River Bure - Closed for Navigation - May 2012

[Jim]

Can the steel not be donated towards the new Britannia?

In the current climate, it probably wouldn't even get to it's destination before it disappeared

[ZimbiIV]

That would still cure the clearance problem.

[senator]

it will if ever concrete gains value as a weighed in product.

Unfortunately as Potter, the authority's saw fit to put new bridges in next to the old ones the same height, a bit of foresight may have seen them lifted by a few feet so that when something happend to the existong structures more eight would be available.

The main thing with this bridge is A they carry out the work out of season and B the bridge is not reduced by even 1" in clearance.

[minor2011]

I'm with Jim get some dynamite and blow the bloody thing up.

I know some will say it needs saving its part of our heritage but come on how is it restoring ut by putting wood underneath & lowering it. Also isn't there better things to fpemd money on like hospitals & schools.

Went under it last year on ricco's Siesta (wonder if they'll make it through now) & the thing looked like nothing more than a hulk of scrap metal.

You want a foot bridge between Asda & the town, then why not build a new one and make Asda pay for it. Oh and make it higher while you're at it.

[senator]

I would agree that it is just a piece of scrap and to me it should be melted down. Then again a lot of stuff through history didn't seem worth saving to most people at the time.

Personally I think lottery money could be spent on much better causes but at least I can't be blamed as I don't do the lottery.

As long as it doesn't reduce the clearance and doesn't get done in the boating season I will leave the good people of Yarmouth to campaign against it.

[jillR]

i presume that there may be quite a few peeps that commute on the train to vauxhall railway station

and work across north quay road that would have to walk round if the bridge were scrapped and would object.

[senator]

At the money they are talking about for restoration it would be much cheaper to take it away and put in a new foot bridge. Could also be put in higher so that when the road bridge does need replacing more headroom would be available.

Great if it could made the same as Acle to give some sort of conformity. Just need to work on Ludham, potter and Wroxham then.

[Guest DAYTONA-BILL]

At the money they are talking about for restoration it would be much cheaper to take it away and put in a new foot bridge. Could also be put in higher so that when the road bridge does need replacing more headroom would be available.

Great if it could made the same as Acle to give some sort of conformity. Just need to work on Ludham, potter and Wroxham then.

I totally agree with you there Ian, but my synical mind leads me to the belief that someone somewhere in one or more of the authorities may be doing their level best to encourage people to think "it`s not worth going on the broads anymore because of the restrictions to cruising" so they don`t have to invest in keeping some parts of the rivers navigable.

[marshman]

Disagree with the last two posts entirely - the Broads bridges are fixtures and I see no reason to change them. Why alter the character of the Broads just to satisfy the minority who chose to buy boats which will not navigate the system?

However I do agree that to make a bridge LOWER is inappropriate but to be fair it will not affect many boatowners. It is not just a question of "I'm all right Jack" but why should bridge heights be increased just to allow larger and larger cruisers to navigate the system?

There are lots of cruise liners that will not go through Tower Bridge or indeed up the Thames to nearer London but on that basis you could just call for more dredging just because it suited some cruise operators?

In fact I really do hope there is someone thinking as DB suggests - there is after all a huge selection of boats that WILL go through most bridges, with perhaps the exception of PH, and long may it remain that way!!!!!

[Guest]

light the blue touch-paper, then retire.........

I agree with most of what MM has said, but there is an additional problem with Vauxhall Bridge.

It will actually cost more and more money to keep it as it is, and stop it from collapsing into the river. There can't be many other footbridges with such a high upkeep cost.

Who should pay for that, long term, I wonder ?

[senator]

That harks back to It's traditional (old) so it must be right.

There are a lot more boats on the system now that will not pass through the low bridges. Mine is a choice made primarily for sea use and I accept that my choice limits my use of the broads. It does have advantages down south though where a voyage on the lower reaches is transformed by something called a view.

These are reaches that are often loathed by those in traditional (old) type broads boats so what is wrong with modifications to allow people to enjoy the whole broads system.

And you are wrong to assume that the rest of our waterways don't change to meet modern needs, there are millions being spent as i type this to allow larger craft access to areas previously denied, wasn't that the purpose of our very own white elephant just outside the pier heads.

[diesel falcon]

light the blue touch-paper, then retire.........

I agree with most of what MM has said, but there is an additional problem with Vauxhall Bridge.

It will actually cost more and more money to keep it as it is, and stop it from collapsing into the river. There can't be many other footbridges with such a high upkeep cost.

Who should pay for that, long term, I wonder ?

agree if you look into it they are already upto 695,000,have commisioned an industrial artist to capture it,s image,and a 60,000 survey and and and........and that,s not for all of the bridge.....half of it reading between the lines will stay exacly as it is(shoot me down if that,s not the case)

[minor2011]

I wonder if the Berney Arms will get any compensation for this, i expect they will lose a lot of trade with boats being unable to travel North-South and vice versa. They get a lot of trade from boats stopping off whilst waiting for the tide. This trade will be all but gone.

[NorfolkNog]

I wonder if the Berney Arms will get any compensation for this

Snowballs chance in hell I would imagine. As if pubs haven’t enough to contend with!

Superb pub, one of the best on the system (in my humble opinion of course)

[Guest]

I wonder if the Berney Arms will get any compensation for this, i expect they will lose a lot of trade with boats being unable to travel North-South and vice versa. They get a lot of trade from boats stopping off whilst waiting for the tide. This trade will be all but gone.

They might get more people moored up for a a day or two, waiting for the 5 day blockade to clear !

[NorfolkNog]

They might get more people moored up for a a day or two

Now that IS a good idea

[Guest]

I agree entirely with MM, why we should remove an historical structure because it has become a navigational impediment to those who have decided to purchase craft that, by their sheer physical dimensions, prohibit them from reaching parts of the Broads that others can reach.

Far from being a piece of scrap metal this is the last remaining railway bridge in Yarmouth and the only fixed railway bridge still extant on the Norfolk Broads (if you discount the concrete bridge over the dyke at Geldeston).

As such it is of major historical importance and a reminder that without the railways all those visitors from the industrial North, East Midlands etc would not have arrived in droves before road transport made its mark, enjoyed their holidays and helped to shape the Broads as we know it now.

I should know I was one of them!!

Paul

[ZimbiIV]

B------ks if we saved every outmoded useless momument, nothing new would be created. If something is no longer needed/used, if it is of importance, move it to a museum.

Saving everything for posterity means no future.

Sustrans can take over everything to the detriment of any other hobby/pastime or being, my view point is turn all golf courses into housing estates,but I wouldn't like that.

If boaters were not looked as the golden goose, encouraging boating could create even income for the leisure industry in this country.

There are probaly enough people who would like to go boating (thus reducing overall costs) but cannot afford, what is seen as the hobby of the mega rich, by the few.

Rant over.

Ps I live in the land of the Blinking Eye bridge, which is wonderful, permits boats and pedestrians total access to river usage.

[senator]

Personally i do not expect people to knock things down to accommodate me but spending a fortune on a rusting heap of junk that is, whatever anyone says, not a railway bridge as railway bridges have trains going over them, and also prevents the evolution of an area is to me ridiculous.

30 years ago any grp boat over 30' would have been almost unthinkable.

Boats have moved on, not everyone around the water has but fortunately most have. I wouldn't fancy waiting for the RNLI to row out to me at sea if I had a problem.

[Guest]

but spending a fortune on a rusting heap of junk that is, whatever anyone says, not a railway bridge as railway bridges have trains going over them, and also prevents the evolution of an area is to me ridiculous.

Quite right.

I think it's likely that most of the people that wish to keep it in-situ for posterity have not seen it close to in the last year or two, especially from above.

It's in an incredibly dilapidated state, and does detract the whole area with it's mostly fenced off rusting hulk with gaping holes in the decking.

As I've already admitted, I'm quite a Railway anorak myself, and would like to preserve every remaining trackbed, but the bridge is now a hundred metres away from the nearest track, with no absolutely no chance of it ever carrying a track route again. Added to that, it represents a considerable ongoing maintenance/rebuilding overhead, suspended over a live navigation, and made of highly corrodible material.

[MY littleboat]

My main gripe is that, as usual one or two people have managed to use this as an argument for 'buy a suitable boat for the Broads then'... my answer to that is to reiiterate exectly what type of boats have been jammed under there in recent years and to say to those people, if you want to keep the Broads special and not have GRP boats, sea going boats, then get together with your friends at the BA and ban them.. and then see how your tolls rack up.

Maybe twenty years ago, peoples aspirations and needs were different boat-wise to what they are now, and I refuse to let this topic go down that route as this is an oft-discussed topic which normally adds up to people buying the boat which is right for them for whatever reason. As the OP on this topic I am well aware that some would rather then use it as a political stepping stone to air their own views, which I have learnt that they do at every given opportunity, accross many forum platforms.

Sadly in this case it is black and white. The bridge has been in the ownership of Rail Paths Ltd - owned by SUSTRANS for a number of years and they have failed to maintain it. The left hand span had been used as an illegal walkway from ASDA, train station for a number of years. The planning permission that was given to the new development bridge located just a few metres North was given on the basis that the Vauxhall Bridge was unuseable and could never be used in ANY capoacity again. (Been doing my homework on this). So several years ago, this bridge was fenced off. The most northerly span, which had had its base removed as was deemed totally unsafe and the bridge then sat there - rotting.

Around this time there had been inspections by various historic trusts / railway trusts, including representatives from two local rail charities and circa 2002 these charities deemed, as far as I can gather (awaiting a reply to a letter I have written them), that because of the heavy modification from the original design with 'bodged' boxing and it's overall poor condition, it served no historic value as far as moving it/restoring it but did agree that as the last remaining remnant of the 'type' of bridge the Grade II listing was probably correct, but however disagreed on record at the time with Peter Cross-Rudkins finding that this bridge was SO important. (Book: Civil Engineering Heritage In East Anglia)

Now we are at 2002, in 2001 Sustrans were asked to produce structural survey when the Civic Trust, Great Yarmouth Town Centre Strategy Report “Station Gateway†, this was ignored in the development plan and the regeneration focussed on the more Northerly bridge. It is worth noting at this point, being Grade II listed, SUSTRANS, through their company Railway Walks Ltd had a DUTY to maintain this bridge in a reasonable state of preservation - this they failed to do. In fact the initial barrier and closure work was carried out by the local council's ground works department at their own cost.

Step in the owner of a restaurant on the North Quay Mrs Kiki and her husband Chris, who once the short cut was closed, almost immediately launched a campaign to 'Save the Bridge'. Please note the position of the bridge in relation to her business. Initially, her cries fell on deaf ears but over time, and with the engagement of SUSTRANS - along with changed planning laws relating to sustainability, funding was secured - not all the funding mind as an email to Norfolk County Council regarding their contribution this week was met with the reply 'we cannot comment on this project at this time' (An ROI request duly being sent!)

So things get a little odd at this point: a further part of protecting the underside of the bridge comes after an '8 berth cruisere being stuck under the structure on 13th May 2010' oddly this backfired initially as it was then seen as a hazard to navigation.. but eventually became used as a we must protect both the bridge and boats. Incidentally as far as I can tell no 'average air draught' calculations or accurate silting levels were measured in the recommendations from the structural survey, however it was highlighted that 'adequate air draught will not be affected' yet goes on to propose a drop of between 200 - 300mm in places (Not entirely sure how this will work as I have the text but no drawings).

The whole of the work plan is based around returning a pathway over the most southerly span, it does nothing for any work on the northerly (Railway) span - so I ask - is this preservation or a 'band-wagon' work in order to open a new pathway (Which incidentally there are no plans to build as yet) instead open the bridge up so a 'short-cut exists?

SO they are the facts.

1. There has been NO input from BA or GYPA throughout any of this recent phase.

2. It remains a rusting structure - the Northerly span WILL remain a rusting hulk after the work

3. The air draught will be reduced (in order to protect the bridge)

4. The redevelopment of the footpath was decided on the back of the 2007 report that says “Pedestrian and cycle linkages need to be upgraded, to provide new, enhanced links to the Conge and the Market Place, ideally through the restoration of the old railway bridge.†but the more northern bridge and footbridge were improved instead.

5. As yet the plans to construct this new footway do not coincide with this work

6. The main contractors for the underside of the bridge have a working model contract to start work on the dates discussed.

So stop using this as an argument for what boat is right or wrong for the Broads, this is a decision that the main Navigating Authority has not been involved in regarding planning and it is up to US, the boat user, to do something about it and not use it as a 'well it wont effect me' stance. There is nothing wrong with restoring the bridge in my view, but to do so at the detriment of navigation - even by one or two inches, is wrong

Added to this - if you ask the people of Gt Yarmouth if restoring the footbridge and making a path (saving them a walk) is a good idea, they will of course say yes. However, if you ask them a different question like... Would you prefer half of the old bridge to be painted and re-opened or a brand new footbridge, I wonder what the answer will be. Feasability studies are always geared to the preferred outcome of a project!

[senator]

Well said Gav.

The preservation band wagon is one well trodden often for personal gain and you must be commended for the amount of work that you have put in gathering FACT on this.

The question on this bridge is two fold as I see it, Should the bridge be restored due to its historic nature and place an open ended burden that has already been proved will fall at least in part on the British tax payer?

If the answer to that is yes then should it be allowed to encroach on the existing navigation, in considering of this then it should be accepted that the full clearance of this bridge is used by a number of vessels that can use the navigation as it stands and for who the height of this bridge was most likely a serious consideration at the time of choosing both vessel and location and possibly in whether to purchase a boat at all.

Personally I do not believe that in the light of the modifications that were made to this structure in the first place due to its poor design, that it should be held as a beacon of engineering, let's face it, it was already a dud the day it was built.

If it is decided that it is of sufficient historic importance, something that Gavs research shows that not even the bodies that would normally campaign for preservation believe to be the case, then from a navigational view I would argue that it is mortally wrong to reduce the existing air draft.

I have nothing to personally gain from the above comments as my path to the northern broads will remain blocked by the existing road bridge and that will last well beyond my time on the Broads, neither do I live in the area so do not have to put up with the visual or practical effects of the bridge but looking forward I can see major benefits for the area if craft more in line with modern design can access the northern rivers.

[C.Ricko]

why should bridge heights be increased just to allow larger and larger cruisers to navigate the system?

quote]

Thats right, but the question mark should be after the word 'increased'

The network is man made and things should be allowed to move on..

its the same reason we dont all drive model T Fords or cars of that size. if we did then the roads could be narrower.

I quite like the bridge but feel it is a selfish move to lower the height of it, I see no reason that it should not be taken apart and made a feature of somewhere else where it could be more useful...

[Guest DAYTONA-BILL]

I`m quite happy for it to be restored where it is, but definately NOT to the detrement of navigation. If it was restored and with no height alteration, then it would be buisness as usual which i`m sure everybody will agree will present no problems whatsoever. If they were to dismantle it and move it to a more safer on land location somewhere, all it would do is open up 100yds or so of possible extra mooring space for boats waiting for a suitable tide height to cruise up the Bure, so the argument regarding "suitable " boats just does`nt exist, well not in my mind anyway.

Gav, thanks for all the hard work you`ve put in researching the FACTS regarding this situation .

[diesel falcon]

Lots of food for thought, given that the works are due to start in may.........who would have the clout to actually stop it??, or who,s given the works the ok to go ahead??