Surlingham Broad/bargate

[MaceSwinger]

I've spent ages exploring all around the north, but never so much the south, and even less upstream of Brundall. I've seen reference to wherry wrecks off Surlingham Broad's Bargate, and NBD say it's a lovely place to drop your mudweight. My Heron map however displays a warning to beware of shallow water.

So my simple question (hopefully) is how safe a place is Bargate to spend a night on the mudweight? I'm not sure I've ever even cruised through it before!

[JennyMorgan]

4 minutes ago, MaceSwinger said:

o my simple question (hopefully) is how safe a place is Bargate to spend a night on the mudweight? I'm not sure I've ever even cruised through it before!

Very safe, even if you drag your mudweight the worst that can happen is that you might have to untangle yourselves from the undergrowth or a branch or two! There is a rise and fall of the tide so be aware.

[MaceSwinger]

4 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Very safe, even if you drag your mudweight the worst that can happen is that you might have to untangle yourselves from the undergrowth or a branch or two! There is a rise and fall of the tide so be aware.

Thanks JM. It's quite odd really; I'm 35 and have been on the Broads at least once a year for every year of my life (with only 2 or 3 exceptions) but I've never taken the time when solo or just with my wife to explore more of the south. Given we collect from Brundall (assuming Hoseasons haven't stitched us up, seeing as the yard were saying they couldn't find our details a couple of weeks ago...) I thought I'd have a bit more of a snout around down south before heading north!

[Helian]

It tends to have a significant depth of soft mud so you may well "drag". I remember one afternoon we had to reposition three times and it was only a gentle breeze. Last time we went on, last summer, the weed seemed thicker and more extensive too.

Lovely and peaceful but needs care.

Sent from the Norfolk Broads Network mobile app

[Lastdraft]

As JM has said, a very safe small Broad. Unfortunately over the last few years the weed has developed, couple this with shallow areas, a hovercraft would be more suitable these days.

It is however, a beautiful place to mud weight overnight, peaceful, scenic and the fishing is decent.  Enjoy.

[Smoggy]

The biggest hazard is Tolly having a private rave, but he's not got a day off till 11/8 so you will be safe, take beer/rum and he will probably let you join in....

It'll only be a one boat rave so don't panic.

 

[JennyMorgan]

As with all soft bottoms I'd recommend lobbing your mudweight as high as you can so that it has a maximum chance of sinking well into the silt. Gently lowering it won't give the maximum penetration which is what a mudweight relies upon. 

If there is a lot of weed about then it pays to reverse, forward and reverse your engine several times in order to clear your stern gear, prop and rudder.

[MaceSwinger]

Thank you all for your valuable input.

JM, funnily enough I had a lengthy discussion/argument with my dad and brother in law (oh we know how to live!) on the subject of dropping mudweights. I'm firmly in the camp of let it hit the bottom with some force in order to bury itself and gain some decent suction!

Sent from the Norfolk Broads Network mobile app

[Paul]

3 hours ago, MaceSwinger said:

I'm firmly in the camp of let it hit the bottom with some force in order to bury itself and gain some decent suction!

That is how they are intended to be used, so give it as good a lob as you can, just make sure you clear the deck and that you don't have anything such as an arm or leg tangled in the ropes.

 

[Bytheriver]

Bit more difficult with an electric mudweight?

[trambo]

An absolute favourite mooring of mine and never had any problems on Silver Cloud which is fitted with an electric mud-weight. I Don't see any river cruiser coming into difficulties unless at an exceptionally low tide and it is common to see larger sea going craft entering the Broad.

A Seamaster (Bittern) about to drop mud-weight, the week the overnight restriction had been lifted.

 

[grendel]

question, do you moor outside of any marked channel, (if there is such a thing -thats one spot I have not yet visited but may well try this coming week)

[MaceSwinger]

I thought the same, I had Brinks Sonata for a solo trip a few years ago and that had an electric windlass.

Bit more difficult with an electric mudweight?

Sent from the Norfolk Broads Network mobile app

[trambo]

30 minutes ago, grendel said:

question, do you moor outside of any marked channel, (if there is such a thing -thats one spot I have not yet visited but may well try this coming week)

No marked channel on Bargate unlike Rockland, where you will have problems outside the channels. If unsure about depths, go in at low water, find a place to drop the weight and forget about it! A Martham or BB boat will have no problem at all.

Fred

[Oddfellow]

1 hour ago, trambo said:

An absolute favourite mooring of mine and never had any problems on Silver Cloud which is fitted with an electric mud-weight. I Don't see any river cruiser coming into difficulties unless at an exceptionally low tide and it is common to see larger sea going craft entering the Broad.

A Seamaster (Bittern) about to drop mud-weight, the week the overnight restriction had been lifted.

 

That's a Freeman.....

[MauriceMynah]

Hmmm, a question of physics here, and I have no idea of the answers.

If a mudweight is dropped from waist height, it will enter the water at x metres per second (mps). If that same object is launched at head height, what would be the extra mps?

Given that the water will be slowing the object down to a 'terminal velocity through water', (tvtw) will the depth of water be sufficient to slow the object to that speed (tvtw) ?

Thus it follows that the extra speed at the point of entry to the water may well be lost at the point of entry to mud thus negating any advantage of increasing the height at the start of fall (sof). 

It is a known, that the rate of deceleration is not a constant, and the greater the velocity on entry the greater the rate of deceleration through the water, so the time the object is travelling through the water is another consideration.

However this fact cannot undermine the fundamental advantage of throwing the mudweight  at an angle of roughly 45 degrees above the horizontal to obtain maximum height and maximum velocity, that advantage being of course, that the splash is that much further away.

Prof M. Mynah   (Punch & Judy shows by prior arrangement only)

[trambo]

27 minutes ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

That's a Freeman.....

Of course it is. Now that is old age..............oh dear!

Fred

[Lastdraft]

Unless your names Popeye and you've had your spinach ,  ' throwing' a mud weight is not an option !

[MaceSwinger]

56 minutes ago, Lastdraft said:

Unless your names Popeye and you've had your spinach ,  ' throwing' a mud weight is not an option !

Hold my beer...

[Paul]

2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Hmmm, a question of physics here, and I have no idea of the answers.

If a mudweight is dropped from waist height, it will enter the water at x metres per second (mps). If that same object is launched at head height, what would be the extra mps?

Given that the water will be slowing the object down to a 'terminal velocity through water', (tvtw) will the depth of water be sufficient to slow the object to that speed (tvtw) ?

Thus it follows that the extra speed at the point of entry to the water may well be lost at the point of entry to mud thus negating any advantage of increasing the height at the start of fall (sof). 

It is a known, that the rate of deceleration is not a constant, and the greater the velocity on entry the greater the rate of deceleration through the water, so the time the object is travelling through the water is another consideration.

However this fact cannot undermine the fundamental advantage of throwing the mudweight  at an angle of roughly 45 degrees above the horizontal to obtain maximum height and maximum velocity, that advantage being of course, that the splash is that much further away.

Prof M. Mynah   (Punch & Judy shows by prior arrangement only)

Crying out loud MM, now I have brain ache. 

I would suggest at the depths on The Bargate there is not sufficient travel through the water to fully slow a heavy object to the terminal velocity in medium, especially if it is given a good chuck, if of course you are Popeye. 

I say this as a total ignoramus on the subject, just my guess and not from any personal knowledge or research. 

[OldBerkshireBoy]

3 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Hmmm, a question of physics here, and I have no idea of the answers.

If a mudweight is dropped from waist height, it will enter the water at x metres per second (mps). If that same object is launched at head height, what would be the extra mps?

Given that the water will be slowing the object down to a 'terminal velocity through water', (tvtw) will the depth of water be sufficient to slow the object to that speed (tvtw) ?

Thus it follows that the extra speed at the point of entry to the water may well be lost at the point of entry to mud thus negating any advantage of increasing the height at the start of fall (sof). 

It is a known, that the rate of deceleration is not a constant, and the greater the velocity on entry the greater the rate of deceleration through the water, so the time the object is travelling through the water is another consideration.

However this fact cannot undermine the fundamental advantage of throwing the mudweight  at an angle of roughly 45 degrees above the horizontal to obtain maximum height and maximum velocity, that advantage being of course, that the splash is that much further away.

Prof M. Mynah   (Punch & Judy shows by prior arrangement only)

All depends on A The weight of the mudweight, B The temperature of the water compared to the air temperature at the time of impact and C Wind direction at time of throwing the weight. Other factors may alter the outcome.

Regarding the weight factor, ask yourself which of the following is heavier

A ton of bricks or a ton of feathers?

[grendel]

42 minutes ago, OldBerkshireBoy said:

All depends on A The weight of the mudweight, B The temperature of the water compared to the air temperature at the time of impact and C Wind direction at time of throwing the weight. Other factors may alter the outcome.

Regarding the weight factor, ask yourself which of the following is heavier

A ton of bricks or a ton of feathers?

regardless of all the above factors, the splash will still get you.

[webntweb]

7 hours ago, Bytheriver said:

Bit more difficult with an electric mudweight?

Had an electric mudweight on Lightning and we would drop it letting out quite a lot more chain than necessary, then motor slowly in reverse until the slack was taken up.

This seemed to help the weight hold better and also allow for rise and fall in tide.

If we moored at low tide we let out more chain than if we moored at high tide.

 

[trambo]

Silver Cloud, ditto.

Fred

[Paul]

53 minutes ago, grendel said:

regardless of all the above factors, the splash will still get you.

especially if you forget to let go. I've seen it happen.