Potter Bridge Closed To Road Traffic

[marshman]

I am sure the Mayor will find something to tax to raise the money - how about the CO2 we breathe out? Thats not meant to be a political comment but the new ULEZ extension is nothing short of a con, especially when many of the airborne particles have now been proven to come from tyres!!!

Sorry  - more thread drift!!!!

[Hylander]

34 minutes ago, marshman said:

I am sure the Mayor will find something to tax to raise the money - how about the CO2 we breathe out? Thats not meant to be a political comment but the new ULEZ extension is nothing short of a con, especially when many of the airborne particles have now been proven to come from tyres!!!

Sorry  - more thread drift!!!!

Here' s even more of a drift, - money for Coronations!!   While people cannot afford to heat their homes.

[ExSurveyor]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

especially when many of the airborne particles have now been proven to come from tyres!!!

Sorry  - more thread drift!!!!

Surely you mean tread drift

[Bikertov]

So here is a thought ...

1) Dig / install a temporary water bypass around the bridge

2) Temporarily dam and drain the river in front of and behind the bridge

3) Once drained, support the bridge, dig out and reinstate the foundations to make them stable and stop any further sinking

4) While you are at it, jack up the bridge say 1 foot or so, to match the clearance of the 'new' road bridge, and re-lay the approach roads to match

5) Remove the dams and let the eater back in

6) Job done, and everyone is happy

 

It shouldn't even cost too much in the scheme of things. A bit of Lottery funding maybe ?

People have moved whole buildings before, and done far more adventurous stuff. The leaning tower of Pisa has had stabilising work done. It can't be too hard - really ?

[marshman]

Cannot be too hard in the general scheme of things, as you say, but I wouldn't mind betting that there would be a lot of objections! From a personal point of view, I think the Upper Thurne is a really special place and such action would totally destroy it - my guess is thankfully it just won't happen and it will remain a refuge of raw natural and original beauty, accessible to those who want to view it, but far from the maddening crowds!!

[Ray]

3 minutes ago, marshman said:

Cannot be too hard in the general scheme of things, as you say, but I wouldn't mind betting that there would be a lot of objections! From a personal point of view, I think the Upper Thurne is a really special place and such action would totally destroy it - my guess is thankfully it just won't happen and it will remain a refuge of raw natural and original beauty, accessible to those who want to view it, but far from the maddening crowds!!

The more I think about it the more I agree. It is a special area and as long as we can enjoy it by foot or day boat then perhaps it is right to keep it that way. 

A middle way between access and conservation, like all middle ways, sounds best.

[rightsaidfred]

2 hours ago, Bikertov said:

So here is a thought ...

1) Dig / install a temporary water bypass around the bridge

2) Temporarily dam and drain the river in front of and behind the bridge

3) Once drained, support the bridge, dig out and reinstate the foundations to make them stable and stop any further sinking

4) While you are at it, jack up the bridge say 1 foot or so, to match the clearance of the 'new' road bridge, and re-lay the approach roads to match

5) Remove the dams and let the eater back in

6) Job done, and everyone is happy

 

It shouldn't even cost too much in the scheme of things. A bit of Lottery funding maybe ?

People have moved whole buildings before, and done far more adventurous stuff. The leaning tower of Pisa has had stabilising work done. It can't be too hard - really ?

As I have said before where would said bypass enter and exit the river.

Fred

[BroadAmbition]

 I think the Upper Thurne is a really special place and such action would totally destroy it

Marshman - You know yersen that your statement above is total male cow manure

You and the rest of us also know there happens to be a 'New' bypass bridge slightly further upstream that is only at best a foot higher than PHB.  Therefore if PHB was repaired and raised by a foot it would only result in boats transiting to the upper Thurne that traditionally used to do and it wasn't destroyed by 'The Hordes' back then prior to the Ba ceasing dredging the lower Bure properly right up to the 80''s.  The narrow arch (Circle) of PHB and the bypass bridge would keep the vast majority of the tupperware behemoths from visiting the upper Thurne.

This yet again smacks of those that use and enjoy the upper Thurne being selfish and denying it to more boats and families etc

If a crowd funding was set up to repair and raise PHB, I'd be chucking money at it and encouraging others to do the same

Griff

 

[Ray]

To be fair access to the upper Thurne is not denied to anyone, it's just that if your boat can't go under the bridge then you have to visit another way.

[BroadAmbition]

That’s very true and I agree. What’s infuriating though is those of us that own & hire boats that were designed to regularly use the upper Thurne now rarely can

Griff

[Ray]

Yes, I agree Griff.. if they used to get through then they should still be able to.

[webntweb]

Connoisseur 40 or 45 at Catfield Dyke October 2013

[Broads01]

Nice photo, 2013 being the last time I was able to pass through the bridge in a hire boat (Bright Horizon 1). Of the 11 boats I've hired since with an air draft theoretically low enough, none have actually been low enough.

[Bernard]

 

5 hours ago, Bikertov said:

So here is a thought ...

 

1) Dig / install a temporary water bypass around the bridge

 

2) Temporarily dam and drain the river in front of and behind the bridge

 

3) Once drained, support the bridge, dig out and reinstate the foundations to make them stable and stop any further sinking

 

4) While you are at it, jack up the bridge say 1 foot or so, to match the clearance of the 'new' road bridge, and re-lay the approach roads to match

 

5) Remove the dams and let the eater back in

 

6) Job done, and everyone is happy

 

 

 

It shouldn't even cost too much in the scheme of things. A bit of Lottery funding maybe ?

 

People have moved whole buildings before, and done far more adventurous stuff. The leaning tower of Pisa has had stabilising work done. It can't be too hard - really ?

 

If your going to build a dam either side put a lock type gate in it, bring the boats in, pump enough water out to get them through then then refill and away you go, sure the BA would consider that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FlyingFortress]

I for one would be glad to see the back of that bridge.

It must be 15 years or more ago my boat which BTW was designed to pass under PH Bridge last went under.

Maybe just Maybe pubs like The Ferry Boat at Hickling would have a better chance of .😳surviving.

Edit to add at 6'6" air draft and probably a good bit less than that at a flat bridge we had no issues at the newer by pass bridge.

[FlyingFortress]

your going to build a dam either side put a lock type gate in it, bring the boats in, pump enough water out to get them through then then refill and away you go, sure the BA would consider that.

 

No need.

Just demolish the old useless bridge 🤞

Can't find a tinhat emoji 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Meantime]

30 minutes ago, FlyingFortress said:

It must be 15 years or more ago my boat which BTW was designed to pass under PH Bridge last went under.

Taken 1st July but what year? 

 

 

[YnysMon]

I must admit I agree with Marshman and Ray on this occasion. Sorry Griff!

The area above Potter Heigham bridge is very special and would be spoiled if the bridge was done away with. I hold this view even though we had hopes of getting under in Water Rail in September and couldn’t. The area is quite well used during high season, we’ve not always found a mooring on our intended destination when we have got under the bridge in saileys. Those who can’t access it in their regular boats have the day boat option. It’s not like it’s completely sealed off.

[floydraser]

Several of us have suggested rebuilding and raising the height so far but should this ever happen we don't want the BA involved in the finance; our tolls would go through the roof!

If the old bridge had to close to river traffic, what proportion of the toll could we shave off for the loss of mileage? 

It would be interesting to see details of any old planning meetings for the building of the other "new" bridge. Surely the long term future of the waterway and the old bridge would have discussed at that time. For instance, if they had considered the possibility of the old bridge being removed at some stage, they could have made the new bridge higher to accommodate bigger boats. They must have decided that was never going to happen.

 

[BroadAmbition]

our tolls would go through the roof!

Over the past sixteen years they already have!

Griff

[BroadAmbition]

The area above Potter Heigham bridge is very special and would be spoiled if the bridge was done away with

YnysMon - I'm not calling for it to be done away with, just reinstated to a situation so craft that were designed to be able to pass under it could do so once again.  Even if it was to done away with (And I for one hope it isn't) the bypass bridge would still limit the amount of river traffic

Griff

[Vaughan]

13 hours ago, marshman said:

accessible to those who want to view it, but far from the maddening crowds!!

Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife, their sober wishes never sought to stray : Along the cool sequestered vale of life, they kept the noiseless tenor of their way.  Gray's Elegy.

All the same, your pun is appropriate!

I take Griffs point about boats being built to pass under the Broads bridges and I don't think the Hickling area used to suffer that much in the "bad old days".  Probably much better maintained in terms of navigation than it has been for a long time since.

I just never see what is so special about Potter Bridge that it has to so preciously preserved?  What is it supposed to be famous for?  Hardly a Gothic cathedral, is it?  If it were getting in the way of a commercial navigation it would have been replaced long ago, like the really famous Pegasus Bridge over the Orne Canal near Caen, in Normandy.

The BA have a clear responsibility to maintain navigation and so must push to ensure that repairs are carried out in a way that does not impede it - at least not more so!

It cannot, however, be up to the BA to pay for repairs to a road bridge and of course, the problem of rising water levels has lots of other causes, nothing to do with the bridge itself.

 

[Gracie]

10 hours ago, webntweb said:

Connoisseur 40 or 45 at Catfield Dyke October 2013

Lovely photo, thank you

I don't want to see that old bridge knocked down but I do understand how folk feel  not being able to get under with boats they bought or hired to be able to navigate through. I also understand wanting to keep that area as a wild life haven just for the select few but why should you pay your money on tolls and the cost of hiring, then on top of that hiring a day boat (not cheap) to get under. It should be free for all of us to use as it was when I was a little girl

With some of the goings on I've seen from people on day boats who are only there for a few hours don't have the respect for the place owners and regular hirers have who take great care and love the place as if it were our own

I don't know what the answer is either, we have had this discussion for years and still nothing is done.

I don't want to see the bridge go but I would like to navigate down the lovely dyke as in the pic above and enjoy that wild life haven that is Hickling Broad once again 

Just my simple take on it x

[FlyingFortress]

9 hours ago, Meantime said:

Taken 1st July but what year? 

 

 

Yes that was the last time 😫

And it's been the screen saver on my PC for many a year the second one.

In answer to your question. I don't know but would like to 🍺

Trouble is now just look at how many less visitor moorings are available at The Pleasure Boat compared to then.

Sorry I said Ferry Boat not Pleasure Boat last night 😳

[Meantime]

21 minutes ago, FlyingFortress said:

In answer to your question. I don't know but would like to 🍺

It was 2006. I think that was the year we bumped into you (not literally) at Catfield. We arrived back at Potter the next day and you were just in front of us for the queue for the pilot, which enabled me to get that picture.

If you zoom in on the picture below, whilst not the best quality, I still reckon there was about 6ft10in. or 11in.