Royal Tudor Nearly Afloat Again

[JanetAnne]

Well it's close! 

[Vaughan]

All of Hearts Cruisers old wooden boats were built with a "tingle" patch in the bottom, which could be unscrewed and removed when they were in the sheds in winter. This allowed the bilges to fill with water when the spring tides came up and prevent them coming off the chocks and floating around in the boat sheds!

That, in itself, was not the problem - it was where they might end up when the tide went down again!

[Vaughan]

Boatyards on the Yare had to take all sorts of precautions against the spring tides, which I think must have been a lot higher in those days. I remember when the men at Hearts used to keep two cats in the sheds, and each was given its own box to sleep in, around the "potbelly" stove in the machine shop. These were old tea chests, filled with suitable bedding and lined with polystyrene dinghy buoyancy, so that they would float when the spring tides came up in the sheds!

On winter weekends and Christmas holidays, it was my job to go up and feed the cats in the morning. If the water was up, this meant going from the gun-boat by dinghy to the sheds and then going in with waders on, where I would find the cats contentedly asleep in their boxes. I would have to moor them up to the work-bench, so that they could have their breakfast!

I wonder what modern-day Health and Safety would have to say about boatbuilders, spending their working day standing in waders in 2 ft of water, planking the topsides of a boat? 

[Timbo]

Cripes!

[grendel]

does  this infer that the flood alleviation works (that some will say have caused generally higher river levels) actually succeeded in alleviating some of this flooding?

Though I understand that Royal Tudor is the salty side of the lock from Oulton Broad, which would indicate the tides are a bit high at the moment (maybe a result of the remnants of hurricane Lorenzo.)

[Vaughan]

6 minutes ago, grendel said:

does  this infer that the flood alleviation works (that some will say have caused generally higher river levels) actually succeeded in alleviating some of this flooding?

I feared someone might say that! I have mentioned before on other threads that I have always thought the upper reaches of the Yare were the exception that proves the rule, when it comes to flood alleviation.

Mind you, this may not be true. It is only based on my memories as a boy. Maybe the river is actually higher now, than it was. It certainly seems to get lower, according to Islander's recent photos. What does he think, I wonder?

[JanetAnne]

Nothing to do with high tides, a blocked land drain is the culprit leaving this area in about 9in of rainwater.  

[MauriceMynah]

I'm relieved to read here that climate change and the increase in sea levels hasn't yet reached the upper reaches of the Yare. It's always nice to hear of areas that hark back to better times. :-)

[Lulu]

5 hours ago, Vaughan said:

I would find the cats contentedly asleep in their boxes. I would have to moor them up to the work-bench, so that they could have their breakfast!

Bless em! 
you need to write a book on all these wonderful stories Vaughan

[Islander]

Hi Vaughan, I don't think there is any noticeable change in levels really. There will always be the exceptions depending on weather. We are just coming into neaps so with less tidal range hopefully the run off from yesterday's rain won't push the river level up to much. So far not had the quay on the green overtopped as we have had in the past.

For those of you fortunate to miss the rain here.

I had only pumped it out the day before. With wellies on l stepped in to connect the pump and bail, only had a couple of inches freeboard so a bit unstable, this took a good 5mins to empty. I will say this is the most water we've had in our dinghy in one day.

Colin 

[JennyMorgan]

The deck drains on 'Jenny Morgan' had become blocked with leaves brought down with the rain thus the water had to go elsewhere, namely under the cover and into the bilge, grrrrr! 

[JennyMorgan]

10 hours ago, Vaughan said:

I wonder what modern-day Health and Safety would have to say about boatbuilders, spending their working day standing in waders in 2 ft of water, planking the topsides of a boat? 

Especially when using power tools!

[JennyMorgan]

3 hours ago, Islander said:

 

Nyx is not alone!

 

[Islander]

That's taken years to get my dinghy looking like that JM. Nice looking boats round here get ' borrowed'. Anyway all that flaking paint is protecting the boat underneath and the previous owner had painted the entire hull with self eroding anti foul which still comes off when touched 14 years on. If you touch it you get covered in it.

Colin 

[Vaughan]

12 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Especially when using power tools!

Luckily (in this case) they didn't use power tools in the early fifties!

Keels, mainframes and stem posts were "dressed out" with an adze and most planing was done by hand. Prop shafts were cut through the keel with a hand auger. In the machine shop were a big band saw, about 9ft high, a circular saw and a planer. Much later, we had a thicknesser. All these were mounted on concrete plinths about a foot off the floor, to keep the flood water out of the motors. Almost all other jobs were done with hand tools, although we did have a huge electric drill with handles, that needed two men to hold it and was called a "gut buster", for jobs like keel bolts.

[ranworthbreeze]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

Luckily (in this case) they didn't use power tools in the early fifties!

Keels, mainframes and stem posts were "dressed out" with an adze and most planing was done by hand. Prop shafts were cut through the keel with a hand auger. In the machine shop were a big band saw, about 9ft high, a circular saw and a planer. Much later, we had a thicknesser. All these were mounted on concrete plinths about a foot off the floor, to keep the flood water out of the motors. Almost all other jobs were done with hand tools, although we did have a huge electric drill with handles, that needed two men to hold it and was called a "gut buster", for jobs like keel bolts.

Hi Vaughan,

Yes drills of that era and well into the early 70's were heavy duty and had a tendency to natch on the work you were doing, sore or broken wrists were risk.

Regards

Alan

[Vaughan]

On 07/10/2019 at 09:25, grendel said:

does  this infer that the flood alleviation works (that some will say have caused generally higher river levels) actually succeeded in alleviating some of this flooding?

Something has just occurred to me! It should have done earlier. . . .

Reading back on a recent post by Jenny Morgan on another thread, I am reminded that the Yare all the way up to Norwich used to be dredged to a minimum 12ft at MLWS, for the passage of the loaded coasters up to the port of Norwich. It is now no-where near this depth and has not been for several years.

Could it be that this change in depth means that less of the flood tide can now flow up the Yare and so proportionately more has to flow up the Bure, where it has raised the levels in the upper reaches?

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Could it be that this change in depth means that less of the flood tide can now flow up the Yare and so proportionately more has to flow up the Bure, where it has raised the levels in the upper reaches?

I raised that very question with Trudi Wakelin, but in regard to the Waveney, and was met with very direct eye contact and an equally direct reply, 'don't ask'! I did ask, raising the question of tidal models and was told that they did not exist. A year or two back and whilst such models might exist now they obviously didn't when it was decided to allow the Yare to become more shallow. My feeling is that back then, and probably the case today,  the Authority did not fully understand what it had authority over, namely the tides and the waters that governs the very nature and character of The Broads. 

[batrabill]

Vaughan raises a very interesting point. 

But, IF that is the case, what would you have the BA do?

Dredge the Yare to a depth that no longer has a purpose? 

[MauriceMynah]

That rather depends on your concept of "no longer has a purpose".

[JennyMorgan]

18 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Vaughan raises a very interesting point. 

But, IF that is the case, what would you have the BA do?

Dredge the Yare to a depth that no longer has a purpose? 

The purpose to allow coasters to access Norwich is now consigned to the history books, agreed, but there are, or were, consequential purposes. The Lowestoft to Norwich navigation had existed for well over one hundred and fifty years and during that time had impacted on the very character of the river and adjoining broads. I think that there is a sound argument to suggest that the hydrology of the Yare had progressed from being purely functional to one of important conservation considerations. The Yare was very much an industrial river, for example the stones that were used to build Norwich Cathedral were imported along the river. The very character of the river was the result of mankind's intervention in the name of industry and commerce. Not only conservation from a wildlife perspective but also one of conserving what man has both built and created. The depth has a purpose, it provides a scour as well as drainage.

[batrabill]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

That rather depends on your concept of "no longer has a purpose".

Good point, I was meaning the specific purpose of allowing passage of ships of a size that no longer use it.

Ultimately there has to be a calculation between cost of dredging and the consequences, either intended or unintended.

 

I have no idea what the cost of maintaining that depth over time is. Whatever your opinion of the BA there is ultimately a limit to the amount of dredging that can be done.

Without any figures it seems almost impossible to make a judgment.

 

The question I asked was

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

But, IF that is the case, what would you have the BA do?

Can I assume JM that you think the BA should restore that depth?

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, batrabill said:

Can I assume JM that you think the BA should restore that depth?

Not for me to say but competent research might suggest it should. Was a time when DEFRA made a grant of £1.5 million to the BA in order catch up on their dredging backlog, about the same time as dredging the Yare was tactically abandoned. That money was then largely frittered away on the failed Broads National Park Bill, the subsequent Broads Bill and the ill advised move to Dragonfly House. What I will say is that I do believe that the BA was wrong in cutting back on dredging the Yare as it has but whether they should restore it is a question that I shall happily leave for others to decide.