Potter Heigham Bridge

[Guest]

Potter Heigham bridge has been there for more than six hundred years and hopefully will see it's thousandth year. I know a lot of the comments are 'tongue in cheek', but really, any talk about demolishing it, because it's inconvenient to pleasure boaters,  is just plain daft.

Lets face it, at least 90% of the boats that are now on the Norfolk Broads would never have got under the low bridges, even in the 50's or 60's. We wanted all the 'mod cons' and the boat builders delivered. The downside was, all the 'fripperies' needed larger and larger boats...

I understand, that many of the older boats, which could navigate the bridge no longer can, but many of those, even at the time of building, were very close to the limit, of being able to pass beneath Potter Heigham bridge.

If there are so many people 'miffed' at not being able to navigate the upper Thurne, then it seems like someone is missing a trick. New boats are being built all the time, perhaps build a few that will navigate the low bridges as conditions are now, it sounds like there would be a market for them. Isn't that what the Broads boatbuilders always did, build boats that suited the waterways as they are at the time, not as they once were...

[Starbrite]

In all the time I have hired boats on the broads since 1980 I've only been under the bridge 4 times mainly because of bad timing but I use to like the quietness above the bridge but plenty of other things to do now planning to come back as its a few years ago since we now have our own boat I seam to be missing out

Sent from the Norfolk Broads Network mobile app

[MauriceMynah]

42 minutes ago, kingfisher666 said:

Potter Heigham bridge has been there for more than six hundred years and hopefully will see it's thousandth year. I know a lot of the comments are 'tongue in cheek', but really, any talk about demolishing it, because it's inconvenient to pleasure boaters,  is just plain daft.

Fully agree.

 

43 minutes ago, kingfisher666 said:

I understand, that many of the older boats, which could navigate the bridge no longer can, but many of those, even at the time of building, were very close to the limit, of being able to pass beneath Potter Heigham bridge.

No, disagree. If 7' 6" was the average at mean high water, and I would estimate it to be 6' 3" now that's a change of 15"  many many more boats could get under with plenty of clearance,

[johnb]

If any changes were made to make access easier, would this actually change the area so that it would lose the attraction it now has?

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

No, disagree. If 7' 6" was the average at mean high water, and I would estimate it to be 6' 3" now that's a change of 15"  many many more boats could get under with plenty of clearance,

I've never known Potter Heigham Bridge to be 7' 6" clearance at mean high water, must have been well before my time. I can remember in the early seventies, often having to wait at 'Herbert Woods' pilot, for an hour or two, in boats that had a lot less air draft than that. 'Shining Dawn' (pictured) was not much more than 6ft. air draft, with windscreen down, but we still had to wait...

[BroadAmbition]

I (And my Dad) used to regularly take Broom Admirals through, from memory they require 7ft 2" I believe.  The average clearance for PHB has without any doubt whatsoever has decreased steadily since the Port Commissioners handed over the reigns to the current Broads Authority when regular dredging of the lower Bure ceased.    Our own 'B.A' requires 6ft 5" to comfortable get through, she was built in 66 and designed for all broads bridges.  Yes I have taken her through a few times but more often I cannot do so nowadays, especially with the concern of not being able to get back again.  I don't believe the bridge is settling on its foundations either.  Dredge the Lower Bure as it used to be regularly done, then the craft designed / built for the Broads Bridges will once again be able to pass under PHB at correct times of tide, just like they used to do.  Rocket science it is not

Griff

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, johnb said:

If any changes were made to make access easier, would this actually change the area so that it would lose the attraction it now has?

I can remember times in the seventies, when Horsey Staithe, West Somerton Staithe and the 'Pleasure Boat Inn', would all have busy moorings (though mostly much 'smaller' boats than todays craft). I can't remember that it made the area any less special, it's as beautiful a place now, as it was back then.

I do remember that 'Prymnesium' outbreaks used to be an almost yearly problem on the upper Thurne broads. Whether the larger number of boats had any bearing on that I don't know, but Prymnesium, seem to be much rarer these days, when there are much fewer boats there.

[BroadAmbition]

but Prymnesium, seem to be much rarer these days, when there are much fewer boats there.

Would that be something to do with the boats changing over to holding tanks rather than river discharge perhaps?

Griff

[grendel]

well I have passed under that bridge 3 times now, all this year, twice in a Martham boat (there and back) and once in Royal Tudor. 

I seem to recall Expilot saying that there would be more clearance if the river bed under the bridge were dredged.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, BroadAmbition said:

Dredge the Lower Bure as it used to be regularly done, then the craft designed / built for the Broads Bridges will once again be able to pass under PHB at correct times of tide, just like they used to do.  Rocket science it is not

Griff

I understand what you're saying, but I think a lot of 'depth surveying' would have to be done throughout the North rivers first. If water depth at Potter Heigham dropped, would it not also drop elsewhere?... Which would probably cause 'grounding' problems in shallower areas. I've heard that yachts have occasionally grounded at 'Irstead Shoals' and other stretches on the River Ant. I can think of one or two broads too, that can't really afford to lose any water depth, before groundings would occur.

I know it will be said that 'well those areas should be dredged too', but in these days of government austerity, I can't think where the money would come from, for such extensive works. E.U. grants will soon be a thing of the past and boat owners are always vociferous in their critisism of the Broads Authority, when tolls are raised. When the 'Port & Haven Commisioners' had the responsibility, labour costs were a lot cheaper and disposal of spoil was not the problem it is today. And then, although it's 'not rocket science', would the dredging actually be guaranteed to have the desired effect. Surely, after dredging the lower Bure, if more water leaves the rivers on the ebb tide, would not more flow up the rivers on the flood tide?.

[Hrimfaxi]

Thanks for the comments! I didn't mean to spark a debate on the bridge haha

[CambridgeCabby]

Perhaps an entrepreneur may pop up with a hiab (and insurance) and be able to lift boats over at a sensible rate ?

What air draft is the second bridge ??

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, BroadAmbition said:

but Prymnesium, seem to be much rarer these days, when there are much fewer boats there.

Would that be something to do with the boats changing over to holding tanks rather than river discharge perhaps?

Griff

That's a thought, I wonder whether sewage discharge does have an effect on Prymnesium blooms. I know salinity and turbidity are said to be a partial cause. I guess raw sewage would probably account for some of the turbidity at least.

[johnb]

41 minutes ago, Hrimfaxi said:

Thanks for the comments! I didn't mean to spark a debate on the bridge haha

I am sorry that I helped to contribute to diverting the thread from your photographs, which I very much enjoyed viewing. There are a number of topics that will always be diverted by some of us owing to certain strong feelings! Perhaps there ought to be a warning list at the top of each section! 

[MauriceMynah]

2 hours ago, kingfisher666 said:

I've never known Potter Heigham Bridge to be 7' 6" clearance at mean high water, must have been well before my time.

That measurement comes from the BA tide tables, 

 

2 hours ago, BroadAmbition said:

Dredge the Lower Bure as it used to be regularly done, then the craft designed / built for the Broads Bridges will once again be able to pass under PHB at correct times of tide, just like they used to do. 

That always used to be my view too, but it has been suggested that flood alleviation works have also had an effect.

 

1 hour ago, kingfisher666 said:

I've heard that yachts have occasionally grounded at 'Irstead Shoals' and other stretches on the River Ant. I can think of one or two broads too, that can't really afford to lose any water depth, before groundings would occur.

Now, we often hear about some motor cruisers being "the wrong boats for the Broads" yet we rarely hear people talking about some yachts being unsuitable because of excessive keels. If one were to go to hire one of Martham's yachts or perhaps from Womack, would going aground be a problem?

[Hrimfaxi]

19 minutes ago, johnb said:

I am sorry that I helped to contribute to diverting the thread from your photographs, which I very much enjoyed viewing. There are a number of topics that will always be diverted by some of us owing to certain strong feelings! Perhaps there ought to be a warning list at the top of each section! 

No worries, I don't mind. Afterall, that's what forums are about.  

Interesting reading through this though, I thought we were all on a level plane when it came to that bridge!

[MauriceMynah]

6 minutes ago, Hrimfaxi said:

Interesting reading through this though, I thought we were all on a level plane when it came to that bridge!

Oh no, not at all. Basically it boils down to two sides. Mine and those who are wrong. :-)  

[johnb]

I can think of absolutely no statement that we would all agree about (unless it is this one). There is one other participant /authoritythat has hardly been mentioned in this thread but if you added them to the discussion then it would be good for at least another 20 pages!

[ChrisB]

I remember 6ft 8ins being quoted by BA and that reduced to 6ft 6ins about 6 years ago never seen 7ft 6ins.

Ex-Pilot where are you?

[MauriceMynah]

You may well be right Chris. Sadly I don't have a tide table, and am relying on my (highly fallible) memory.

Either way it's wrong, just I thought it was wronger  

[Ray]

I asked BA within the last month about bridge height marker boards and they told me they are all checked regularly and are kept within a 3 inch tolerance!

I wasn't particularly reassured given how close it is at PH

[Smoggy]

1 hour ago, Ray said:

I asked BA within the last month about bridge height marker boards and they told me they are all checked regularly and are kept within a 3 inch tolerance!

I wasn't particularly reassured given how close it is at PH

They are full of something brown and smelly, the board at ludham downstream on the west bank is 6" out from the lowest part of the bridge, that corner that you couldn't get a boat under anyway as there's a bank in the way, the rest of the bridge is higher still, I've been under showing 8'2" needing 8'8" and had plenty of clearance.

[Broads01]

10 hours ago, ChrisB said:

Bit of restoration for you.

Wow, that's a fascinating photo. It proves that reducing bridge clearance isn't just a Potter Heigham issue. 8 foot at Wroxham - those were the days! In recent years I've missed out on passing through Wroxham several times when clearance has been well under 7 foot. 

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

14 hours ago, brundallNavy said:

Not with less than 6ft 

You will with one of Hunters fleet.

[JennyMorgan]

7 hours ago, CambridgeCabby said:

Perhaps an entrepreneur may pop up with a hiab (and insurance) and be able to lift boats over at a sensible rate ?

What air draft is the second bridge ??

Not sure that I'd trust any boat of mine to a Hiab! Anyway, rather than that a bypass channel might be a possibility, I stress 'might'!