Vagabond Restaurant Escort

[BroadsAuthority]

Hi all,

A restriction on the navigation will be in place whilst vessel ‘Vagabond’ (the floating restaurant) is escorted under-tow between Foundry Bridge and Trowse Eye on the River Wensum between 01:00hrs and 23:00hrs on 8 March. Vagabond will moor temporarily at the Deal Ground while essential work takes place. The onward journey along the River Yare to Breydon will commence as soon as the work is completed.

Visit our website for full information on this Notice to Mariners: https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1874879/NTM-04-2020-Navigation-Restriction-Vessel-Vagabond.pdf 

Thanks,
Tom

NTM-04-2020-Navigation-Restriction-Vessel-Vagabond.pdf

[JennyMorgan]

The idea of a vagabond restaurant escort was initially quite appealing. Mind you, the old ticker might not take it!

[D46]

Personally I really hope it all goes well because if it sinks in that area it's really going to be one heck of a problem , there has been quite a bit of work taking place on the deal ground and I would presume that includes putting in some form of mooring fixings as there are no posts or bollards in that area , also it's not particularly deep so depending on vagabonds draft it could well sit on the bottom , not good with a 70 iron Hill that could be quite thin now .

Still they know what they are doing or at least I hope so .

I'm wondering why the sudden Rush to remove it all of a sudden ??  it's not like it hasn't dragged on for yrs already .

I think it's time I put on my optimistic hat , but then again I want it no where near my boat so I'll be definitely well out of the way on the 8th March .

[JennyMorgan]

33 minutes ago, D46 said:

also it's not particularly deep so depending on vagabonds draft it could well sit on the bottom , not good with a 70 iron Hill that could be quite thin now .

On the other hand, being a pessimist for once, she won't have far to sink.

Crossing Breydon, that could be interesting! Another abandoned wreck? 

[Vaughan]

47 minutes ago, D46 said:

I'm wondering why the sudden Rush to remove it all of a sudden ??  it's not like it hasn't dragged on for yrs already .

Perhaps because it's the only one left? 

Once they have got that through the Trowse rail bridge, I doubt we will ever see it open again. After that, Ms Chloe Smith MP's crusade for "Norwich in 90" minutes by rail can get nearer to a reality when they build another (fixed) bridge in double track.

That is, of course, if Network Rail and Abellio between them, can ever get around to running trains that don't break down, on track that doesn't have continual "signal failures". 

All a bit of a dream, I fear, but perhaps the cynic in me has lived in Thorpe for a long time, and seen it all before.

Like, for instance, that the old railway swing bridge was double track in the first place! Just like the one at Reedham. And if they now permanently close the bridges in Norwich, how long will it be before Reedham bridge closes as well?

[D46]

16 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Perhaps because it's the only one left? 

Once they have got that through the Trowse rail bridge, I doubt we will ever see it open again. After that, Ms Chloe Smith MP's crusade for "Norwich in 90" minutes by rail can get nearer to a reality when they build another (fixed) bridge in double track.

That is, of course, if Network Rail and Abellio between them, can ever get around to running trains that don't break down, on track that doesn't have continual "signal failures". 

All a bit of a dream, I fear, but perhaps the cynic in me has lived in Thorpe for a long time, and seen it all before.

Like, for instance, that the old railway swing bridge was double track in the first place! Just like the one at Reedham. And if they now permanently close the bridges in Norwich, how long will it be before Reedham bridge closes as well?

Yes but surely the right to navigation has to be changed via a change to the act of parliament for there to be a fixed structure at trowse , I've asked this question elsewhere in the past " just exactly how much time is lost in slowing down to cross the existing bridge " bearing in mind it's quite near the station I would expect train's to be going slower anyway , obviously if the doubling of the track required a movable bridge as it currently has to be then there's an increase in cost but it also costs to change the law which may fail , after all a lot of people expected Heathrow to get the third runway .

Either way it could very easily be the thin end of the wedge . 

[Vaughan]

47 minutes ago, D46 said:

Either way it could very easily be the thin end of the wedge . 

I agree with what you say but the thin end of the wedge was when they approved the building of the southern by-pass flyover at Postwick. This effectively closed Norwich for all time as a port. It happened, don't forget, only just after they had spent many millions on the Breydon bascule bridge and the new Trowse rail bridge, which at once were rendered redundant in terms of maritime navigation.

What happens next will simply be inevitable, I fear.

[JennyMorgan]

The loss of Somerleyton & Reedham bridges would have a devastating effect on the long established and popular Brundall Trundle. The Broads does have fixed bridges, arguably a precedent has long been set. I'm afraid that Vaughan's dire warning is probably realistic. Railtrack, unlike the Broads Authority, almost certainly has a near bottomless purse when it comes to litigation. Lifting cabin roofs and radar arches with counter-weights set in tabernacles is the way forward. 

[D46]

51 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

The loss of Somerleyton & Reedham bridges would have a devastating effect on the long established and popular Brundall Trundle. The Broads does have fixed bridges, arguably a precedent has long been set. I'm afraid that Vaughan's dire warning is probably realistic. Railtrack, unlike the Broads Authority, almost certainly has a near bottomless purse when it comes to litigation. Lifting cabin roofs and radar arches with counter-weights set in tabernacles is the way forward. 

Not just the boating public but the Marina's, the business's , brokers etc etc etc , it's pretty easy to make a boat with bits and bobs like radar Arch's that lower but cabins on anything sea going have to be strong hence  fixed structures , there certainly isn't the capacity in Marina's below readham for all the vessels that would be affected so I'd expect a lot of boats to be sold on causing a big surplus of boats flooding the market has a definite effect on resale values which would affect anyone with a similar vessel no matter where they are even in other areas , why by a boat that's the real market price on the Thames when you can get a cheaper one in Norfolk .

It certainly isn't just about the boats it has much deeper implications for Norfolk , you'd expect  the authority to stand tall against such a plan , but unfortunately they haven't got a good track record in that department .

Not too long ago so component came up to cantly by river , there's no way that could have come in by road hence the use of the river , shut off reedham n that that gone , the only way then is build it on site in kit from a very expensive option .

Ba might think it's possibly a good idea , right up the time they realize the loss in tolls , some would stay as some boats hardly get use to their designed purpose .

All in all if it happens it's definitely not going to be good .

[Vaughan]

Must confess I don't know where the Deal Ground is but I assume it must be part of the site of the old power station at Trowse Eye, where there was a big turning basin.  According to D46, there is not much of a mooring there.  I was just wondering what this "essential work" to make it navigable would involve, that couldn't have been done on the present mooring, outside the railway station?  I assume it will be done on the water, in either case.  It is this seemingly sudden pressure to get the vessel out of Norwich, which has raised my antennae.

Those of you with media savvy will know where to look this up but I have been reading in the last couple of years that this project for the building of a fixed (and therefore cheaper) rail bridge is very much more than a dream.  I gather that it is at an advanced planning stage and is more than likely to happen.

Especially as government these days seems to be living in a new, "HS2" world!

[vanessan]

I’m sure it tells us somewhere, but where is Vagabond ultimately bound for?

[grendel]

maybe the timing is such that it coincides with existing planned maintenance on trowse bridge so that they can reduce the number of openings required, another thought is that there is a small leak that needs fixing long term for the vessels security, but that a decent bilge pump will do the trick until they have it through the bridge.

[Vaughan]

I would think that a leak which needs a decent bilge pump would need the vessel hauled out in order to repair it. So where might that be done? Lake Lothing perhaps? I can't see Goodchilds taking it on as a commercial proposition. Is there anywhere in Yarmouth? I am sure there would be no question of the vessel still being seaworthy!

Also, if the vessel needs "essential work" before it can safely be allowed to navigate the Yare, why are they taking the serious risk, in its present condition, of having it sink in the middle of the Wensum under Carrow or Trowse bridges?

I fear there is what my father would have called "a nasty smell in the woodshed".

[D46]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

Must confess I don't know where the Deal Ground is but I assume it must be part of the site of the old power station at Trowse Eye, where there was a big turning basin.  According to D46, there is not much of a mooring there.  I was just wondering what this "essential work" to make it navigable would involve, that couldn't have been done on the present mooring, outside the railway station?  I assume it will be done on the water, in either case.  It is this seemingly sudden pressure to get the vessel out of Norwich, which has raised my antennae.

Those of you with media savvy will know where to look this up but I have been reading in the last couple of years that this project for the building of a fixed (and therefore cheaper) rail bridge is very much more than a dream.  I gather that it is at an advanced planning stage and is more than likely to happen.

Especially as government these days seems to be living in a new, "HS2" world!

Spot on with the location of the deal ground Vaughan, there has been quite a lot of clearing of one area by the river where the sunken vessel was removed from last week for crane access etc and I'm fairly sure this is where vagabond will be moored , works wise I'm presuming it involves the removing of the conservatory type structure on the vessel to reduce the air draft and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's heading to the yard just up bure where there's already one genuine continental barge .

Does seem strange that all of a sudden a vessel that's been sunk for over 2 yrs is removed as was another by carrow bridge and then immediately after vagabond is moving .

As for the rail bridge replacement I haven't a clue but suspect all this is down to that happening .

If I had an oversized vessel in such as brundall I'd be keeping a very careful eye on things and seriously considering my options .

[Vaughan]

Well, we shall see and if you are in the area, please keep us posted.

One also wonders, of course, who is going to be paying for all this towing and other work, which sounds as though it will also need craneage? Not the latest in the line of failed restaurateurs, surely?

[marshman]

Vaughan - I don't think I can smell anything apart from congealed fat! Probably an enormous fatberg in the bilge!  I also think it is a bit far fetched to connect Trowse Bridge with the future of Reedham and Somerleyton directly - although I don't disagree that those bridges are a long term issue.

But why on earth would you expect Norwich to ever reopen as a port? Or at least that bit above Trowse Bridge - there is nowhere to unload anything now! You mention Postwick Bridge as a hindrance but there are plenty of modern coasters with retracting bridges to use that could clear under Postwick but for what purpose? I wonder just how many times Trowse Bridge has actually opened in the last 10 years for example - it only gives access to a lot of flats and about 800 yards of river - we have to be realistic I think.

There is a reason why Trowse Bridge was singled and it was probably to do with the electrification  - but looking back I see the cost of a new bridge was projected at £75m even in 2014 and realistically I cannot see it ever being rebuilt, however much some might think it a good idea! 

[JennyMorgan]

Rail Track says 'Jump' and the BA jumps.

BA says 'Jump' and Rail Track turns its back and ignores them.

As for who pays, well, Norwich City benefits by the barge's removal. as does the barge owner, as does Rail Track, hopefully some if not all the dosh is coming from that direction.

I'.m only guessing but she could be stripped to the waterline at the Deal Ground and then the remaining hull slipped at Yarmouth for final deconstruction. 

[JennyMorgan]

12 minutes ago, marshman said:

I also think it is a bit far fetched to connect Trowse Bridge with the future of Reedham and Somerleyton directly

Whilst I agree with the rest of MM's post on the subject I do question the above. 

I can just see Rail Track saying something on the lines of: "You allowed us to rebuild Trowse as a fixed span bridge so why not the same for  Reedham, Somerleyton and Mutford bridges?" As an 'executive' negotiating technique it's about par for the course. 

Big shipping may not wish to visit Norwich but sea-going boats might. Perhaps Rail Track should sponsor a big boat mooring downstream of Trowse?

[annv]

Realistically would a ten foot height restriction at trowse be a problem there's no moorings for that height and above boats after trowse bridge. John

[JennyMorgan]

9 minutes ago, annv said:

Realistically would a ten foot height restriction at trowse be a problem there's no moorings for that height and above boats after trowse bridge. John

It would, if you had an eleven foot plus fixed mast! 

I go back to my suggestion that Rail Track provides a suitable (visitor) mooring downstream.

Decent visitor moorings, away from the infamous Prince Of Wales Road yob magnet,  would seem to me to be a potential plus point for Norwich.

[marshman]

But there is nowhere even for seagoing vessels to moor either along that stretch - I cannot see any redevelopment of Colmans providing facilities for boats!!

I think John is absolutely right and certainly a mooring downstream would solve other access issues.

[floydraser]

Looking at Google Earth I can see why they would want to improve Trowse bridge but not the others. It carries the main line to London and surely they are trying to improve this part of the infrastructure along with recent improvements to the roads. According to Wiki there were three stations in Norwich and the Great Eastern won. Norwich Victoria didn't need a bridge so it probably came down to brown envelopes.

There seems to be a bit of ex-industrial land at the south end of Trowse bridge, have they considered building a shiny new station there?

The other two bridges surely don't justify any investment, or are they in danger of being welded shut?

[marshman]

That area where you suggest a new station is already scheduled for a major housing plus hotels etc development, but as always it will cost a huge amount of money. And it is actually a bit out of the way down there.

There is no need for a new station - the existing one is fine and you would still have to cross the river so there would be no saving. However it desperately needs dualling - I believe traffic over that bridge is nearly at a maximum and they are struggling to squeeze more trains over it.

[D46]

2 hours ago, annv said:

Realistically would a ten foot height restriction at trowse be a problem there's no moorings for that height and above boats after trowse bridge. John

The existing bridge is only 9' at normal high tide and that's not too often in fact it's usually less and has been as little as 7'6"" on occasions and I'm not just talking about in winter either , its be not uncommon to find taller hire Craft either stuck in Norwich or not being able to access the authorities YS , besides building it higher must mean lifting the line so even more expensive .

[marshman]

Is it listed or an ancient monument??????