"Suitable Boat"

[senator]

I was about to post this on another thread but given that it is likely to take away from the purpose of that thread felt it better posted afresh.

I know this is a contentious issue but would like to understand the logic behind the people who make the argument for "suitable boats" and what they think would be gained by banning anything not seen in their eyes as a traditional Broads Craft?

Nothing that I have ever seen proposed would have the outcome of stopping traditional Broads Craft from using the System, all it would do is allow a more diverse number of craft to enjoy the area.

With the exception of Potter and possibly the Swing bridges at Reedham and Sommerleyton I can't think of another Bridge on the broads normal navigation system that dramatically enhances the nature of the area so why is there always this buy a "suitable boat" issue?

The intention is not to start a slanging match but to get an insight into the mindset behind it.

Just to point out that one of the main reasons all that time ago for this forum starting was that the founder of it was fed up with the your boat is not suitable comment. for people now to make the same argument here there must be a deep found reason for it that I would like to understand.

[donnygeoff]

right here I go.....

Not a boat owner (yet) but I will have my say.....

If a boat floats, it is "suitable" for any waterway, it might not pass under all obstacles, but that is for the owner of said boat to worry about, no-one else.

If a nice safe haven for mooring, is up a river, for a sea going boat, then as long as the owner is happy, what has it got to do with anyone else.

If a boat can travel through any obstacle on the river system and the owner of said boat is happy to do so, and does not want to go to sea, then it is up to them..

What is the problem.

Motorway speed is 70mph, but my Astin will do 178.... is that an unsuitable car for the English highways....

PS.... if you drive a car, be carful in answering that because YOUR car will do 70+

[senator]

Personally I agree with your comments but there is a mindset in some people that believe's that there is justification otherwise.

It is not the normal back and forth about engine HP, speed, wash etc that I want to evoke but the reason that modern craft detract in the view of some from the good of the system.

I love to see an old steam launch chugging along or the majesty of an old Wherry under full sail but to my knowledge no one has called for these craft to be outlawed so for as long as they remain afloat they will remain a sight to enhance the Broads with their history.

[donnygeoff]

the reference to a car that can acheive high speeds was not meant to mean sea boats go fast, or cause higher wash, it was just an example of "suitable" vehicles.

I love seeing the wherries, and the old wooden sailies, and the more modern larger sea goers....

All I was trying to say was....

"suitable" = what the owner wants

[Guest DAYTONA-BILL]

A very interresting subject this one Ian. My own personal choice would be a Broads design with either fwd drv, or ctr or aft ckpt, both with collapsable top and screens. Why?, because i want to be able to travel at a leisurely pace throughout the whole of the broads network. That said, i fully support others who own, or would like to own a modern fast seagoing boat based on the broads, as they contribute just as much, both in tolls, and other forms of local revinue as i would on a designated broads design. As Geoffers (donnygeoff) says, it`s a personal preference, and one that gives you more choice of cruising range. I can`t understand the reasoning behind the "unsuitable" tag of offshore boats, because over time, many offshore performance craft have been built on the broads network. Famous names such as Broom/Ocean and Jack Powels were building sea going craft for many years in broadside boatyards. If somebody wants a big Sealine, or a little Hampton 25 (like me) they should ALL be not only welcome, but also ENCOURAGED, as it brings diversity to what would otherwise be a waterway akin to the canals. That`s NOT knocking the canals, but there are is very little diversity in the choice of "siutable" boats, unlike the broads.

One other point, how many of us can remember the coasters that regularly used to travel up the yare to unload at the sugar factory at cantley, or the factories in Norwich. Would they be considered as unsuitable?.

For me, there IS one type of "unsuitable" boat for the broads, and that`s a big yacht like a Moody or Oyster etc, purely and simply because of their deep draughts, and inability to simply their masts quickly.

[Antares_9]

This is a non starter in my view, there is not, never has been or ever will be a suitable boat for the broads, or anywhere else for that matter, boats are suited to their owners requirements not the location.

A boat that will travel the whole of the broads and has an owner who wants to do all of the broads suits that owner well but not another. An owner who is broads based but requires to have a larger high airdraught craft whether seagoing or not and does not require access to the regions it will not go still has a suitable craft for their requirements. Boats, like all toys are about people and their fancies not whether they can get up some fetid dyke or not, or be capable of making a sea passage. If some boats offend the eye of some AA or PB that is a good thing in my book, they need a bloody good wake up call, I would say they need dragging into the 21st century, but I guess we need to start with getting them past the 1950s first, it's bugger all to do with the smug self appointed guardians of all broadland and it aint their call so I could care less what they think really, oranges are not the only fruit. I too would however, welcome a rational, reasoned view of why a boat is unsuited to the broads when is is suited to it's owner's requirements, even if that requirement is for a floating cottage that hardly ever, if ever leaves it's mooring.

[senator]

Reference had already been made to the canals which by their construction dictate that a boat can not be more than will fit through a standard width lock. Even here we see narrow gauge grp cruisers which you could argue were not the most suitable craft as their small draft restricts headroom through the minimum design height bridges and tunnels.

For the very reason that the canals were engineered as a waterway there is such a thing as a standard specification for a canal boat.

The broads were designed as a peat bog and as such there is no standard for bridge heights and widths.

Unlike canals which it would be almost impossible to make suitable for bigger craft the only thing that restricts the broads are a few random height bridges that could without too much effort be made higher.

[pks1702]

I believe the few that spout this nonsense should read Animal Farm.... "Traditional good; modern bad".

If you ask me it is like a lot these days its all about envy.

How many times do you hear the PB's spouting about 'bling boats & gin palaces'.

I say to them, if you are happy with your old fashioned wooden sailing craft, your beard and open toe sandals, Fray Bentos for tea and freezing cold while you sleep good luck to you but don't think because you believe it is traditional its right; unless of course you are still using a horse and cart instead of a car.

Don't forget also it is empty vessels that make the most noise

[loribear]

A very interresting subject this one Ian. My own personal choice would be a Broads design with either fwd drv, or ctr or aft ckpt, both with collapsable top and screens. Why?, because i want to be able to travel at a leisurely pace throughout the whole of the broads network. That said, i fully support others who own, or would like to own a modern fast seagoing boat based on the broads, as they contribute just as much, both in tolls, and other forms of local revinue as i would on a designated broads design. As Geoffers (donnygeoff) says, it`s a personal preference, and one that gives you more choice of cruising range. I can`t understand the reasoning behind the "unsuitable" tag of offshore boats, because over time, many offshore performance craft have been built on the broads network. Famous names such as Broom/Ocean and Jack Powels were building sea going craft for many years in broadside boatyards. If somebody wants a big Sealine, or a little Hampton 25 (like me) they should ALL be not only welcome, but also ENCOURAGED, as it brings diversity to what would otherwise be a waterway akin to the canals. That`s NOT knocking the canals, but there are is very little diversity in the choice of "siutable" boats, unlike the broads.

One other point, how many of us can remember the coasters that regularly used to travel up the yare to unload at the sugar factory at cantley, or the factories in Norwich. Would they be considered as unsuitable?.

For me, there IS one type of "unsuitable" boat for the broads, and that`s a big yacht like a Moody or Oyster etc, purely and simply because of their deep draughts, and inability to simply their masts quickly.[/quot

hi daytona, there's one big boat you forgot to mention golden galleon.JPG[/attachment]

[ZimbiIV]

I like this thread the scope for infighting is endless.

Surely the only insuitable boat is one that doesn't float.

What we need is some old fashioned tolerance to other river users but then again I am possibly a dinosaur.

Paul

[Guest]

I like this thread the scope for infighting is endless.

Yup, second only to "Private versus Hire" .

Guaranteed to get an endless argument going....

[senator]

So the common view is there is no unsuitable boat but for some there is obviously a deeply held belief.

Do these people just enjoy the quiet and tranquility of the places that higher airdraft boats can't get to? If that is the case how would campaigning for everyone to have low airdraft boats help this? Surely that would have the same effect as removing the obstructions?

Or is it OK as long as no one has a bigger or more modern boat?

[jillR]

i think one of the delights of the broads is the great variety of vessels that have always been found on the broads

and as for unsuitable boats i think that is just a personal thing and not an actual fact.

there will always be peeps that think their choice is the only right choice.

jill

[quo vadis]

[w44nty]

Whoever started this "suitable boat" issue?

In my opinion, and it is my opinion a suitable boat is what the owner thinks is suitable to them,opinions of others do not mean a thing.

Its seems to me there is a bit of envy,some people dislike certain boats because they think it is a status symbol,ie the bigger the boat the bigger the ego,this is utter nonsense,people buy what they want and whats suitable for them,its their hard earned cash that pays for it and they should be able to enjoy it the way they want to.

I just wonder whoever is moaning about the suitabilty of boats,what boat they would buy if they had a lottery win,me its quite simple,having lived in the broads area all my 59 years,I would buy a boat which in my opinion is suitable,

A SEA GOING CRUISER that way I can enjoy the best of both worlds both offshore and the inland waters,if by chance I could not get under some bridges, so be it,its my choice.

[wombat nee blownup]

I own a boat that is quite capable of going to sea and we've taken her. Spent three quarters of the trip with the bow spit under water and her indoors with an unusual shade of green in her cheeks but thoroughly enjoyed it and will go again. We can also tour the whole system apart from under Potter and Wroxham which we would like to do so we obtained a rib (courtesy Quo Vadis) with outboard and when the weather permits will do so. BUT my old tub is definitely UNSUITABLE for us due to the fact there's not enough room for her shoes!

[senator]

OK one last try.

Every time a bridge thread comes along a certain breed comes out of the cupboard and shouts the immortal words "buy a suitable boat for the Broads".

When Sommerleyton was restricted for the best part of a season we heard it on the threads that were expressing in my view a justified anger at the contempt with which the authority's showed.

Now we have the Yarmouth ex rail bridge being lowered and the same people saying the same thing.

Somewhere out there is a band of people who see boats that are bought to suit peoples needs, that are having the area that they should be able to cruise drastically reduced, yet they cry buy a suitable boat.

It is this type of person that stops an area evolving. Take the Yarmouth Bytes road bridge. Why was it not as a new structure put in a couple of feet higher when the bridge next to it was a rusting derelict heap of junk? Surely anyone with any thoughts to ensuring that the area be allowed to continue to offer access to pleasure boats in the future would take note of the evolution of boats being used.

I really would like to understand the mindset as maybe I am missing something.

[diesel falcon]

It is this type of person that stops an area evolving. Take the Yarmouth Bytes road bridge. Why was it not as a new structure put in a couple of feet higher when the bridge next to it was a rusting derelict heap of junk? Surely anyone with any thoughts to ensuring that the area be allowed to continue to offer access to pleasure boats in the future would take note of the evolution of boats being used.

I really would like to understand the mindset as maybe I am missing something.

There,s nowt as ***** as folk.....as they say, regarding the Bytes road bridge what you must take into account is that it was planned in the late 60,s built 1972, in those days a flybridge cruiser was about as rare as apollo 14, given that the existing bridge has been there since 18...something and commercial /leisure river traffic had coped so far why would they feel the need for a humped back bridge ,indeed could one have been practical to build??,there may have been other factors ,like most of the large commercial traffic was going up the yare at the time ,pleasure craft were using the bure and most river boats could easily get under the old bridge with relative ease(tide allowing).Could anyone see the internet coming??,well 1 or 2 could ,but mostly everyone was in the dark!!

Planning gaffs happen all the time (take high rise council flat blocks in the 60,s).!!

As to this suitability ,personaly i couldn,t give a dam what other people think of my choice of boat, i like it!! i use it , and for what i want out of a boat its very suitable!

[Palmtree]

Hi,

This is quite an interesting thread for me. Up until recently I have had what traditionalists would refer to was the ideal Broads boat.

Tamara was built as a sailing boat for use in the Hire fleets in the 1930 and was able to pass under all the bridges, and believed to be the boat the book ‘Coot Club’ was based on.

She has served us well for the past seven years or so, but increased comfort and all weather usability has changed our requirements. The boat we are getting has far more space, and a greater opportunity to change the boat to our needs.

As to suitable boat for the Broads we have had a long and hard think as to what we require and for use on the Broads Bridge height is a major factor. We have had to compromise as few bridges will be to low for her (working on that ). The Diesels will drink far more fuel than the wind and 4hp out board used.

Later when the boat is sorted out a small sailing craft will be found to go with her.

Suitable for the Broads, yes, perfect no.

Ian

[Guest]

Take the Yarmouth Bytes road bridge. Why was it not as a new structure put in a couple of feet higher when the bridge next to it was a rusting derelict heap of junk? Surely anyone with any thoughts to ensuring that the area be allowed to continue to offer access to pleasure boats in the future would take note of the evolution of boats being used.

I really would like to understand the mindset as maybe I am missing something.

There isn't any consistency to the mindset either.

Two of the newest footbridges bridges in Norwich, (the Novi Sad, and The Lady Julian) were built as opening bridges, presumably at considerable extra expense), despite being within a few hundred metres of Foundry Bridge, which has always had a fixed clearance of 10ft. and is almost at the "head of navigation" for hired craft.

If they could avoid reducing air draught limitations there, then why not at Yarmouth too, with so much more river above it ?

[Antares_9]

I think you’re flogging a dead horse here Ian.The members here are far too tempered to rise to this one.the consensus is that it’s about what boat you want rather than what is considered suitable by the AAs & PBs, either that or complete boredom of the whole ongoing question, perhaps if you asked the question somewhere more frequented by such people (AAs & PBs that is) you may get an answer, though I still suspect it would be based on prejudice and blinkered ill informed perception rather than reason so no satisfactory conclusion is to be had really.

[MY littleboat]

Later when the boat is sorted out a small sailing craft will be found to go with her.

Ian

I'm thinking of changing our tender to a walker bay for that very reason. Excellent tender and a quick pop up asymetric sail means you can have alot of fun when the time arises!

[Palmtree]

[i'm thinking of changing our tender to a walker bay for that very reason. Excellent tender and a quick pop up asymetric sail means you can have alot of fun when the time arises!

I think there is a possibility that as long as you have the sail on board, you can use the Walker bay with an outboard toll free.

Ian

[MY littleboat]

I think there is a possibility that as long as you have the sail on board, you can use the Walker bay with an outboard toll free.

Ian

You'll have to let me know how that will work as surely it still has to be registered as a rowing boat?

[Palmtree]

Sorry my error, I've looked at the tolls chart again and it will cost. I did not read the 6m and over bit correctly and took it as 6m and less

The dream was good for a while...

Ian