutes ago, Londonlad1985 said:

That's why it wouldn't let me add a "haha" emoji earlier! 

As I said when I first joined here, I type how I speak, and to me I find humour in everything but it’s very difficult to convey that in typing 

[grendel]

adding the smiley at the ends makes it a lot easier for the moderators to see its a joke / funny , if its really bad you can use the get my coat smiley.

else we will look at it and think 

[Londonlad1985]

28 minutes ago, Snowy said:

As I said when I first joined here, I type how I speak, and to me I find humour in everything but it’s very difficult to convey that in typing 

The perils of the typed word! It's one of those things in modern life i guess! I spend all day at work communicating via e mail. And a lot of time outside of work. I does and has lead to misunderstandings an example of which I will share in another thread later I expect.

[Cheesey]

How about, "Fancy an early one Bob?"

"Can't got a lift at 4:15"

"Nah, tell them we have a problem and we will do it first thing tomorrow."

 

[stumpy]

Or even " Have you seen the size of that tub coming up by the grain quay?" "Yeah, bet it's full of gin-swilling, Tory-voting toffs, shall we decamp to the Dukes 'ead?"

[Wyndham]

31 minutes ago, stumpy said:

Or even " Have you seen the size of that tub coming up by the grain quay?" "Yeah, bet it's full of gin-swilling, Tory-voting toffs, shall we decamp to the Dukes 'ead?"

That's pretty close to my assessment of the situation from the beginning.

[BroadAmbition]

and we will do it first thing tomorrow." 

- only they didn't after telling us they would do so

 

Or even " Have you seen the size of that tub coming up by the grain quay?" "Yeah, bet it's full of gin-swilling, Tory-voting toffs, shall we decamp to the Dukes 'ead?" 

- A fair assessment

 

That's pretty close to my assessment of the situation from the beginning.

- And from the answers to date of my questions from Peel Ports GYA,  In a round a bout sort of way - Mine too

 

Griff

[JennyMorgan]

23 minutes ago, Wyndham said:

That's pretty close to my assessment of the situation from the beginning.

I hadn't liked to suggest that but I have long thought along those lines!

I turns up in me er hem humble Drascombe, lifts me starboard hand leg and lets rip, hawks over the side, drags me knuckles along the quay heading, demands a taxi to the DHS via Sports Direct, never fails, am received with open arms!

[Guest]

Thing is if this is the case its proving it , speculation is fine but I fail to see how any evidence of misconduct could be obtained other that what's already known ie the unanswered calls , I'll admit there is a nasty smell to all this but I really think the most that can be hoped for is an apology .

The thing is this could affect other users in the future and it would be interesting to know of any other boats that have had problem's in the past .

[KatieR]

I feel quite strongly that Team Indy shouldn't just get an apology, they deserve a full, clear and honest explanation from Peel Ports about what happened and why, and a reassurance that lessons have been learned and the situation won't be repeated going forward. Even if we summise for a second that there were real and genuine reasons why they couldn't lift the bridge as previously agreed, the lack of contact, information and honesty in the throes of the situation were, IMO, not acceptable. 

This could have, and absolutely should have, been dealt with differently. 

I also suspect that there are real and demonstrable financial losses here- additional fuel costs incurred when pushing Indy to meet a deadline that PP had agreed which would not have been necessary if they had confirmed earlier that it was a no-go, additional travel costs when a change of crew was required, loss of earnings for the need for an additional day to get to destination, and so I'm sure it goes on. 

If this is the case, perhaps PP should be recognising this also and making that good too- even If they only call it agesture of goodwill. If it was only to buy a bottle of rum for the coffee next time Team Indy are aboard, it would be a start...

Now if I stop summising there is any evidence of genuine reasons, and go with the 'early dart/gin palace' theories, then it would be game on 

[JennyMorgan]

There is a historical apathy to leisure boating at Gt Yarmouth, at least in my opinion, thus what happened to Team Indy did not unduly surprise me. I see no harm in raising the issue, perhaps the authorities in general themselves will realise that leisure boating can provide an income stream, that it shouldn't just be seen as an inconvenience, in deed it should be catered for.

[Meantime]

I suspect a lot of the attitude towards pleasure craft from Peel Ports has to do with the fact that there is no marina style moorings or facilities for pleasure boats within the harbour. If you look at Lowestoft there are pontoon moorings for pleasure craft within the harbour and they are properly catered for.

When Peel Ports were responsible for Breydon Water they were forced to interact with, or cater for, pleasure boaters more, because there was a constant stream of pleasure boats transiting between the North and South Broads through their patch. Since responsibility for Breydon has been passed to The BA (a mistake in my book) the only interaction Peel now have with pleasure boaters is when someone wants a bridge lifting to pass through the port to or from the sea. Otherwise seen as a PITA.

[BroadAmbition]

Evening Y'all,

Update with regards to my communications with the Port Operations Manger at Peel Ports GYA who are responsible for maintenance and operation of Haven Bridge.

I would like to state that right from the off the said Port operations manager has been quick in replying to my comments and questions and at no time tried the trusted but tired old excuse of time wasting, not being able to contact staff etc.  Nope he was on the ball right from the word go.

Some points of my statements / questions we were never going to agree on, Yes I could have forced the issue by getting signed statements from the Tuesday morning Independence crew, but I needed to put this in perceptive, it was not a murder investigation.

To condense it down and not bore you all with every little detail and all the exact questions I put to him, the outcome is as follows. Copied and pasted from his replies:-

The reason the operators were unable to lift the bridge on the Monday at 16:15 was due to a fault with the PAWLS, which were not locking into place, and it would have been unsafe to lift as the safety controls in place were not giving a safe indication of the PAWLS being locked in position. If the bridge had been lifted and closed again with the PAWLS in an unlocked position then the bridge would have been unsafe to cross and potentially a catastrophic failure could have resulted in the bridge sections failing and falling into the River.

The reason for the fault was not given to Robin, as at that time the engineers could not ascertain the route cause other than what the indicator was saying. It is not normal practise for us to give details of the fault as the outcome is the same i.e. it is a fault that has stopped us from lifting the bridge for vessels to safely pass under the bridge. If Robin had asked for more details we may have given the above details but Robin did not ask for any specific details.

The engineers that were responding to the fault had recommended that the bridge may be out of action all night while the investigation was undertaken (The bridge is of 1920/30’s construction and the lifting mechanism is original and so we have to treat her with a considerable amount of care and attention). At this time the bridge crew would also have been unavailable the next morning due to our requirement to give them a compulsory rest break under the working time regulations i.e. if we had kept the bridge crew as far into the evening as possible, and the bridge was not fixed for the morning, then we would have had the same issue of not having sufficient resources available. If a night opening of Haven Bridge (Breydon Bridge does not lift at night) is planned in advance, then this can be scheduled to offer this service, but short notice requests are obviously more difficult to accommodate.

The fault was still evident from the engineers feedback at 07:00 when the operators met them on our site which is 10 minutes from the bridge. The fault had unfortunately not been rectified by 07:30, and this is why no lift was made available to any users.

The bridge booking at 10:15 was arranged at approx. 09:15 following the conclusion of the fault with the Bridge  and prior to the Pilot boat requiring access. We are also the operators of the Pilot Boat service at GY and this passage was requested via telephone from Pilot Boat at approx. 09:45 which allowed him to pass through at the same time as the booking at 10:15 i.e. the Pilot Boat was in the same situation as yourselves, but communications are made internally by telephone and not via VHF for this booking.

The Duty Officer was unfortunately travelling into work at the time Robin called and was unable to safely answer his phone. However, as soon as he is in the office, the out of office diversion is transferred to the person who answered your call at which time his focus was on dealing with the bridge lift issue raised in the voicemails, by which time you had made contact with the office who advised you of the status and then latterly contacted you to say that the bridge lift was hoping to take place at 10:15 (which thankfully it did).

The manager also stated:-

The crux of the issue seems to be around the morning communications .  On the comment about the treatment of River leisure users, we feel that we have a very good relationship with the groups that frequent the port and so I am disappointed to hear this. Therefore, yourself or any other leisure user for that matter, are more than welcome to attend our marine liaison meetings that currently include the following parties, and where your views would be more than appreciated.  (He goes onto list names / positions etc)

I will also make sure that we take any learnings from these unfortunate events and again I thank you for your honest feedback and again, I pass on my apologies to yourself, Robin and the crew that were inconvenienced on this call.   I do hope that the above answers your queries, and we again apologise for the issues experienced at GY for the vessels visit.

So I am leaving it at that. I have thanked him for his timely remarks and he did his best with interviewing his staff, even though imho they were being economical with the truth.  No need to flog a dead horse.  Robin is of course aware of the communications I have been carrying out.  I have invited said operations manage to have a read of this thread and make comment if he wishes too.  If nothing else, I would hope that me getting onto Peel will hopefully sharpen up the staff that operate the bridge into being somewhat more on the ball and not taking us leisure craft for granted, otherwise they will suffer yet another internal investigation.  Eventually some mud will stick.  There isn't and never has been smoke without fire.

Yours

Griff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BrundallNavy]

Sounds like a load of waffle to me. 

[MauriceMynah]

4 hours ago, brundallNavy said:

Sounds like a load of waffle to me. 

No, I think not.

Any good manager will be seen by his (other genders are available) staff to be backing them up. this he is doing. The apology is fairly general, "sorry you were inconvenienced" etc. but not indicating fault of his men.. What happens behind the scenes is not our concern, nor should it be. I agree with Griff that pushing the issue further would quite possibly be counter productive.

In my 'never humble' opinion  that communication to Griff is pretty much the end of the matter, certainly as far as Peel Ports is concerned. Where we , the pleasure boaters go, well, that remains to be seen and discussed.

[JennyMorgan]

Thank you, Griff, an acceptable response from Peel Ports in my opinion. Hopefully Peel Ports will now sharpen up their repore with pleasure boaters. I have a sea trip, Oulton Broad to Oulton Broad via Yarmouth planned for later this year so I shall see for myself!

[Vaughan]

So it would seem that the annoyance and inconvenience was not just a breakdown of the bridge but more a breakdown in communication.

At least it may have proved the point to them, that pleasure vessels will be prepared to fight for their right of passage.