Why Can’t These People Use Mutford Lock?

[wombat nee blownup]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Norfolk Broads Network

[ranworthbreeze]

Maybe because of the height of the boat it will not go under the railway bridge to get into Mudford Lock, the Railway bridge has not been working for a few weeks now.

Regards

Alan

[Cal]

Why can they not just leave it at RNSYC and go home?

[marshman]

And who cares very much anyway????? Yet another Archant non story!!!

[JennyMorgan]

For Broads big boat users I suppose it is a story because they now have no access to the sea. Why have a brute of a motor cruiser and then never go to sea, like what it was actually built to do? 

[JanetAnne]

Is this why there is a big lump moored side on to the Wherry Hotel?

[Turnoar]

Moor up in Yarmouth and wait for the bridge to open, plenty of room in the outer harbour. It’s the authority’s problem and they need to fix it! The least they can do is give them a berth foc until they do, slacking and not keeping their house in order is tantamount to denying the navigational right and if they get away with it for too long then there is a risk complacency might set in and one day the bridge is opened rarely or altogether shut permanently. I presume a third crossing is not too far off now, trust that will be reliable!

[marshman]

Strange - and there was me thinking Haven Bridge came within the jurisdiction of Peel Ports!

Seems to be some at cross purposes but I did not not think either Haven Bridge nor the Railway Bridge in Lake Lothing had much to do with the "authority" (which one?)

[Smoggy]

You would not want to be mooring a cruiser in the outer harbour, too much swell and big stuff, it's no place for leisure craft.

Peel ports operate haven, nowt to do with ba.

[Turnoar]

Haven Bridge is the responsibility of Norfolk County Council. Peel Ports operate and maintain it but can only be held to account under the terms of their agreement, looks as though NCC need to invest some cash by the latest article. I used the term authority in lower case as a general reference not specifically I.e. whichever authority is responsible needs to do what is necessary, even if the bill falls to the taxpayer which I expect it will largely.

Agreed the small berth outside the Town Hall May be more appropriate Smoggy, refrence to the outer harbour was in jest, it may be fully utilised by shipping now, must be ten years since the cranes left.

 

[JennyMorgan]

The BA very clearly does have a responsibility to its toll payers who, in some cases, wish to access the Broads or to exercise their right to access the open seas. The BA has the ability, if not the will, to jolly along its neighboring authorities who control the various access points.  Granted the BA has no responsibility towards the physical work required but effectively it needs to ensure that its front and back doors are kept open and unrestricted.

[Smoggy]

I seem to recall a lot of the electrical bits were replaced a couple of years ago, luckily for me I can drop my arch easily and go under anything below half tide with good clearance, there's a pretty big gap under there at LWS.

As much as I'd quite like a flybridge I'm glad I didn't go that way.

[RumPunch]

Lets be realistic about this. If, like me, you are on the Northern rivers, you expect to need to take the mast down due to fixed bridges, and fit an A frame or similar.

If you live South, and intend mainly to sail on the sea, accessed by locks or moveable bridges, you probably won.t bother - why should you when there is a reasonable expectation of others keeping your right to navigation open

[Cheesey69]

Maybe not the future but....who are they upsetting by not fixing things and/or saving a bit more budget by not calling in emergency works?

what pressure are the general public going to put on them in these times when only a few boaters going to suffer?

14 hours ago, Turnoar said:

Moor up in Yarmouth and wait for the bridge to open, plenty of room in the outer harbour. It’s the authority’s problem and they need to fix it! The least they can do is give them a berth foc until they do, slacking and not keeping their house in order is tantamount to denying the navigational right and if they get away with it for too long then there is a risk complacency might set in and one day the bridge is opened rarely or altogether shut permanently. I presume a third crossing is not too far off now, trust that will be reliable!

Surrey canal where I was born was filled and turned into roads much against local opposition and even one pub had converted itself for a canal side view. Experts even predicted the up turn in canal living.

All ignored, The right of navigation rescinded. Canal filled.

That bit of south london really would have benefited 

[Paul]

they must have some lump of a boat if it can't make it through lothing, 22 feet plus underneath it earlier today

[JennyMorgan]

39 minutes ago, Paul said:

they must have some lump of a boat if it can't make it through lothing, 22 feet plus underneath it earlier today

It's the often quite unnecessary, for the Broads, display of electronic wizardry above the fly-bridge that creates the problem!

[Islander]

I think the radar arches that can't be lowered are no different than a large yacht that cannot demast without a crane. Let's not forget that access for boats to Goodchilds is necessary otherwise it would effect their income and jobs. If haven becomes unserviceable then Breydon bridge becomes redundant. 

No local/regional gov will have surplus monies to upgrade any of these bridges and need to be financed by central gov.

Colin 

[marshman]

Well they should never take on the commitment in the first place then!

I still have little or no sympathy with the OP though!! My guess his mooring fees at Brundall are less than they might be in say, Lake Lothing - perhaps he has spotted why now!!! 

[Islander]

So are you saying he shouldn't have access to the broads just because he has a high airdraft whether it be radar arch, super structure or a mast or two.

Colin 

[BrundallNavy]

Saw this one today, 60 ft of the finest bling. 

[Islander]

33 minutes ago, brundallNavy said:

Saw this one today, 60 ft of the finest bling. 

I wonder how much they will spend while they are here. 

Colin

[BrundallNavy]

8 minutes ago, Islander said:

I wonder how much they will spend while they are here. 

Colin

Believe it or not it’s got a broads toll number. 

[Islander]

Then he will have already spent a tidy sum in the area what with toll, mooring costs, diesel and servicing. 

Colin 

[Tobster]

I think one of the underlying issues is the restriction to navigation, seems to be the norm now.

We all expect that maintenance needs to be done, but it seems to be all to regular that one or all of the bridges are out of action.


Sent from the Norfolk Broads Network mobile app

[Paul]

19 hours ago, Islander said:

So are you saying he shouldn't have access to the broads just because he has a high airdraft whether it be radar arch, super structure or a mast or two.

Colin 

I don't think anyone is saying that, but if the owner has a permanent mooring on the Broads then he should be fully aware of the vagaries of the Navigation and the unreliability of it's bridges. Whether this should be allowed to happen is another argument, the fact is that it does, frequently. If effected by the "sea" bridges then he will also be trapped by Reedham when it is non operational. 

Sadly, the opinion often present on fora that we should all travel the broads in boats with a six foot airdraft is obviously becoming entrenched in the various authorities charged with maintaining the opening bridges.