Going Under Potter Heigham

[BroadAmbition]

Grendel - according to the bridge pilot she needs 6'3" at Potter - he looked it up in their big black book, she will get through wroxham at 6'

Didn't I accurately measure her height whilst at Beccles woody boat show? - I measured plenty of others

Griff

[BroadAmbition]

lets leave it alone, so its not turned into a "theme park" , to remind us of a bygone era.

It's charm would be completely destroyed if the bridge was replaced.

The above two statements are of course 'Claptrap'

Lets discuss That 'Bygone Era'  that is often referred to prior to the Ba being formed when they stopped regularly dredging the lower Bure.  That 'Bygone' Era was when most craft could regularly pass under PHB with ease at average low water, from pre ww2 right up to the mid eighties.  Was the upper Thurne a 'Theme Park' then - No of course not.  Was it's charm 'Completely Destroyed' - No of course not, I know from first hand as we visited most years above PHB

It's oh so conveniently ignored / forgot that the bypass bridge (Sight of the former rail bridge) is only around 12" higher than PHB.  Therefore if the Ba ever got their fingers out, dredged the Lower Bure, got rid of the Bure Hump and gave PHB back say a whole 6" clearance to say 7ft average at low water then then the new Byopass bridge would be at 7ft6"-ish.  This in itself would stop all the larger more modern boats hire and private dead in their tracks.

Why do those that want to 'Keep' the Upper Thurne only accessible by the smallest of craft keep omitting to state the low airdraft of the new bridge - Just why do they do that?

Griff

 

 

Ok, I'm referring from when the Wherries were abundant and the

[andyg]

Of course you are 100% correct griff, going back to the 70/80 we would regularly pass under the bridge whilst on our holidays. I pose three questions, what purpose does the bridge serve, that the bypass bridge couldn't? No local businesses would suffer if the old bridge was to be removed infact it would only be of huge benefit to businesses based above the bridge, how many ppl actually visit potter for the bridge ?? I would argue most are drawn to potter by lathams and not the bridge. With the bridge gone would it spoil the enjoyment of the many visitors who sit outside HW watching the river activities ??? again I'd argue not. infact with it gone the river would be a busy place with far more to watch and enjoy. Lastly I believe with the bridge gone in would enhance the holiday experience for those that would want to visit Hickling etc. Personally I see the bridge as an obstruction if I being perfectly Frank, long gone are the days of getting excited about getting through the bridge, even HW and Martham ferry, don't want you taking there picnic boat under the bridge. Like has already been mentioned lots of today hire boat wouldn't get under the bypass bridge but many would, its only a matter of time before the issues of removing the bridge become a reality. Just my personal take on things. 

 

 

[Roy]

I have to say I think the bridge should be moved and rebuilt elsewhere I get it’s historic but why not save it eventually it’s going to need lots of maintenance to keep it road worthy. 

If a modern foot bridge was built after all the new road bridge will take the traffic the old bridge is just  causing problems now it’s not a flood barrier if the broads flood the water would go round the bridge. 

This I know would never happen though 

[grendel]

1 hour ago, andyg said:

No local businesses would suffer if the old bridge was to be removed

well the bridge pilots business would suffer for one

[marshman]

Eloquent Griff, I admit, but thats merely your opinion. 

Could you show me any evidence that removal of the Bure Hump, as you call it, would make any difference  - what it is certainly not is much to do the BA, as all dredging issues are controlled by the EA who grant the licences for dredging. Has there ever been a proper hyrdrographic survey done to show the impact of its so called advantages/disadvantages? What impact would it have on fishing probably allowing saltwater surges even further upstream than now and allowing more water further downstream - how would this impact the flooding issues at Gt Yarmouth, if at all?

Despite your comments, I actually do believe it would spoil the area - but that again is of course, merely my opinion too! Fortunately the Bridge is a registered Ancient Monument so all talk of removal will remain just that - talk! Thankfully!

[JanetAnne]

Perhaps we, collectively, ought to be encouraging proper maintenance of what we have rather than just  doing away with it. 

If the lower bure is strangling the outgoing tidal flow (and I am one of the supporters of this) then that's where we should start. 

I am not saying that every boat over 40 years old should fit under Potter but it ought to be possible to achieve a more regular access for those that once did. 

Pick up any Hoseasons or Blakes brochure from the 70's or 80's and every boat that didn't fit through the bridges was noted under their individual listings. It's quite an eye opener.

In the meantime rising sea levels and increased rainfall are being blamed yet rainfall depths in Norfolk over the last 40 years is pretty constant (according to Google) and we are only talking the last 40 years here.

[DAVIDH]

2 hours ago, grendel said:

well the bridge pilots business would suffer for one

Wonder if he gets much business anyway now. Would be interesting to know the figures.

 

[Bytheriver]

23 minutes ago, JanetAnne said:

Perhaps we, collectively, ought to be encouraging proper maintenance of what we have rather than just  doing away with it. 

If the lower bure is strangling the outgoing tidal flow (and I am one of the supporters of this) then that's where we should start. 

I am not saying that every boat over 40 years old should fit under Potter but it ought to be possible to achieve a more regular access for those that once did. 

Pick up any Hoseasons or Blakes brochure from the 70's or 80's and every boat that didn't fit through the bridges was noted under their individual listings. It's quite an eye opener.

In the meantime rising sea levels and increased rainfall are being blamed yet rainfall depths in Norfolk over the last 40 years is pretty constant (according to Google) and we are only talking the last 40 years here.

There is a video from the Environment Agency (Via Broads Futures Initiative) showing the rudiments of dredging ( Please don't shoot the messenger) Oddly only 197 people have watched it - There are others available from the BFI Website 

 

[grendel]

Bytheriver, this is where you will get the ah buts,I quite agree, the water level where the dredging happens may well not change, but you can clearly see there is more depth to allow double the flow (is there an argument to be made that if you have the same quantity of water,then this will also reduce the speed of flow through great Yarmouth?)

now the bure hump theory relies on the fact that the restriction in the flow causes the tide to back up, raising the levels upstream of the hump, so by increasing the cross section, of the river you allow areas upstream to drain easier (ok this may mean you will now need to dredge those areas too to maintain the depth.)

but if the water can get away quicker, then the water levels will be more consistent upstream with downstream,thus lower, increasing the clearance at the bridges, a secondary beneficial effect will be less flooding at potter heigham.

what about the fact the bure hump reduces the salt surges, to me this is just evidence that it is raising levels upstream, as when there is a salt surge it is restricting the flow upstream of the surge, so it must conversley be restricting the flow downstream. 

I wonder if there are figures to show the actual water levels at various points up the bure and thurne, whether for instance the waterlevel at potter heigham is for instance 0.5m higher than the water levels at great yarmouth for instance, and the relative levels historically, might be able to be used to prove the case over the bure hump

[grendel]

oddly enough the video actually contradicts itself, by saying that undredged rivers reduce the flooding risk by not allowing the surge of a high tide up the river, but then says that it doesnt change the water level of a high tide, i think i can see statistical manipulation at work here to excuse a lack of dredging, they also say that the need to dredge is based upon river depths, rather than relative water levels at different points on the system. after all, if the river bottom rises 12" and the water level only rises 6" then they are saying they only need to dredge that 6" to maintain the water depth, whereas the level at the surface will have still risen by 6".(and thus the bridge clearances reduced by the same.)

[expilot]

When I was pilot at Potter Bridge over a ten year period in the 1990s, we recorded every piloted passage and, incidentally, every LW and HW measurement.  In a busy year we would make 15,000 passages - hire craft and private craft -  from the week before Easter to the last week in October. I cannot provide you with this year's figures, but, with a riverside property above the bridge I can safely say that many fewer than 500 cruisers were piloted through the bridge.  I have specifically excluded from that number Martham Boatbuilding & Dev Co's boats as the yard has always provided its own staff to pilot their boats through.  

The truth is that the river levels have risen, and have risen year on year.  Flood defences behind all of the Thurne bungalows were never overtopped during the first twenty years of our bungalow ownership.  Overtopping is now a regular occurrence.  Various sections of the public footpath behind the bungalows are underwater for months at a time. Over a ten year period, post-piloting, I lifted thirty two of our riverside bungalows to clear them of fluvial flooding - all 220 are located on the functioning flood plain of the River Thurne.

Whilst I, perhaps selfishly, would not want to see a return to the density of boat traffic in the Upper Thurne of the 90s, there has to be a note of caution. It is the movement of boat traffic that appears to keep channels open.  The speed of reed-bed ingress at the river's edge is staggering.  We have fishing platforms located on the opposite bank to our bungalow.  Despite the reed being dredged and carted away a couple of years ago, it is already several metres back into the river.

[Smoggy]

For many years the EA have avoided dredging at all costs on the river great ouse and would rather build headline grabbing flood defences instead, this means less headroom and more places where you can hit the bottom, oh yes and more flooding upstream.

It would seem the silt is now considered as hazardous waste and can't possibly be used to rebuild flood banks beside the river (like they often do on the broads) containing the same pollutants so instead it's left to flood and drop it's silt over the banks anyway, but that's nature not waste of course.

When they have to dredge small sections they leave the spoil safely (don't forget it's all hazardous waste) in the river in heaps elsewhere and guess what happens, it gets washed into the next tight spot.

The bottom line is that dredging is an expensive and ongoing thing to do and no headlines or photo oportunities are created and you won't ever get a knighthood without them.

Hence I now boat on the broads.

The nearest the EA really get to anything nautical is rhyming with "anchors".

[annv]

They could lower the high water level by constructing a flood barrier at Yarmouth,  by restricting the incoming tide and allowing a full outflow tide there would be more space/time for the water level at Potter Higham to go lower for longer. Just like the Thames barrier demonstrated during the Queens Pageant by maintaining a constant tide level during the parade of boats.Of cause this my not be cost effective as a constant manipulation of the barrier would be needed but would stop flooding on the ten or so occasions that very high spring tides occur John

[BroadAmbition]

Just like the Thames barrier demonstrated during the Queens Pageant by maintaining a constant tide level during the parade of boats.

Your nearly bang on there, however they didn't raise the barrier to maintain a constant tide height.  It was raised to stop the flowing ebb, enabling craft to maintain steerage and the paddlers / rowers to be able to function.  That was explained to the craft skippers well before the day

Griff

[BroadAmbition]

Could you show me any evidence that removal of the Bure Hump, as you call it, would make any difference.

Yes easily, so can you, so can anyone that has been using the Broads regularly back when the Port Commissionaires were responsible for the system way before the Ba ever came into being.  Do I really have to explain this one yet again?

Sigh - Ok, here goes (Again) back in those days there were a pair of dredging cranes that used the bucket and chuck it system of dredging spoil onto the river banks.  They were permanently stationed on the lower Bure all year round.  Now they didn't operate everyday but they were there ready to go as and when required.  The port commissionaires knew what they were doing, there was no 'Bure Hump' the river was maintained to a depth, the corners were kept clear, there were very few channel posts if any in evidence.  The 'Broadsmen' those that lived and worked on and around the rivers will tell you nowadays that since regular maintenance of the lower bure ceased (Broads Authority) river levels have increased in the upper Bure system, well of course they would, you don't need university studies to report on what's staring everyone in the face.  If you want evidence, just look at the height board at Potter Heigham.  Were the Port commissionaires wrong back in their day? did they waste thousands of man hours and machinery maintaining a clear river? - Really?

Why on earth would we need a hydrographic survey to confirm was we can all see?  Oh yes, silly me, without one the Broads Authority will do what they normally do - Very little or nowt where the lower Bure is concerned - Why? - Another rocket science deduction - the levels will drop back down on the low tides thus exposing silted up rivers / broads on the rest of the upper Bure system and the Ba can't afford the embarrassment of reality, never mind the cost of putting it back to where it was before they took over

I notice those that want the upper Thurne system 'Kept Quiet' non have commented / replied to the fact that the new bypass bridge will keep hordes of craft out of the system?

I for one do not want to see PHB removed.  It's part of the history, it's part of the fun, its part of the experience of going under it and up river.  What I would like and certainly like to see is the Ba revert back to practises of the former organisation of maintaining the Bure correctly, at worst PHB could be lifted, more stone work put in and raised up by a foot or so

Rain falls in the Anglia region have been pretty constant over the past forty odd years, sea levels have increased granted BUT not by the amount that river levels have increased at PHB, do I really need to explain that one?  - Ok then - here goes - See above

Anyroadup I have the answer, once I have successfully won the euro millions, then I'll get the lower Bure dredged out properly.  What's the certainty that even with private money the Ba would put all manner of obstacles in the way of it being done?

Griff

 

 

[Bytheriver]

At least another 7 people have watched the video since this morning - more than when I put it on a Facebook page a couple of weeks ago ( It was issued in March)

At least it makes fairly clear the policies that have to be overcome for any future change .

[Andrewcook]

Why are they Dredging the upper part near Hickling and Somertom again? As that does not silt up  as much as the Thurne Hump has been doing over a period of time. Why can the E .A and Broads Authority come out thier shell and explain the future of the Broads to every one that's to Boat Yard owners Hirers and to Private Boaters once and for all. 

[Andrewcook]

Bytheriver I've watched the Video that was very interesting the Dredging there on the Broads they have been used to make flood defences at the lower level of the river. if and when the flooding does occur I believe?

[Wussername]

Where is the Bure Hump ? Can you see it, feel it, where does it start and where does it finish. How tall is this hump. How did it get there. Are there any other humps about. Are there humps we do not know about. A bit like known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns to me. 

Gives me the hump, don't know about anyone else.

Old Wussername 

 

[Wussername]

21 hours ago, BroadAmbition said:

A different boat, albeit the boat from Beccles to Geldeston, a different boat to Horsey, or Somerton. The hidden reaches from Foundry Bridge in Norwich.

All the above visited whilst onboard 'B.A' no different boat required as she was designed for the Broads, that's all of em including above PHB

Griff

No different boat required. A Broads Boat

[grendel]

3 hours ago, Wussername said:

Where is the Bure Hump ? Can you see it, feel it, where does it start and where does it finish.

according to the broads authority surveys ( https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/180730/DEPTH__Ashtree-Farm-Reach.pdf) water depths through great yarmouth near bure loop reach are 1.5m -2m, its deeper upstream all the way to acle, thus i postulate the hump is the section at bure loop reach to ashtree farm reach

[YnysMon]

The last few years out of season transits that we’ve done from north to south and vv we’ve come across quite a lot of dredging on the lower Bure.

[ChrisB]

.

[Karizma]

9 hours ago, BroadAmbition said:

 

.............. at worst PHB could be lifted, more stone work put in and raised up by a foot or so

 

That's what id like to see done.

It would still retain the historic values of the bridge whilst allowing more craft to go under again. It must be 35 years ago since I last went under PHB, on a hire craft from Martham Boats (one of the Juliette cruisers) and I would love to do it again on Karizma - with me at the helm