River Bure - Closed for Navigation - May 2012

[MY littleboat]

Following discussions elsewhere, and the failure of the BA to inform anyone, the River Bure will be closed to navigation from at least Wednesday 9th to Sunday 13th as work to preserve the rusting heap - Vauxhall Bridge - takes place. This follows a successful campaign led by a local resturant owner (next to the bridge). The Bridge owners Rail Walks Ltd (Part of the SUSTRANS sustainable transport charity) have secured £295,000 from the lottery FairShare Trust in order to provide a cycleway and footway.

This work will also include Lowering the available air draught permanently as wooden hangers will be fitted in order to preserve the existing bolts from further damage by boats.

A letter (found elsewhere) from the relevant council outlines the schedule below.

Dear Sir/Madam

Great Yarmouth – Vauxhall Bridge Restoration Phase 1

Advance Notice of Bridge Closure

I am writing to notify you of essential repair works to the Vauxhall (old rail) Bridge over the River Bure in Great Yarmouth. These are planned for spring 2012, subject to available funds and completion of statutory processes. The location of the bridge is shown on the attached plan, drawing No. PF2002-MP-004.

Vauxhall Bridge is a Victorian Grade 2 listed building of national importance, and a rare surviving example of a Fairburn type box girder construction. Originally constructed in 1850-51, it was strengthened by the addition of arched bows in 1886. Today the bridge is in poor repair, and in need of major refurbishment.

The first phase of restoration will be to the eastern span (closest to Acle New Road). Along with refurbishment of the deck support beams and box girders, essential safety work will be carried out to the underside of the bridge including new wooden protective strips over the projecting bolts from the bridge hangers.

In order to carry out the renovation and safety works to the underside of the bridge, scaffolding will be required in the navigable channel and the bridge closed to river traffic for a five day period in May 2012. The closure is planned to come into force during a neap tide period and run from 8am on Wednesday 9 May through to 12pm on Sunday 13 May. To keep the closure period to a minimum, 24 hour working will be adopted.

During the closure, advance warning signing will be installed and a safety boat deployed on both sides of the bridge between dawn and dusk. Traffic at the Berney Arms end of Breydon Water will also be warned of the closure, so as to advice vessels that the Bure River is closed to navigation. Temporary alternative moorings on South Quay may be made available by the Great Yarmouth Port to commercial vessels from the Bure that require being on the seaward side of the Vauxhall Bridge during this period.

Continuation sheet to: HI/MP/PF2002/DW Dated : 9 January 2012 -2-

The closure is essential to allow the work to the underside of the bridge to be carried out safely for both the boating community and workforce. Every effort is being made to keep the closure period to the absolute minimum but please do not hesitate to contact me by any of the above means if you would like to discuss this further.

Yours faithfully

Project Engineer (Major Projects

[MY littleboat]

Have just had some excerpts of the feasability study emailed... some interesting reading...

8.4 In order to further protect the existing cold riveting and the stringer platform underside the structure, an initial stripping of existing covering and re-application to BS EN ISO 12944 Parts 1-8: 1998 be considered, however, immediate protection with an interim coating would be advisable.

8.5 The outlined strike damage in 4.3 – 4.9 requires immediate rectification and further prevention ensured. The work schedule proposes the fitting of 25mm treated plywood hangers underside with joist hangers and further protecting with runners.(see 11.5)

12.2 The additional work must add a net increase to the underside of the structure of no more than 200mm with no addition of more than 300mm due to the nature of allowing navigation.

[jillR]

thanks for that gav

with no addition of more than 300mm due to the nature of allowing navigation.

so that could mean upto 1 foot less clearance

[Jim]

Anyone got any dynamite?

[Guest]

and the failure of the BA to inform anyone

To be fair though, the work is being carried out for and by Norfolk County Council, who issued that advance warning, I believe in just the past few days.

[MY littleboat]

Yep, I found out about this this morning from another forum, since then been trying to get my head around what is going on. It seems the letter above was forwarded from the BA so they are definitely in the loop now but, as Stowager rightly points out, seem not to have had any input at all in the planning of these works. The schedule is only proposed however at this time but it is almost certain the works are set to go ahead. It seems as if the campaign has been very much one of providing a footway and cycleway from ASDA and the railway station to town. Odd that for another 150m approx walk there is another perfectly good bridge! More odd is the fact that the campaign leader owns the resturant right next door apparently! (see here for lots of info on the campaign http://eastcoastnet.org/transitions/vauxhall-bridge-great-yarmouth/)

Alot of money has been obtained from the National Lottery fund, but it must be pointed out that SUSTRANS (Not shouting - thats an abbreviation) bave indirectly owner this for a number of years and have done nothing but let it rot!

More importantly for alol hirers and owners is that, at the beginning of the season North/South transits will be impossible as there will be no transit window etc.

More worrying in what happens if a hirer for instance gets as far as Yarmouth running with the current, realises there is a problem and cant stop and carreers through the scaffold? This closure seems to have a far greater impact than that of the Rail bridges as it effects all traffic.

[Jim]

I can only assume that they will post plenty of warning notices and also all the hire yards will be aware and advise hirers accordingly.

[MY littleboat]

SO what was the proposed date for the Salhouse meet???

[Jim]

We're in Horning Gav! No worries there at all

[MY littleboat]

Interesting radio discussion recorded in in March 2010 - whilst most people were aiming to have this 'blot' removed from the landscape, Norfolk CC were already listening most heartily to the wishes of the few!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/norfolk/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8549000/8549471.stm

[Guest DAYTONA-BILL]

Probably the "few that have the most money" Gav. Just a shame the lottery will fund the restoration of something the majority simply don`t want, but won`t fund something the majority do want, such as nessecary dredging, and the "lifting" of Potter Heigham bridge. What i`m VERY concerned about is the 300mm lass airdraught and the danger it represents. It looks to me that all the high top sedan boats on the north rivers are going to have very little cruising ground after May, unless someone "accidentally" knocks off all the wooden protection strips

[Antares_9]

Can't see a huge problem with the airdraft personally, at low water which is when most people want to get under in order to get a push over Breydon or have come North over Breydon on the last of the ebb there is often 12' and more clearence, even if that is reduced to 11' I don't see many hire craft having an issue with it, I could still do it comfortably in Kingfisher with the nav array folded

[senator]

For hire craft I think it is the variance that is the problem, yes some tides will make 12' others 9'. If you are taking another foot off it you are going to introduce low tides that some of the higher hire boats are not going to clear at.

That handover is now going to need a lesson on reading Tide Tables and not just high and low times but how high and low.

David, I know you have been caught out and stuck above the bridges in the past, that is just going to become a lot more likely for private craft that may want to make their way up.

Has a formal objection been lodged by the Broads Authority? If not then I think that shows the total lack of support for boating that we have now come to expect from the BA, any other boating body would have instantly recognised that removing up to a foot of clearance from a bridge that for much of the tide is already low is going to cause problems.

There are a lot of boats on the Broads that have had, sometimes at great expense, modifications carried out to their vessels to allow passage under these bridges, will they now be compensated for relocation (if they are above the bridge) or loss of navigation (if they are bellow) ?

[marshman]

As always I shall be accused of jumping to the defence of the BA but I believe the bridge and the navigation fall outside their jurisdiction - surely it is the Port of GY so how can you be surprised? When have they ever even acknowledged the existence of either their responsibility or even cared?

In reality it will make little or no difference to the vast majority.

[senator]

I think the Broads Authority took control of Breydon and the Bure from GYPA in a coo Last year sometime. maybe wrong but I know it was on the cards as part of the Broads act

The bridge is not owned by BA or for that matter Network rail, it is owned by a lottery funded charity but that should still not stop BA from lodging objections

[senator]

Having just checked, you are in fact correct at present Marshman, the decision on Transfer is to be taken this month, even so the BA are responsible for navigational safety of the area and even if they weren't, as this is the gateway to the Northern broads I would expect any responsible navigation authority to be formally objecting to the lowering of the bridge.

[senator]

There is also the matter of timing, with no rail issues to consider how can anyone agree to let this work start at the same time as the boating season.

Makes no odds to me as I can't get under anyway but, in the same way as everyone stood together on the issue of Somerleyton bridge, it is only fair that the Southern boats now lend their support to Northern Boaters.

[diesel falcon]

If it,s only for foot passengers why can,t they just pick it up and lay new supports ....2 ft higher than the one,s there, also can,t see how a fiberglass boat stands any chance agaist a cold rivit?? ,i think there looking at very old damage from comercial boat,s (maybe steel).??

[marshman]

Believe me Senator I do agree with you but I suspect that like all similar bodies, the thought of discussing it with the BA never crossed their tiny minds!!! They just think noone else is important!!!!

[Antares_9]

David, I know you have been caught out and stuck above the bridges in the past, that is just going to become a lot more likely for private craft that may want to make their way up.

Yeah, but that was my own fault for going up there at Christmas Ian, around the same time I had to take the tender from the moorings to the pub at Reedham Ferry.

[MY littleboat]

Having looked into this issue a little more today, for once I have to say that I agree with Marshman as it appears that BA have only just been informed of this work schedule however GYPA had not been informed! The point is May Gurney and other contractors are expecting to work on these dates apparently and I would be very surprised if there weren't penalties if work coiled not proceed on these dates

As has been said, at low water there is clearance but with heavy silting just up river, not really an option for larger craft at the moment

I believe these works epitomise the society we live in today. A trendy cause (cycleways and pedestrian walkways) has been hijacked in order to further interests of a few., as if this has got genuine historic value I am sure there are more than one rail museum that would gladly accept it and turn it back into what it should be. But, whilst I am a big fan of texhnology conservation, I fail to see how NCC have been so short sighted as to not even consult with BA or reputable user groups - unless by doing so would have bought unsuccumable objections!

[jillR]

maybe if the bridge were higher or not there and larger craft could get through then there might not be quite so much silting

jill

[Guest DAYTONA-BILL]

If it,s only for foot passengers why can,t they just pick it up and lay new supports ....2 ft higher than the one,s there, also can,t see how a fiberglass boat stands any chance agaist a cold rivit?? ,i think there looking at very old damage from comercial boat,s (maybe steel).??

My thoughts entirely Trev, it`s a steel (or iron) structure which is bolted to the ground somewhere, so why can`t they simply just crane up one end at a time, and place 2ft high "packers" and put a set of steps and a ramp for wheelchairs and cycles to use. And if anybody says "because it may fall apart", if it`s that weak, it should be broken up and re-assembled elsewhere on health and safety grounds (please excuse the punn).

[ZimbiIV]

Can the steel not be donated towards the new Britannia?

[MY littleboat]

RYB - Apart from now being Scotlands biggest tourist attraction - yep more visitors than Edinburgh Castle last year, is currently in dry dock and will be leaving in 'as good as new' condition.. why it was scrapped in the first place is anyones idea.. however, that is worth saving.... what next... saving the 'ferodo' bridge in ipswich by moving it to the town centre... or, I know lets spend a whole heap of money on a 300w lampo installed in a ball, call it art and pop it outside the college...wait a minute, they have already done that...doh!

Actually RYB is a great success story. See here;

http://www.royalyachtbritannia.co.uk