Southern Broads Extremely Low :o

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

19 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Question.

Did boats ever moor at Marina Quays?

If yes, Was it available to do so at all states of the tide?

If yes, but now it is not, which of the following is true...

The tidal range is greater than it used to be.... or The water level is lower than it used to be... or The river bed is higher than it used to be.

As Vaughan has said, Discuss!

I can remember back in 75, me and some friends hired Judith 1, and moored at what we thought was Gt Yarmouth Yacht Station, but which i found out much later was Marina Quays. At low water, the cabin top was almost as low as the level of the quay head, so in answer to your question MM, YES, boats DID moor at Marina Quays, and the bed of the river WAS much much lower at low water. No matter how much spin and crap the pro BA lobby spout, the whole of the Broads is in dire need of a massive dredging programme. It can be part funded by the massive expense accounts and bonuses of the BA hierachy.

[Vaughan]

34 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

As Vaughan has said, Discuss!

Something else I remember is that when my parents owned the River Cruiser Evening Flight, she was towed alongside, from Thorpe to Wroxham Broad every spring and she drew 4 ft 6. The first time they did this, at low tide, she ran hard aground in the middle of the river at GYYS and swung right round sideways. With the mast down there was an overall length of over 60ft, so it could have been a rather expensive moment! Suffice to say, we never took her through there again at low tide!

Point is, that the mean low water level at GYYS in the early sixties was something less than 4 ft 6. Do we know what it is now?

[Cal]

56 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Question.

Did boats ever moor at Marina Quays?

If yes, Was it available to do so at all states of the tide?

If yes, but now it is not, which of the following is true...

The tidal range is greater than it used to be.... or The water level is lower than it used to be... or The river bed is higher than it used to be.

As Vaughan has said, Discuss!

We have moored at Marina Quays on one of the boats we hired Brink of Joy. Must have been 13 years ago.

The boat broke down with catastrophic gearbox failure part way between Stracey Mill and Marina Quays. We had to get towed into Yarmouth and the boat that towed us got us there.

The place was derelict of course but we were moored up and safe. The yard staff spent all day fixing the boat there and we spent the evening moored there. So we were there for a good few tides. Can't remember the boat bottoming out at all. 

 

[batrabill]

37 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

No matter how much spin and crap the pro BA lobby spout, the whole of the Broads is in dire need of a massive dredging programme. It can be part funded by the massive expense accounts and bonuses of the BA hierachy.

Really unnecessary.

This doesn’t need to be an adversarial debate. 

No one doubts that the river system is different to how it was in the past. The debate is over the consequence of 1) much dredging at Bure mouth and 2) much more dredging of the entire system. 

Since 2 is going to cost many millions it isn’t even a possibility. So will more dredging in the Lower Bure have the effect some claim? Ie lowering the average level in the northern system. 

BESL seem to suggest not. 

Also, what other consequences will that have. Would running aground at Hickling be an acceptable consequence of lowering the average level at Potter?

[Cal]

25 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Really unnecessary.

This doesn’t need to be an adversarial debate. 

No one doubts that the river system is different to how it was in the past. The debate is over the consequence of 1) much dredging at Bure mouth and 2) much more dredging of the entire system. 

Since 2 is going to cost many millions it isn’t even a possibility. So will more dredging in the Lower Bure have the effect some claim? Ie lowering the average level in the northern system. 

BESL seem to suggest not. 

Also, what other consequences will that have. Would running aground at Hickling be an acceptable consequence of lowering the average level at Potter?

Other navigation authorities manage to provide dredging programmes throughout their catalogue of waters. Why should the BA be any different?

[batrabill]

15 minutes ago, Cal said:

Other navigation authorities manage to provide dredging programmes throughout their catalogue of waters. Why should the BA be any different?

Are you claiming the BA does no dredging?

2018/19 – 14,000m3 removed from Lower Bure 
2017/18 – 5,000m3 Bure Loop 
2017/18 – 5,820m3 removed from lower Bure 
2015/16 – 12,500m3 removed from Bure at Stokesby. 

 

[grendel]

I seem to recall dredging at Marina quays was a part of the planning application for the site there recently, of course that is dependent on the planning proposal being re-submitted and accepted.

[grendel]

5 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

but I think most of us have a good idea from how often we have been able to get through say Wroxham in the last few years.

the only problem with that statement is that every time I have attempted to get through Potter heigham bridge I have been sucessful - (okay twice on Janet 3 from Martham Boats and once on Royal Tudor), so anecdotal evidence from personal experience can also give a false sense of the possibilities. the first time (in Janet 3) there was under 6 foot on the height gauge.

[marshman]

And thats just the dredging on the Lower Bure point out, and not elsewhere  - which is omitted from those figures. They have a programme to remove something like  50/60000 m3 per annum and generally get around there - as has been said so many times all this has to get Natural England's approval and that of landowners to dump the spoil. Is that not classed as a regular programme??

They did dredge the channel at Marina Quays but not the edge  - is this their responsibility when facilites are available further downstream?  After all its not a 24 hr mooring and never has been

Oh and I regularly get through Wroxham with 6'9" !

( Must not say more - I might incur Griff's wrath further!!!! )

[Vaughan]

42 minutes ago, marshman said:

as has been said so many times all this has to get Natural England's approval and that of landowners to dump the spoil.

So do Natural England (whatever that is) have a constitutional responsibility to maintain the interests of navigation? The BA certainly do.

47 minutes ago, marshman said:

After all its not a 24 hr mooring and never has been

I am afraid that is not historically true. In the 60s, in the days when huge numbers of Broads hirers wanted to spend one or more nights in the seaside paradise of Gt Yarmouth, this quay heading (which was originally built to protect the bank from tidal erosion) was developed as a public overnight marina mooring. This is why the sheds and the "control tower" were built. In those days it used to accommodate scores of boats every night, usually double moored, and it was called the Port of Yarmouth Marina. Don't just believe me - look it up.

I should add that both Blakes and Hoseasons, through their member yards, all publicly discouraged their customers from mooring there as they considered the location to be unsafe.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, grendel said:

the only problem with that statement is that every time I have attempted to get through Potter heigham bridge I have been sucessful - (okay twice on Janet 3 from Martham Boats and once on Royal Tudor), so anecdotal evidence from personal experience can also give a false sense of the possibilities. the first time (in Janet 3) there was under 6 foot on the height gauge.

But I am talking about with the same boat with a quoted 7'0" airdraft several times a year for a dozen years or more as I am sure many others owners could

Fred

[marshman]

No Vaughan, they do not have a constitutional responsibility to maintain navigation, but they seem to have the ability to be able to dictate to the BA when and where!!!  They are the Governments environmental adviser and as the Government still pay some funding, my guess is you don't bite the hand that feeds you!!! DEFRA is all powerful in everything, rightly or wrongly and to be fair, the inability to dredge against private land you cannot access, is hardly hindering navigation.

I understand your comments about Marina Quays and do not dispute any of them but was merely enquiring whether as it has no lease to the BA attached whether it should be classed as a 24 hr mooring and maintained as such? GYBC are always spouting how they much they have done for Yarmouth - perhaps they would like to renovate and dredge it to save the Nav Acc funds and get the benefits from opening up the area again? Some hopes methinks....! 

[Islander]

5 hours ago, batrabill said:

2018/19 – 14,000m3 removed from Lower Bure 
2017/18 – 5,000m3 Bure Loop 
2017/18 – 5,820m3 removed from lower Bure 
2015/16 – 12,500m3 removed from Bure at Stokesby. 

'What happened to 2016/2017' or didn't they do any then.  

Just also to point out that with the recent low tides bridge clearance of 10ft has been available through the old part of the river at Thorpe. Do not attempt a trip through as my tenders electric outboard was touching bottom while trying to cross the river, it only draws a foot. Just to add, this part of the broads was was dredged only 4 years ago.

Has anyone else noticed how much dredging equipment seems to be moored at Griffin lane doing nothing when this is the quietest time of year for boat traffic.

Another: How many yards/metres does 5000m3 clear off a river. Are we talking of 1m extra depth or what . 

 

Ok, I'll go back to cooking tea.

by the way, Happy Christmas Everyone 

Colin 

[FairTmiddlin]

5000 cubic Metres is equal to

500 metres( half a kilometer) (or 550 yds)

By 10 metres (33.25 Feet)

By 1 Metre (3 feet 3 inches)

So just under a third of a mile of normal norfolk river to a depth of 39 inches, or 17 inches for 2/3rds of a mile say

[FairTmiddlin]

So One foot of dredging from Thurne mouth to GYYS

Is 14 times 5000M3

70.000 cubic metres of spoil

 

[ranworthbreeze]

Going by the figure's listed above regarding dredging, the operation of dredging seems to be a piecemeal project.

Regards 

Alan

[batrabill]

As it says above, that is just dredging on the lower Bure..... which is what we are discussing. 

[webntweb]

We moored overnight at Marina Quays in August 86 on Meadow Saffron - an Alpha 42 centre cockpit.

I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have taken the risk of mooring there if it hadn't have been open.

[Islander]

So ,if we are being generous, in the locations and years mentioned, at £45 a one tonne bucket it costs £1.7 M approx. Mainly contracted to Land And Water, yet the fairly recent large investment in equipment stands idle IMHO. THIS IS NOT VALUE FOR MONEY. But then no one is going to take any notice of me are they.

Colin 

 

[Islander]

FairTmiddlin, not picking holes here but I hope the rivers are more than 10m in the majority otherwise I won't be able to turn Lady Linda round . It does make me wonder just how much has been done.

Colin

[BroadAmbition]

So now we know what 5000 cubic metres actually means in real terms in removed spoil / increased depth etc.  (Big Thank you FairTmiddlin for educating us).    As a poster said a fair while back, it is not enough, not nearly enough, just literally scratching the surface - Well bed to be precise.  Just as I thought the Ba are doing the absolute bare minimum so we can actually navigate without touching bottom 'Hopefully'.

Seems to me then that the 'Hump' will keep on slowly but surely increasing in size resulting in keeping the river levels in the Northerns artificially high - which in turns means even less dredging the Ba must carry out.

The river from Marina Keys to the yellow post will get ever narrower and shallower resulting in increased speeds of ebbing water but with less volume going out to sea.

We are all guilty of allowing this to happen by not pressurising the Ba enough.  Mind you to be fair, that's kinda difficult when we are up against an unelected Quango that seems not to be accountable to anyone

Griff

[BroadAmbition]

Marshman - ( Must not say more - I might incur Griff's wrath further!!!! )

I most certainly hope that you do not think I'm riled? I would be disappointed if you did.  There is no wrath coming from this mooring.  I would only post on here what I would say direct to your dish.  Tbh, I'm not even slightly miffed.  This thread is after all a discussion is it not?  if we all thought the same with no differing points of view it would be pointless.  I learn from other points of view and enjoy reading all of them.  I might not agree with them but that does not make me correct or otherwise.  So as far as I'm concerned you say as much more as you like, I'll still read all of it

Griff

[marshman]

Just a quick response to Islander about idle kit - the stuff at Thorpe is not necessarily dredging kit these days. You will have spotted that they mostly use the nice yellow diggers with the long arms for dredging these days and at least two, plus two wherries plus other assorted kit are currently working on Hickling. This link is the December briefing which may, or may not work!!

https://mailchi.mp/6da961e22660/broads-briefing-december?e=b9e683c9ea

Not sure where the other team(s) is currently working

[LondonRascal]

Anything is possible, it comes down to motivation, need and money.

The dredging that is done on the Broads in the main is reactive - concentrated on a specific area for a need. For example, a particular bend becomes especially silted and as a result of this is scheduled to have dredging undertaken. With the best will in the world, without real time sonar, the operator of the dredger is using skill and judgment to know where he put the bucket, how many times he has put in and to what depth. This results in a lot of silt being removed but not a very uniform river bottom. Some areas are bound to be missed, others will have been deeper 'scooped out' than others.

The issue when it comes to water depth is there is no real need to have it any deeper than it is - without commercial operations going on (and even when they did, you'd have to go back to the days of the Wherry's for commercial operations on the northern rivers) what would spending out on incredibly expensive 'proper' dredging equipment and going along the rivers and Broads across north and south actually do?

I am not against this, I mean I would love for the entire system to be dredged to a mean depth of 10 feet - this would mean that many areas would not need touching for a good number of years after such an exercise, but it would take years, and cost millions to achieve. While it might make the rivers flow greater, and thus lower water levels generally for easier access under the likes of Wroxham and Potter Heigham bridges, it also might not to this.  We have no data to know if the bridge at Potter has it self sunk and if it has by how much. In the 1970's there were steel braces and wooden dams over the two smaller archers - this was to try and stop the bridge 'spreading' outwards. I have no idea if this worked and that is why the bracing was removed, or if it did not and was just done to try and stop it.

I believe there is a lot of things that contribute - if you remove piling from river banks then wave action both naturally and by passing boats simply has to take some silt away with it - where as piling would act as a physical barrier. I wonder how much silt and slow bank erosion is going on since so much piling has been removed? I am convinced there would be no studies undertaken prior to such work and since, because studies also cost money and take time.

In short, we can speculate all we like, moan until the cows come home but without big investment it just is not going to change and even i it did change it would affect so few comparatively to make it worth while, I'd imagine that things will get worse before it gets better too and that is just the main rivers, private marina's also need dredging and that cost will fall on the berth holders who may well not feel it is worth it so long as they can use their boat 'most of the time'.

I know that to take Independence out I need to be at mid tide, and preferably on a rising tide. I know she will touch bottom at Reedham Quay and so cannot arrive there or leave there at low water, neither can I go down the New Cut at low water - but it is a bit touch and go with bridge height at high water for Hadiscoe so again it has to be planned - same goes for Oulton Broad. I don't however get frustrated at this and expect the Broads Authority to dredge areas just to help me out, but what I do worry about are areas like Catfield Dyke or up to Coltishall even where at low water there is very little under the boat. I wonder what things will be done about the dwindly depth on Sutton Broad as well. These areas to my mind need looking at more than the lower Bure.

 

 

[BroadAmbition]

dwindly depth

Now there's a thought!  You'll not get me 'Dwindly-ing' in this wx, no matter how deep / shallow it is

Griff