Sommerleyton And Reedham Bridges

[Cockatoo]

I've just read on the other forum that the phone numbers for the bridges has been changed and are not available to the public.

 

Anyone have any info on this?

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, SteveDuk said:

I've just read on the other forum that the phone numbers for the bridges has been changed and are not available to the public.

 

Anyone have any info on this?

The story is that the signalmen were getting complaint calls which were interfering with their jobs.

Currently the staff based at the bridge control the line,  next year this will be done from a remote signalling centre, so any staff based at the bridge will be there solely for the benefit of boaters, this is when the issue will really hot up, will NR want to continue staffing the bridge to the same extent as now?

 

[Cockatoo]

That makes sense I suppose. Get too many complaint calls, cut off the phones instead of dealing with the cause of the calls.

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, SteveDuk said:

That makes sense I suppose. Get too many complaint calls, cut off the phones instead of dealing with the cause of the calls.

 

The signalmen on the bridge are not the correct people to complain to though, that line was meant for bridge opening requests only

[Chelsea14Ian]

Sadly some people see a number and call that.Some I am sure would complain to the speaking clock.

[Cockatoo]

I'm glad I don't live near one of the bridges, can you imagine having boats hooting at the bridge at all hours.

[ChrisB]

There is a thread elsewhere that is interesting. Perhaps it would be possible for the member who has produced the report from  BA could post it here as well. 

 

[smellyloo]

Sometimes not naming the other forum gets silly. The NBF have the information freely available for all to view and it has been supplied by Mr Packman who seems to prefer to provide updates there.

[dnks34]

I have had a read and Its no cause for excitement.

we are aware of the problem and we will continue to look at ways of solving the problem over the coming years which only costs us time not money............is sort of the impression I get from it. 

Its good that they have all got together for a conflab but as Network Rail are penalised for delays I cant see boaters or the local economy being that high up on their list of worries.

 

[ChrisB]

20 minutes ago, smellyloo said:

Sometimes not naming the other forum gets silly. The NBF have the information freely available for all to view and it has been supplied by Mr Packman who seems to prefer to provide updates there.

I have lost complete understanding on this forum what you can and can't do. 

 

12 minutes ago, dnks34 said:

I have had a read and Its no cause for excitement.

we are aware of the problem and we will continue to look at ways of solving the problem over the coming years which only costs us time not money............is sort of the impression I get from it. 

Its good that they have all got together for a conflab but as Network Rail are penalised for delays I cant see boaters or the local economy being that high up on their list of worries.

 

I think you are correct. How much it effects the local ecomomy could be veiwed as somewhat subjective as moorings would soon be filled with boats that can pass under the bridges.

I can however see NYA concern, many of the boats on their books are available for PX. Which means they must be financing and paying interest on them. They really do need to be able to get out, sell them. Given the sort of money involved in that class of boats they probably have legal charges against their stock by their bankers and prospects will not wish to go as far as Reedham and back when committing to that type of investment.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, ChrisB said:

I think you are correct. How much it effects the local ecomomy could be veiwed as somewhat subjective as moorings would soon be filled with boats that can pass under the bridges.

This is my thinking too, a sudden permanent closure would be traumatic for owners and businesses, but if say NR stated that the bridges were to be kept operational for say 2 more years only, then everyone would have time to adapt. I am not saying that this can or should happen but I personally don't think an purely economic case can be made for the 80m required investment.

 

[marshman]

I suspect that any hope of a more permanent solution other than "best endeavours" is nothing more than a fanciful pipedream!

I suspect the real root of the problem remains that some people just cannot wait so I suspect, use the telephone as a means of letting off steam - once again a case of the few spoiling it for the majority.

[dnks34]

I would say a sudden permanent closure of both bridges would be catastrophic rather than traumatic!

I cant see that would ever be allowed to happen, if the investment needed for new bridges/repairs couldnt be met I could see the bridges staying open and the line closed. 

 

[ChrisB]

8 minutes ago, dnks34 said:

I would say a sudden permanent closure of both bridges would be catastrophic rather than traumatic!

I cant see that would ever be allowed to happen, if the investment needed for new bridges/repairs couldnt be met I could see the bridges staying open and the line closed. 

 

I think you would get very good odds on that.

Close a railway to satisfy a few boat owners and a brokerage/maintenance facility?

Brooms have stopped production and I would think limited airdraft could aid their long term ambitions for their site.

Closing a line in this day and age would be unthinkable. I could see it being made into a modern tramway type railway that maybe might not need such expensive bridges.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, dnks34 said:

 if the investment needed for new bridges/repairs couldnt be met I could see the bridges staying open and the line closed. 

There is no chance of that happening.

[rightsaidfred]

36 minutes ago, dnks34 said:

I would say a sudden permanent closure of both bridges would be catastrophic rather than traumatic!

I cant see that would ever be allowed to happen, if the investment needed for new bridges/repairs couldnt be met I could see the bridges staying open and the line closed. 

 

Pigs might fly but I doubt it, I would imagine that there are for more urgent uses for £80M of public money, at worst boat sales would have to move to the Bure.

Fred

[dnks34]

Im sure I dont need to point out that there must be hundreds of boats on the Southern Broads that with a permanent closure of both swing bridges would have their cruising area significantly restricted. 

This will affect the BA in Toll revenue, put boatyards/marinas out of business costing jobs.  It may well affect the value of the boats that are now unable to move freely and it would certainly be farther reaching than Brundall.  

There may be other consequences not even taken into consideration, dredging for example (which low airdraft boat owners need just as much as the tall ones) maintenance equipment not being able to move around (i dont know will the current machinery go under Somerleyton?) 

So when all these boats do move  away or the 100s of affected owners refuse to pay a Toll for their now severley limited cruising area several hundred low airdraft boats are going to appear and take their place..........where are they coming from? Who is building them? Who is buying them? Or might it be that Tolls rise enormously for everyone unaffected?

I think we need to accept the possibility that if the 160 million rebuild money isnt forthcoming and Network Rail/Government are met with fierce resistance when it comes down to welding them shut (they would probably still cause problems) I dont think its going to take long for abandonment to seem like the next best cheapest option.

Welding them closed could result in repercussions felt long in to the future and all boat owners regardless of airdraft ought to makesure that can never be seen as a viable option.  

 

 

 

 

[Baitrunner]

Dunks34 spot on. 

If it gets to that stage I know a heap of boats that are off. 

The marinas., repairers and BA will all be down.. 

has anyone seen the latest from NYA? 

It sounds like there is a plan afoot to replace the bridges. 

[Guest]

dknks34, You are entitled to your view, but it is an extreme one that is not helpful to anyone. Try and get the boss of NYA to publicly state that if push came to shove the rail line should close, I can guarantee you he wont as the backlash from such a statement would finish his campaign before it got started. 

[dnks34]

2 hours ago, 40something said:

This is my thinking too, a sudden permanent closure would be traumatic for owners and businesses, but if say NR stated that the bridges were to be kept operational for say 2 more years only, then everyone would have time to adapt. I am not saying that this can or should happen but I personally don't think an purely economic case can be made for the 80m required investment.

 

and saying that if everyone was given a few years to come to terms with it it would all be ok is a helpful opinion?!  I dont suppose folk adapt very well from being put out of business or work. 

Its not for the NYA to say the line will close, they just wish to maintain opening structures so it doesnt affect their business, no need for any backlash in their direction. 

Those that make the ultimate decisions will be the ones paying for them. 

Nothing extreme about anything ive said. 

[LondonRascal]

I do find it interesting that when 100 people pledged their support financially to the beginnings of legal action being taken, Network Rail, the Broads Authority and other interested parties all got together and there seems some movement. I live in hope such will happen, even if it is a long term 20 year plan of the like some progress and planning is at least a step in the right direction.

Oh, and when the signal boxes shut and the crossing keeps go, don't think the former signalmen will be kept paid to now only operate the bridges. I bet you what will happen will be set opening times brought in - perhaps two or three times a day where an operator drives to the bridges from Norwich,  opens them for a set period and allows boats through and then shut until a few hours later where the process will be repeated.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, LondonRascal said:

I do find it interesting that when 100 people pledged their support financially to the beginnings of legal action being taken, Network Rail, the Broads Authority and other interested parties all got together and there seems some movement. I live in hope such will happen, even if it is a long term 20 year plan of the like some progress and planning is at least a step in the right direction.

Oh, and when the signal boxes shut and the crossing keeps go, don't think the former signalmen will be kept paid to now only operate the bridges. I bet you what will happen will be set opening times brought in - perhaps two or three times a day where an operator drives to the bridges from Norwich,  opens them for a set period and allows boats through and then shut until a few hours later where the process will be repeated.

 

 I think it was the other way round, NYA knew that meetings were coming up so decided to launch their campaign,.

Agree re: the staffing once the new signalling is completed, I did mention the same earlier in the thread and I think it was a missed  opportunity that no one asked the question at the meeting.

Ultimately no one on here , or at the BA wants the navigation to be restricted, and the pressure on NR must be maintained, but in a sensible way that takes into consideration the realities of the funding situation and NR's legal obligation to prioritise the line

 

[ChrisB]

Those party to the problem can take as much expensive Queen's Council as they like, but the legal position will be an academic exercise (which we see alot of these days ie was the Iraq War legal etc. etc.)

However as I have said before you will not see the situation of Dept for Transport Vs Dept for Environment.

I think a more viable argument would be to concentrate on Reedham Bridge improvements that would give boats access to the sea and Bure and forget Somerleyton. Boats based at Oulton and WRC would make their exit at lowestoft and a short sea passage between there and Yarmouth and visa versa is no hardship.

 

 

[vanessan]

42 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

I think a more viable argument would be to concentrate on Reedham Bridge improvements that would give boats access to the sea and Bure and forget Somerleyton. Boats based at Oulton and WRC would make their exit at lowestoft and a short sea passage between there and Yarmouth and visa versa is no hardship.

That sounds so logical. I wouldn’t mind betting though that there would be quite few ‘large’ boats that have never been to sea and the owners wouldn’t even consider it! 

[ChrisB]

5 minutes ago, vanessan said:

That sounds so logical. I wouldn’t mind betting though that there would be quite few ‘large’ boats that have never been to sea and the owners wouldn’t even consider it! 

Your are correct, otherwise why on earth would you keep a 40ft TSMY twenty two miles up a river?