Lost A Boat!!! Or My Mind??? Oh Never Mind.

[jimbob88]

I don’t like them, think the angular stuff looks better. 

[WasJono]

On 09/08/2018 at 21:13, jimbob88 said:

Great to see an old photo of one of the original lowliners faircraft ran. I absolutely love this design of boat so if you have anymore photos of it I’d love to see them if you don’t mind. 

I will try and find our old photo albums to see what is in there.

[jimbob88]

On 13/08/2018 at 14:43, Jono said:

I will try and find our old photo albums to see what is in there.

Thanks very much, appreciate it whatever you find. 

[oldgregg]

On 10/08/2018 at 09:28, jimbob88 said:

I don’t like them, think the angular stuff looks better. 

I think the main benefit is that the angular stuff is more spacious...

Take an Alpha 35 C/C from 1995 and then compare it with an Alpha 35 c/c from 2015. There's a LOT more space inside the 1995 model....

[jimbob88]

That’s another wonderful reason for the more angular designs. Like a tardis those original alpha 35 cc. 

[WasJono]

On 09/08/2018 at 21:13, jimbob88 said:

Great to see an old photo of one of the original lowliners faircraft ran. I absolutely love this design of boat so if you have anymore photos of it I’d love to see them if you don’t mind. 

Found some Lowliner photo's in our old albums. Also realised the inside helm was on the "wrong" side from one photo below (2.3).

[vanessan]

On 15/08/2018 at 09:40, oldgregg said:

I think the main benefit is that the angular stuff is more spacious...

Take an Alpha 35 C/C from 1995 and then compare it with an Alpha 35 c/c from 2015. There's a LOT more space inside the 1995 model....

Any photos to help explain what you mean? It always seems to me that something ‘rounded’ would be more spacious than something ‘angular’. 

[jimbob88]

Cheers lovely to see some more old lowliner photos, was only 4 months old while you were holidaying on this boat. 

[charlesa]

I seem to remember hiring one of these from Herbert Woods many years ago having been fooled by the name ( v stupid I know !) into thinking that it would go under Potter Heigham Bridge.

It didn't !!

[jimbob88]

2 hours ago, charlesa said:

I seem to remember hiring one of these from Herbert Woods many years ago having been fooled by the name ( v stupid I know !) into thinking that it would go under Potter Heigham Bridge.

It didn't !!

They do fit just needs to be unbelievably low water and with the bridge sinking it’s getting less and less likely to happen. 

[jimbob88]

5 hours ago, vanessan said:

Any photos to help explain what you mean? It always seems to me that something ‘rounded’ would be more spacious than something ‘angular’. 

Does this really crude drawing explain how space is lost on a curved design as opposite to the old angular design. 

[oldgregg]

6 hours ago, vanessan said:

Any photos to help explain what you mean? It always seems to me that something ‘rounded’ would be more spacious than something ‘angular’. 

Compare this https://www.richardsonsboatingholidays.co.uk/boats/viscount/ 

with https://www.richardsonsboatingholidays.co.uk/boats/swan-renown/

But basically as Jimbob88 has shown above. The old angular design was totally reworked to improve the aesthetics, but the angles were what gave such impressive interior space.

Also take a look at https://www.richardsonsboatingholidays.co.uk/boats/highland-gem/ - Unlikely to win any beauty contests, but massive inside for a 38ft boat.

[VetChugger]

Its great to see some boats moored at Marina Keys. Lets hope the plans to bring these back into use do actually happen.

[vanessan]

Thanks oldgregg and jimbo88 for the explanations, I now see exactly what you mean. I hired the old design quite a few times but don’t have much idea of the newer boats as we have our own boat now. Interesting sketch jimbo but it got the idea across  .

[expilot]

Always keen to replace opinion by fact.  The Lowliners were designed to 'fit' Potter Bridge perfectly - probably the first to be so designed.  The arch was the first line to be drawn on the designer's drawing board - and fit they most certainly still do.  When these boats were passing Potter every day of the week, 6' 9" air draft was all they needed - except for one variant, which had the wheel on the 'wrong' side.  We listed her as needing 6' 11" to give us a larger margin of safety.  We took all Lowliners through from the upper helm position and the boat's profile exactly matched the bridge's.  

Similarly in an attempt to dispel the myth - the bridge is not "sinking".  It hasn't sunk in the past fifty years anyway.  Based on personal empirical knowledge, the water levels have risen by at least four inches in the last thirty years.  Now, as some local 'experts' repeatedly suggest, if we were to dredge beneath the bridge, we'd get back to the good old days when seven feet plus headroom clearances were the Summer norm!  

[Regulo]

Expilot, are you forgetting your very own craft? Weren't Ripplecraft Broadland class designed "to pass under all Broads bridges, at any state of tide, with canopy closed", as I seem to recall in Blakes brochure?

[oldgregg]

1 hour ago, expilot said:

Always keen to replace opinion by fact.  The Lowliners were designed to 'fit' Potter Bridge perfectly - probably the first to be so designed.  The arch was the first line to be drawn on the designer's drawing board - and fit they most certainly still do. 

They sure were. Out of interest, do you know who designed them for Faircraft?

[jimbob88]

3 hours ago, expilot said:

 

Similarly in an attempt to dispel the myth - the bridge is not "sinking".  It hasn't sunk in the past fifty years anyway.  Based on personal empirical knowledge, the water levels have risen by at least four inches in the last thirty years.  Now, as some local 'experts' repeatedly suggest, if we were to dredge beneath the bridge, we'd get back to the good old days when seven feet plus headroom clearances were the Summer norm!  

Nothing I enjoy more than being told I’m wrong ?

 

To be honest I’d heard so many times off people it was sinking I just took it as gospel. Is that true about dredging or is that tongue in cheek. 

[Regulo]

19 minutes ago, jimbob88 said:

To be honest I’d heard so many times off people it was sinking I just took it as gospel. Is that true about dredging or is that tongue in cheek. 

No, it's true. If you lower the river bed, it's obvious to any idiot that the water must go down as well. There will be a definite dip in the river under the bridge. Oh, did I mention I'm an idiot?

[vanessan]

38 minutes ago, jimbob88 said:

To be honest I’d heard so many times off people it was sinking I just took it as gospel. 

A bit like the National Park story.............

[charlesa]

Thanks for that photo Jimbob88, I stand corrected although if you look at the current Herbert Woods website for Glittering Light, for instance, it says this:

 

Glittering Light Specification & Floor Plan

Length: 38ft (11.58m) Width: 12ft (3.66m)

Cabins: 4 Bathrooms: 2

Bridge Clearance - 6 ft 8 ins. Will not pass under Beccles Old or Potter Heigham bridges. Will pass under Ludham, Wayford and Wroxham bridges subject to weather and tide conditions with the windscreen lowered. (Bridge pilot service must be used when passing under Wroxham bridge)

 

Hence I think one could be forgiven for an earlier post ¬!

 

[jimbob88]

7 hours ago, expilot said:

 

Similarly in an attempt to dispel the myth - the bridge is not "sinking".  It hasn't sunk in the past fifty years anyway.  Based on personal empirical knowledge, the water levels have risen by at least four inches in the last thirty years.  Now, as some local 'experts' repeatedly suggest, if we were to dredge beneath the bridge, we'd get back to the good old days when seven feet plus headroom clearances were the Summer norm!  

Nothing I enjoy more than being told I’m wrong ?

 

To be honest I’d heard so many times off people it was sinking I just took it as gospel. Is that true about dredging or is that tongue in cheek. 

[jimbob88]

20 minutes ago, charlesa said:

Thanks for that photo Jimbob88, I stand corrected although if you look at the current Herbert Woods website for Glittering Light, for instance, it says this:

 

Glittering Light Specification & Floor Plan

Length: 38ft (11.58m) Width: 12ft (3.66m)

Cabins: 4 Bathrooms: 2

Bridge Clearance - 6 ft 8 ins. Will not pass under Beccles Old or Potter Heigham bridges. Will pass under Ludham, Wayford and Wroxham bridges subject to weather and tide conditions with the windscreen lowered. (Bridge pilot service must be used when passing under Wroxham bridge)

 

Hence I think one could be forgiven for an earlier post ¬!

 

No definitely I can see why you thought that. There’s a good number of boats that used to state they could fit under potter or wroxham years ago that now no longer fit. Must be the yards getting worried about boats getting stuck on the other side. 

 

 

[oldgregg]

24 minutes ago, charlesa said:

 

Glittering Light Specification & Floor Plan

Length: 38ft (11.58m) Width: 12ft (3.66m)

Cabins: 4 Bathrooms: 2

Bridge Clearance - 6 ft 8 ins. Will not pass under Beccles Old or Potter Heigham bridges. Will pass under Ludham, Wayford and Wroxham bridges subject to weather and tide conditions with the windscreen lowered. (Bridge pilot service must be used when passing under Wroxham bridge)

 

Hence I think one could be forgiven for an earlier post ¬!

 

Yeah, that's just the boatyard stating what they allow.

I think there was an incident in the summer of '98 where a lot of boats got stuck the wrong side.

[jimbob88]

7 hours ago, expilot said:

  When these boats were passing Potter every day of the week, 6' 9" air draft was all they needed - except for one variant, which had the wheel on the 'wrong' side.  We listed her as needing 6' 11" to give us a larger margin of safety. 

Can you recall what boat this was can’t think of any lowliner with upper steering on opposite side.