A Boat For Hickling

[Guest]

12 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Nah, I'd bend my periscope going under the bridge!

Sounds awfully painful, still at your age not everyone can still raise their periscope in the first place...

As for boats.....I'm so sorry, I just cant help you 

[PCL023]

We did PHB in our Ocean 30 last time in April 2015 just after a light refurb we carried out at Martham. It was blowing a gale, there were rollers running down the Thurne through the bridge. The gauge in the pilots office read 6’4” that was as low as it was going to get for quite sometime, so we were told. It was tight to be fair, not something I would want to do every week, also in case of not being able to get back. The 27’ Elysian MK1, we had first and original kept on the moorings at Martham was a doddle,  5’8” was the lowest we took her through, never had to worry about the bridge. With the Ocean 30 I would like to see 6’5” - 6’6” before we do it again. That said we have not needed to as we have Dad’s boat Nice One, that’s kept the other side if we want to venture up that way. 

If you are looking for something that you don’t have to worry about PHB in, something with more rounded top sides would be the ticket. The Ocean 30s are great but when it comes to that bridge they are a bit square peg round hole. I always think it was a bit of a shame they didn’t lower the topside edges in the original design, to give the roof just a bit of an arc, it would not have needed much, there’s plenty of room/internal head height to spare... 

Cheers 

Paul 

[VetChugger]

8 hours ago, Timbo said:

A couple out of left field...
Thorneycroft 29' although not as much room as Nyx .
There's the Buckingham 31' center cockpit narrow beam (6' beam).
Maybe the Shetland 32?
Or the Viking 32 Highline

Also in the very same field is the Norman 32. Again 6' 10" beam but an airdraft of little more than 6' 4". This was the forerunner of the Atlanta 32 which became the Shetland 32 and Viking 32.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

A guy on one of the faceache sites has a Horizon 35 which he regularly takes unde the Thurne blockage. They have quite considerable amount of cut away on the top sides of the cabin top, And Martham Ferry Boats had 2 (Triton and Tranqil Breeze) in their fleet. Again they carried extra ballast, a fact which I think you WILL have to accept on a larger boat. 

The added bonus of extra ballast is the boat will be less suseptable to the effects of wind, so will be easier to Moor single handed. 

With that blockage gradually sinking even further into the bed of the river, due to the ever increasing weight and growth of traffic that use it, I think reducing the height of any boat Will be the only option, and the only option, and the only way to achieve it is extra ballast, why else would professional fleet operators with local knowledge, such as Whispering Reeds, Martham Ferry Boats, and Martham Boat Co have done so?. With that in mind, it opens up you choice dramatically. 

[marshman]

Why should Potter Bridge be sinking??? Is there evidence that it is? Surely if it was, it would have long gone by now? 

Or is that the water level is rising? If the latter is not rising, then surely it was a bit of a waste raising all the riverbanks or is this all a conspiracy too???

[MauriceMynah]

Sorry Speedy, but I thick there is enough evidence around now to disprove the "That bridge is sinking" theory. it seems that the tide for whatever reason just isn't going down as far as it used to. Some blame lack of dredging others put it down to the flood alleviation works and there's a third option (which I go for) saying it's probably a mix of the two, but it is what it is and we have to live with it.

I appreciate that, for reasons I won't go into, you are not one who would regularly moor outside pubs, I'm moored outside the Pleasure Boat inn, and although we used to moor there in "Royal Sovereign" a 35' back in the 90s, boats of that size are noticeable by their absence.

If extra ballast is the only way forwards, then extra ballast it will have to be, that seems to be one compromise I'd be prepared to make. I would have to make sure though that the depth of water by the houseboats on Hickling would accommodate the extra draft.

The reason I'm looking at boats larger than Nyx is that if I'm going to be a "continuous cruiser" for a couple of years, I will need a bit more space. 6'10" beam boats do not offer this. My parents and I have owned several in years gone by when on the canal network so … not for me.... been there , done that.

To Davydine. I was admiring Sea Lord from afar when I was last on the broads, and it was that boat that had me wondering about larger boats going under PHB. However, with a 12' beam I think it unlikely she would make it. Great Gem has the same beam.

To all,

Dare I suggest to Clive at Richardson's that perhaps building some boats  that will make the trip might be economically viable? I would add that no way would I be able to afford a new vessel, but there is enough water above the bridge to be explored.

Well I mentioned the "throwing down of the gauntlet" and it would seem that there are no GRP boats over 30' that are 'suitable for the broads' … unless you know differently.

    

[expilot]

Sorry, Speedtriple.  Potter bridge is NOT sinking - or, at least, it hasn't during the last thirty years.  How do I know this?  Because County Highways monitor the bridge using the very latest measuring techniques.  The water levels HAVE risen.  How do I know this?  Because, for the last thirty years we have lived by the river above the bridge.  For ten of those years I was lifting riverside bungalows to prevent them being flooded by the increasingly high tides.  

If I may, I feel I must correct MM, too.  The riverbanks were certainly not raised along the Thurne.  Indeed we have a written guarantee from BESL that they would not be.  All of our properties are located within the functioning flood plain of the River Thurne.  Any raising of the riverbanks would have placed the properties at increased risk of fluvial flooding.  The banks weren't raised, they were strengthened by significantly increasing their width.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

First of all, the evidence IS out there to prove i`m right, but it`s more than just that, there are other factors. BUT, i`m NOT going to discuss it on THIS thread, it`s about John trying to find a suitable boat.

I bet you will agree with that too John, what cottage was it behind the Pleasure boat? 

[Meantime]

It seems that if you say it enough times, people might start to believe it! A quick Google search of potter bridge sinking reveals pages and pages of info on the subject, all from the two mainstream forums, yet not a shred of real evidence from any official sources. The bridge was built circa 1385 and has probably finished settling by now. I would have thought that since the new road bridge was built that there is less traffic over the bridge now?

Likewise to pick up on Marshmans point about the flood defences being raised, as stated on the BFAP website, the aim of the project was to strengthen, maintain and restore the height of the flood defences to a height that existed in 1995. It was stated that the project will not prevent all future flooding as land that flooded in 1995 will still be subject to periodic flooding at the end of the project.

An interesting fact I hadn't spotted before is that the project defined the first 12 years to carry out the major improvements with the remaining 8 years maintaining those improvements. Beyond the end of the project which I believe ends in 2021, the defences must have another 7 years of life, which takes us up to 2028!!! What happens after that. Perhaps I'd better start a new thread?

[marshman]

Ex Pilot - I realise the banks have not been raised generally above the bridge  - but did they raise them below the bridge? Or downstream of where the bungalows start? I was in fact talking about the WHOLE programme throughout Broadland as referred to in the previous post where I believe they have been raised in quite a lot of places - or so I thought?

Have they not also been doing bits above the bridge around Hickling or have they just been strengthening the old banks - thinking about it it is probably the latter. They have certainly done that bit recently on Meadow Dyke as you get towards the Mere.

[vanessan]

2 hours ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

the evidence IS out there to prove i`m right, but it`s more than just that, there are other factors.

Speedtriple - how about starting a thread with the evidence you say is there plus the other factors. I’m sure there would be a lot of interest in the divided thinking on Potter bridge. It certainly interests me. 

Do Richardsons’s Broadway or Broadlander go under does anyone know? They are recently built bathtubs and I have seen them go under Wroxham bridge at less than 6’6. 

[Poppy]

2 minutes ago, vanessan said:

Speedtriple - how about starting a thread with the evidence you say is there plus the other factors. I’m sure there would be a lot of interest in the divided thinking on Potter bridge. It certainly interests me. 

Do Richardsons’s Broadway or Broadlander go under does anyone know? They are recently built bathtubs and I have seen them go under Wroxham bridge at less than 6’6. 

Agreed !  I'm sure that NCC would be interested too.

[expilot]

Broadway and Broadlander have both been under Potter bridge.  Neither could be more than 10%(?) sure of doing so on current Summer low tide levels.

[ChrisB]

Nice Sea Otter semi-narrow beam for sale in Doncaster. Aircraft grade aluminium and being a Sea Otter I would imagine water ballast.

[trambo]

I don't think anyone has mentioned the  Aquafibre Opal which is just 11' wide and has a very low airdraft or the new version known as the Heritage 286 which is advertised as having a 6' 2" airdraft. You'll also get a sinking feeling when you see the price!

Fred

[vanessan]

59 minutes ago, trambo said:

You'll also get a sinking feeling when you see the price!

Maybe that’s why nobody’s mentioned it! 

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

1 hour ago, trambo said:

I don't think anyone has mentioned the  Aquafibre Opal which is just 11' wide and has a very low airdraft or the new version known as the Heritage 286 which is advertised as having a 6' 2" airdraft. You'll also get a sinking feeling when you see the price!

Fred

Good point, in the same vein, what about a "Bounty 28" fwd dv, at 11ft wide, the same as Fred say`s above, and with angled cabin sides.

[BrundallNavy]

Just forget the bloody bridge and the worlds your oyster 😀

[marshman]

I am a bit suspicious of those figures for the EH - I think its nearer 6'6" and at least an 11'6" beam! Probably!!

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

I am a bit suspicious of those figures for the EH - I think its nearer 6'6" and at least an 11'6" beam! Probably!!

What do you mean by the "EH"?.

[ZimbiIV]

English Heritage the builders of said boat.

Have alook at NBS they had one for sale.

paul

[vanessan]

3 hours ago, brundallNavy said:

Just forget the bloody bridge and the worlds your oyster 😀

Not if you moor above the bridge............

[OldBerkshireBoy]

Does this one work?

33ft long with claimed low airdraft.

https://nya.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=f13479d185&id=7b7fb0cf0d&e=cf5be3ec28

[Bluebell]

Airdraft = 7 ft!

Probably won't fit under PH. I'm looking at 6'9" and struggling!

[Bluebell]

What about this: https://www.watersidemarinesales.co.uk/boats-for-sale/bell-boats-lady-bew.html