Reedham Ferry

[Meantime]

11 minutes ago, Wussername said:

Looking at records going back some 25 years I can see no mention of any serious incident at Reedham Ferry ( although I do except that an incident may have occurred but not recorded but I doubt it)

A webcam would give you an indication of events but would not be able to record the tidal flow or wind speed, all relevant to establishing who was to blame and what lessons could be learnt - if any.

I doubt if Mr Archer would gain much by looking at footage if he was indeed inclined to do so. 

I can see no value whatsoever in installing a web camera or indeed a surveillance camera. For a civil court case perhaps, does anybody really care who was to blame except perhaps the poor ferry man or the cruiser helm.

I suspect that there are more important matters to attend. 

It has been claimed on Facebook that the boat was within 30m of the ferry when it set off. I don't know if that was true or not, but CCTV would have been able to prove, or disprove that. It would also show whether the ferry is being pushed up or down river by a strong flood or ebb, so again some use in determining tide conditions. I suspect the helm, or ferry operator are going to care who is to blame, because I would have thought there is a good chance of an insurance claim!.

Last year I was parked in a hotel car park and was standing outside chatting to a group of friends. I could see my car but was too far away to stop a van reversing into the front of my car. We went over and the van driver admitted fault, apologised and we exchanged details. As my car was parked and I was not at fault I informed my insurance company, but rather than let them deal with the claim, I used a no fault claims management company. They handled the repairs and the claim. About two months later they contacted me to say that the driver of the van is denying all knowledge of the incident and claiming he wasn't even at the hotel!.

Fortunately when leaving the hotel car park the dash cam footage captured the van parked up on the right hand side. It showed the company name, logo and registration number and my paint on his bumper. I copied the footage and saved it for my records. This was later provided to the claims company who shared it with the third party who immediately had a change of heart and admitted being there and reversing into my car. I am a great believer in CCTV and dash cams. That one incident paid for the dash cam.

[Wussername]

With respect your dashcam example has little or no bearing on this particular incident regarding the installation of a webcam at the Ferry. I doubt very much if the detail from a webcam would provide conclusive evidence in this particular matter or future incidents.

As for Facebook I will leave that comment for another day.

Andrew

[Meantime]

13 minutes ago, Wussername said:

With respect your dashcam example has little or no bearing on this particular incident regarding the installation of a webcam at the Ferry. I doubt very much if the detail from a webcam would provide conclusive evidence in this particular matter or future incidents.

As for Facebook I will leave that comment for another day.

Andrew

I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I'm very much suggesting CCTV rather than a webcam. Webcam detail is normally limited by the bandwidth of the connection to the internet. CCTV is extremely detailed and clear.

[Wussername]

2 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I'm very much suggesting CCTV rather than a webcam. Webcam detail is normally limited by the bandwidth of the connection to the internet. CCTV is extremely detailed and clear.

CCTV can be very expensive in terms of cost and maintenance, And in my experience a site such as the ferry at Reedham would require more than one camera, possibly three.

Completely unjustified even for a single camera.

Andrew

[Hylander]

18 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Very wise. Also hide the faces of any fore-peak floozies that you have onboard, just in case the wife sees them!

Many a true words and all that .....

[Meantime]

1 minute ago, Wussername said:

CCTV can be very expensive in terms of cost and maintenance, And in my experience a site such as the ferry at Reedham would require more than one camera, possibly three.

Completely unjustified even for a single camera.

Andrew

Prices have dropped considerably these days. A good setup with hard disk recorder and no maintenance needed around the £400 to £500 mark. One of cost that is tax deductible and can be written down over a number of years.

[Vaughan]

7 hours ago, Poppy said:

JM, we rarely disagree, hovever may I refer you to Vaughan's reply to mine

"You are quite right about the byelaws and they are the same as international rules for pilotage waters. The ferry does not have right of way."

Not that I wish to enter in any way, into the actual circumstances of this incident, especially as I see I have already had a previous post removed. Rather more stringent moderation here, it seems, than on Facebook!

The river Yare is a maritime navigation to the port of Norwich, so it falls into the category of Pilotage Waters.

Of course, the chain ferry cannot claim priority over a 1000 ton cargo ship coming up river on the flood tide and this is what the bye-laws are designed for.

In actual practice, the ferry cannot start its passage until the river is clear. As there is now much less river traffic on the Yare than there ever was before, this is not a significant constraint. On the other hand, if the ferry has started its passage and a boat suddenly appears round the bend coming down from Cantley, it is obviously up to that boat to give way, as the ferry, once started, cannot manoeuvre. So it is all a question of give and take, and common sense.

 

 

[annv]

Hi Vaughan Just a thought would a 1,000 ton vessel clear the chain or did they have to drop them when a large vessel passed.John

[Maxwellian]

Not 100% sure but when the ferry is docked the chains look loose and go down at an acute angle so I would think the chains are on the bottom.

[Wussername]

1 hour ago, EastCoastIPA said:

Prices have dropped considerably these days. A good setup with hard disk recorder and no maintenance needed around the £400 to £500 mark. One of cost that is tax deductible and can be written down over a number of years.

I have to agree with regard to a reasonable set up. However the cost is surely what you pay is what you get. Some of the systems that I have seen are unbelievable. 

However without going into any further detail there is no doubt in my mind that it can be very invasive. I have been in a position where for several years I have seen the advancement made in the technology. 

Eastcoast, I have found our difference in opinion interesting, without malice, and constructive.

However I do not want to see this type of intrusion on my rivers, indeed your rivers and all who hold this belief to be true.

Andrew

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Personally, I can't see how we are going to progress this forum into a respectable platform of informed opinion if we still have to have Facebook around our neck, like a millstone.

I hope we are not getting to the point of asking - which is the dog? And which is the tail?

I agree with this. Recent events have prompted me to investigate the NBN Facebook group for the first time (I closed my own Facebook account a few years ago so had to enlist the help of a relative) and it has a very different feel to it, and as we now know, a different set of rules to the forum. I think I read, but cant remember where, that the mod team are looking at the issue as part of the on-going changes to how the NBN is run, perhaps a mod can confirm?

[Maxwellian]

They are indeed. Not an easy task, but they and the chair are onto it.

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, annv said:

Hi Vaughan Just a thought would a 1,000 ton vessel clear the chain or did they have to drop them when a large vessel passed.John

The Yare always came under the Gt Yarmouth Port and Haven Commissioners and not the River Commissioners, who looked after the rest of the Broads. The river was dredged to a minimum of 12 ft at MLWS *, all the way to Norwich.

Yes, the ferry would drop its chains onto the bottom whenever a coaster was coming past. The coasters would always sound their horns when they were some way away, to give plenty of warning!

When the BA were first created, they were not responsible for navigation on the Yare.

 

* Mean low water springs.

[Matt]

 

 

Boat Undamaged apparently!!

 

 

Sent from the Norfolk Broads Network mobile app

 

[ScrumpyCheddar]

Cor Blimey they need that big crane to launch the lifeboat.. he he he . 

[ZimbiIV]

Interesting but who pays for the lift and lost ferry earnings?

Insurance companies have to decide responsibility?

Would you race a train over a level crossing?

Slower speeds agreed but could be the same result.

I personally think it was just a bad call by the helm, I just do not want effectively meet a few ton of stationary metal! so I give way.

I can turn my boat in it's own length, helm fully over and full throttle had to do that on the Chet a few years back, someone in the water cooling off!!!!!.

I wasn't cool after!

paul

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Matt said:

Boat Undamaged apparently!!

Hydraulic drive perhaps?

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, ZimbiIV said:

Insurance companies have to decide responsibility?

Would you race a train over a level crossing?

Slower speeds agreed but could be the same result.

I personally think it was just a bad call by the helm, I just do not want effectively meet a few ton of stationary metal! so I give way.

Outrageous speculation.

 

 

[Polly]

Best not to carry a version of ‘trial by internet’ over here too guys? We weren’t there, we don’t know. 

[JennyMorgan]

Thanks, Matt, informative pictures. Knowing the chains in question, and that they were under some tension, and that many modern Broads boats have a skeg, I'm somewhat surprized that the prop picked up the chain which apparently it did.  

[Hylander]

9 hours ago, Polly said:

Best not to carry a version of ‘trial by internet’ over here too guys? We weren’t there, we don’t know. 

I totally agree but in saying that , it does strike me as 'double standards' to allow the NBN to even think about attaching itself to Facebook in whatever form it takes.   We all know what a cess pit it is at the best of times.    Why have we (NBN) a need for it in the first place.   Like many others I would not touch it with a barge pole.

[Maxwellian]

Hitting the skeg first is assuming that thenoat road over an already high chain. It may have come up and hit only the prop. Really bad luck if that was the case.

[ranworthbreeze]

On 27/07/2018 at 20:00, dnks34 said:

Didnt a Freedom boat also come to grief in the chains a few years back

I think it hit the ferry rather than the chains.

Regards

Alan

[CambridgeCabby]

Ferry up and running again , boat (apparently) undamaged .

yes mistake was made , lessons learned (one hopes) , as a result our members and readers will be more cautious when passing the ferry .

All in all a positive outcome as a result of the op’s original and factual posting , and just goes to prove that mistakes can be made by private and hire boats alike .

[oldgregg]

Hydraulic drive perhaps?

Nope, those are usually on shaft.

 

He was lucky!

 

Sent from the Norfolk Broads Network mobile app