Carrow Bridge To Permantly Fixed Shut

[thunder]

Copied form another forum

 

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/concerns-over-move-to-stop-carrow-bridge-lifting-7814468

[Vaughan]

This is all rather predictable, I am afraid.

Chloe Smith MP wants a new rail bridge, which will be fixed, so that trains from London can do "Norwich in 90" minutes.  Which may be why the T.S. lord Nelson and the Vagabond had to be moved with such suspicious haste.

Who is going to commute on these new trains is another matter.  I suspect they will in future be working from home, in all the new dormitory towns around Rackheath and Wroxham!

They say that there is no longer any commercial river traffic to Norwich, which is no surprise as the building of the southern bypass flyover at Trowse effectively closed Norwich for all time as a port.  So keeping the bridge working has become a bit of an expensive luxury.  Doesn't surprise me at all.

What should worry us all is the precedent.  If they get away with welding Carrow bridge shut, then Reedham bridge will surely be next.

[RumPunch]

Initial outrage, then.... how many boats will this actually stop getting into Norwich ? Carrow is 14 foot.

Checking the heights before I posted that, the A47 is 35' My mast is 30 foot, plus the 4 foot from waterline to deck - hmmm, dare I.......

[andyg]

30 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

This is all rather predictable, I am afraid.

Chloe Smith MP wants a new rail bridge, which will be fixed, so that trains from London can do "Norwich in 90" minutes.  Which may be why the T.S. lord Nelson and the Vagabond had to be moved with such suspicious haste.

Who is going to commute on these new trains is another matter.  I suspect they will in future be working from home, in all the new dormitory towns around Rackheath and Wroxham!

They say that there is no longer any commercial river traffic to Norwich, which is no surprise as the building of the southern bypass flyover at Trowse effectively closed Norwich for all time as a port.  So keeping the bridge working has become a bit of an expensive luxury.  Doesn't surprise me at all.

What should worry us all is the precedent.  If they get away with welding Carrow bridge shut, then Reedham bridge will surely be next.

Don't understand the logic in welding reedham bridge closed, it's a rural branch line and the bridge is used daily during the season, by river traffic from Brundall. Totally understand why you'd want to shut carrow road though. 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, andyg said:

Don't understand the logic in welding reedham bridge closed,

Money, money, money .

[Regulo]

"Don't understand the logic in welding reedham bridge closed, it's a rural branch line and the bridge is used daily during the season, by river traffic from Brundall. Totally understand why you'd want to shut carrow road though."

Where did you get Reedham from?

[marshman]

For those who read the Minutes avidly of the various BA meetings you will know it is hoped next year to spend quite a lot of money on all of the swing bridges. Now knowing Network Rail, perhaps it won't be next year, but they are spending a lot of time in discussions with the BA about what they intend doing - at least they are talking which is better than not talking!!

It includes work on altering the operating system on all three, Reedham, Somerleyton and Oulton or so I believe!

[andyg]

2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Money, money, money .

I get the cost saving aspect for network rail, but surely the BA would vigorously fight this as it would destroy business in the Brundall area, that cater for the larger boats up there. 

[JennyMorgan]

27 minutes ago, andyg said:

, , , , , , surely the BA would vigorously fight this . . . . . . . 

We can only hope so. As hopefully will the NSBA et al.

[marshman]

Andy - believe me there is no way this is a precursor to them welding Reedham Bridge!!!! 

They have just spent millions upgrading the operational signalling systems on the Wherry Lines and also purpose built new rolling stock. Add to that fact that I know they are looking to upgrading the bridges over the shorter term - in this case I firmly believe that the pessimists are drawing the wrong conclusion!  Carrow Bridge is the responsibility of Norfolk County Council, not Network Rail, and I must agree that even for a saving of only £150k, I agree that there are better things to spend money on a bridge that is just just not used and in any case leads nowhere. Nobody has bothered to check how many times it has been used over the last 5 years!!!

PS Here is the link to upgrades being planned on the other bridges - I accept you either believe me or Vaughan - thats down to you!!!!!

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/anglia/improving-the-railway-in-anglia/swing-bridge-renewals/

 

[Bytheriver]

Things have moved on a lot since the current swing bridge was installed with the overhead electric supply for the trains with only one pick up arm as they were loco hauled with push pull capability & the new ones are EMUs with two pickups & the rural ones are bi-modes with a engine as well - That said even the old ones would have cruised across the bridge & there would only have been a problem if they came to a stand.

That said a fixed bridge could be designed with a much shallower profile allowing taller cruisers under anyway. Hopefully they may disclose this to BA possibly even for the Nav Ctte meeting 

One of the proposals for the new development downstream is to include a marina which would far more secure than Norwich river banks & is likely to have some form of public transport connection into the city for the whole proposal too meet sustainability requirements.

[Vaughan]

12 hours ago, RumPunch said:

Checking the heights before I posted that, the A47 is 35' My mast is 30 foot, plus the 4 foot from waterline to deck - hmmm, dare I......

I remember that the building of the flyover was controversial and was designed so that the average gaff rigged Broads yacht could still sail under it.  But probably not with the topsail up, and not if it was Bermuda rigged!  Even so, the rig of an average yacht only goes about half way to the height of the derrick posts on a sea-going coaster.

 

7 hours ago, marshman said:

I accept you either believe me or Vaughan - thats down to you!!!!!

Which is partly why I always enjoy debating with you!  I also accept that my opinion is just that, with no solid evidence.  All the same, it is based on a long memory of previous "anomalies" in planning decisions on the Yare navigation.

Remember when they built the Breydon bascule bridge, at enormous cost, because the navigation (to Norwich) had to be kept open?  At the same time the old Trowse swing bridge was replaced - also at enormous cost - with a single track sliding affair, so that the navigation could be kept open.  At about the same time, they spent more millions on a rebuild of Carrow bridge.

Then, only a couple of years later, they built the Trowse flyover, which was fixed, and this made all the other works redundant at a stroke!  And it must have been the same planners, who were involved in all these decisions!

Now, oh dear! The Trowse bridge is only single track and it is holding up the trains, so we will have to build a new one. And no need to make it opening, as no-one seems to use the port of Norwich any more. Rather pathetic in planning terms, since the previous swing bridge was double track in the first place!

So given this lamentable history I can well understand that, looking objectively, there is no point in continuing to spend money on the old bridge at Carrow.  And given this proven lack of joined-up thinking by the planning authorities over the years, I am afraid I still fear that Reedham bridge might be next.

[grendel]

I feel that if the planning authority were to propose welding reedham bridge closed that would instigate such a negative feedback that heads would roll, there are many hire craft that need the bridge to open and the private craft at brundall would all be up in arms about becoming land locked, and the words maintain the navigation would be brought to the fore. the argument for Carrow bridge will be lack of required use, ie it will hinge on the average number of openings  a year, which must be in single figures, that argument doesnt hold for reedham or any of the other bridges, as they are opened daily several times a day (at least when they are working they do) so I dont think you could make a case on those grounds

[grendel]

correct me if I am wrong, but for reedham bridge can british rail not be fined for not opening the bridge in reasonable time for a vessel wishing to pass through, my memory seems to think i have seen this somewhere, I wonder if this is the case, and if this is also true of all of the other bridges? even if just a nominal amount in todays currency, the paperwork involved would cost more than the fines in all probability.

[andyg]

Hard to imagine they would weld it shut. Might as well build a damm. Like grendel has said there would be a huge uproar, effectively making the rivers above the bridge about as much use as hickling for many many boats. Just can't ever see it happening. 

[C.Ricko]

how much height would anew fixed bridge gain? I think double track fixed bridge would make sense if it were doable as nothing is likely to group there again, the last two openings (probably 3 )were to let boats out.

Fixing Reedham is unlikely but it would make the Yare Navigation race much more interesting!

 

[JennyMorgan]

I've been avidly watching the America's Cup racing in New Zealand and note that some of the spectator bling boats feature multiple deck fly-bridges, effectively five floor high gin palaces. How long before these beasts become the latest 'must have' for members of the Brundall Navy? A marina for five deckers in the heart of Norwich, maybe! I can just imagine those NZ multi floor  boats having elevators, especially for legless mariners!

[annv]

Welding Reedham shut would also stop tankers delivering to Cantley with gas becoming less used for industry more oil would likely be used at cantley so making boat delivery more likely in the future. John

[Smoggy]

2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

I can just imagine those NZ multi floor  boats having elevators, especially for legless mariners!

On the broads they would be called stairlifts not elevators.....

I only have 3 steps on board but I gotta get one.

[Cheesey69]

Things swing on public opinion. How many would blow their top against how many would be convinced of faster transit times?

I own a boat but my votes a hundred miles away.

This is why I and others bang on about public image and sliding rights that can easily be removed.

In the greater scheme of things I don't think the issue would get that much head of stream especially as it wont effect the conservationists, paddle boarders and kayakers and other pastimes that seem to be more accessible to the general public and I suspect have a growing voice on the broads. 

[thunder]

How far can a topic go off target?  the thread as moved from Carrow Bridge to speculation on Reedham Bridge to the Brundall navy and NZ. why make steps to close a bridge permantly, when due to innate opening times of Trowse its been effectively closed anyway, leaving the status quo would at least leave an opportunity to review later.

 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Smoggy said:

I only have 3 steps on board but I gotta get one.

A bosun's chair rigged on a Handy-Billy should do the job, also useful for breaking out the mudweight! There is a third use but I won't go into that here!!