Beating down the Potter odds

[Broads01]

I've been hiring on the Broads for enough years to know that nowadays, getting through Potter Bridge is always a long shot, no matter the boat choice. To put this in context, having hired every year once or twice since 2000 (and many times before that as well) the last time I got through Potter when I wasn't on a Whispering Reeds boat was in 2000. What's more, I last booked with Whispering Reeds for October 2010 but switched to Richardsons on the day I was due to pick up the boat because Potter clearance was so bad!

My question is, if I'm booking a boat for 5 people, what boat has the shortest odds of getting through Potter Bridge? I know there are some 2 berths not to mention yachts that do the job, but I need a boat with 3 cabins plus preferably 240 volt and a microwave!

[chipmorton]

hi simon

i have had a similar problem

to think about

and after endless searching

the one boat that stood out for

these requirments was broads serenade

pricey but class boat

i think 4 bedrooms

microwave

240 volt

i real nice boat

and can get under potter but i would not bet on it

[Hockham Admiral]

Simon, Hi

The problem is you would need a boat with an air-height of 6ft 3ins or preferably below that!

With our Nanni 50 and 100 gallons of water amidships, Beta Diesel and Genny far aft and nearly full fuel in the bows we are as low as any and lower than most (at just below 6ft 6ins). Last year we spent 4 months aboard and we didn't see anything lower than us apart from some pretty small boats that don't meet your requirements.

So unless we've missed something I guess you'll have to hope that someone somewhere builds a boat you need! (although I wouldn't bet on it ).

Edited at 0912

I'd not heard of Broads Serenade as Chippy says but a quote from Riccos blurb says:Will only pass under Potter Heigham Bridge when tides are lower than normal.

So I don't think that's the answer!

[MauriceMynah]

frequently it's the beam of the superstructure hat causes the problems. If you are not averse to the more traditional craft, prhaps you would do well to contact the Martham boatyard. their boats are narrower than most and I've seen them go under when I can't.

Given that mine is a 27' Elysian Bounty, you will see my point. For me its the beam on the superstructure at the windscreen that matters.

[MBA Marine]

how's this for controversial. Traditionalists will gasp with horror!

Loose the old Potter bridge, apart from those that love it because its old and pretty, the benefits of it not being there far out weigh the cons, a foot bridge would suffice and all the business in Potter would benefit from more accessible mooring, Pubs at Hickling ect would get more trade. The bridge piolets would not be needed so much but as there are few that go under they cant be all that busy anyway!

I love the rivers and the beauty of the Broads but im not a stuck in the past traditionalist, The majority of the Broads was built by man it is not natural, and the bridge was built fit for purpose at the time, it is no longer fit for purpose. But as said it was man made and could, if man wanted to enough without loosing the traditional look be replaced with the same style of bridge but make it 2' higher (would cost a fortune though)!

England in general has been left behind in so many ways because we refuse to knock down what was built a century plus ago, I don't want to loose all heritage and identity but generations past did not get held back with sentimentality they used the technology of the day to build what was required.

Im fully prepared to now be hung drawn and quartered!

[diesel falcon]

how's this for controversial. Traditionalists will gasp with horror!

Loose the old Potter bridge, apart from those that love it because its old and pretty, the benefits of it not being there far out weigh the cons, a foot bridge would suffice and all the business in Potter would benefit from more accessible mooring, Pubs at Hickling ect would get more trade. The bridge piolets would not be needed so much but as there are few that go under they cant be all that busy anyway!

I love the rivers and the beauty of the Broads but im not a stuck in the past traditionalist, The majority of the Broads was built by man it is not natural, and the bridge was built fit for purpose at the time, it is no longer fit for purpose. But as said it was man made and could, if man wanted to enough without loosing the traditional look be replaced with the same style of bridge but make it 2' higher (would cost a fortune though)!

England in general has been left behind in so many ways because we refuse to knock down what was built a century plus ago, I don't want to loose all heritage and identity but generations past did not get held back with sentimentality they used the technology of the day to build what was required.

Im fully prepared to now be hung drawn and quartered!

2ft higher wouldn,t do the new bridge is only 7ft 7 ,so no point really modern boats can,t do that either

[BuffaloBill]

The cheapest answer is to build a canal between Catfield and Barton.

It's only 2 and a bit miles.

Sorry, forgot, the saileys won't like that idea...

It would revitalise Hickling and Martham and take some of the

pressure from Sutton/Wayford on a Friday night too.

And Potter from upstream making use of all those moorings

hardly anyone can use.

[MBA Marine]

The cheapest answer is to build a canal between Catfield and Barton.

It's only 2 and a bit miles.

Sorry, forgot, the saileys won't like that idea...

It would revitalise Hickling and Martham and take some of the

pressure from Sutton/Wayford on a Friday night too.

And Potter from upstream making use of all those moorings

hardly anyone can use.

Thats way better than my option.

Don't worry about upsetting the odd blow boater without the tolls from the cruisers private and hire they would not have a navigable waterway to tack back and forth on!, I would love to see a section of Hicking dredged free for debris and used for engine powered motor sports, then there is scope for the BA to charge everyone a toll to have there toy in the water and a local slip way operator could charge for slip use and people would pay for time on the water by the hour this operator would also be able to monitor numbers to keep them down to a safe number (i would say 3 at a time would be enough), Hiring of jet ski's would be a very popular attraction but i would think there is far to much health and safety/legal guff in the way .

There is a balance to be found with the wind assisted lot perhaps if one half of that nice big broad each was not acceptable then select days when its power boat/jet ski time. I dont believe for one minute that it would hurt the river banks as there is loads of reads and marsh not banks. Also the Broads does not have full national park status and limited numbers would cause no harm.

Tourism is our counties main source of income we should strive to give people what they want and maximize what we have.

Just my humble thoughts I have no financial reasons for wanting some change but it could really help others.

[MauriceMynah]

I suggested a canal from Hickling to Barton some months back on the NBF (I'm Maurice Mynah there) it received mixed responses.

The removal of Potter Heigham bridge is a non starter for several reasons, the most important one being that the bridge restricts the flow on the incoming tide. Salt water would not be welcomed in Hickling, the damage would be devastating to fish, bird life and many other aspects. Not to mention the increased threat of flooding to all areas up stream of the bridge.

Personally, although the idea was for me originally tongue-in-cheek, further thoughts on the matter sugested to me that it wasn't such a mad idea as I first thought, offering many benifits to many parties. It would provide a better flow of water through Hickling, yet still offer the facility of a lock to stop salt going up it. It would put Catfield on the holiday map and provide employment in the building phase.

If one side of the canal had waterside properties built along it, the premium value of these properties would pay considerably towards the project.

It won't happen, but it's a merry thought!

[C.Ricko]

why not just a lifting footbridge outside the chippy over a cut from Phoenix fleet dyke through the site of the old Bridge and onto the river, I guess if there was a flooding issue then a set of lock gates could be put in and shut when neccessary, or just a lock with the footbridge on the gates??

[C.Ricko]

Sorry Simon, that does not answer the original question

So unless we've missed something I guess you'll have to hope that someone somewhere builds a boat you need! (although I wouldn't bet on it ).

Edited at 0912

I'd not heard of Broads Serenade as Chippy says but a quote from Riccos blurb says:Will only pass under Potter Heigham Bridge when tides are lower than normal.

So I don't think that's the answer!

better look at hiring Broadlander,.,.

Serenade will fit under but there is more chance of getting Carousel/Broadsman under. but still a bit slim..

[Dan]

What about an Admiral or Emperor from Le Boat?

Dan

[BuffaloBill]

Clive wrote

why not just a lifting footbridge outside the chippy over a cut from Phoenix

fleet dyke through the site of the old Bridge and onto the river, I guess if there was

a flooding issue then a set of lock gates could be put in and shut when neccessary, or

just a lock with the footbridge on the gates??

Here is my take on Clive's suggestion....Knock the chippie down and do it this way!

The chippie is rubbish these days so won't be missed. IMHO

Since the ditch was dug at the back of Phoenix Fleet, it wouldn't take make much

to complete as a bypass and a footbridge like the entrance to HW would suffice as

vehicles can just as easily get to either side by a short drive around the main road.

Sorted Stands back with hard hat on....

[Guest]

Poter Bridge must be one of the most divisive subjects about the Broads.

It's not a question of maximising tourism versus Nimbyism, as most forum discussions usually polarize to.

It's simply how people percieve the Norfolk Broads as an area.

Some see it is a giant commercial waterborn theme park for adults to cruise from Pub to Pub with a beatiful natural backdrop as a bonus.

Others see it as a rare and beautiful waterland area which you are allowed to explore by boat and see nature in a unique way.

For anyone that can't understand the difference between the two, then there's the problem....

[NorfolkNog]

I think Martham boats have some of the lowest airdrafts as presumably they were designed with the bridge in mind. Might have a few less mod cons than Clive’s boats of course…..

[Broads01]

Some interesting replies, thank you for responding. Funnily enough it seems most threads about Potter end up with discussions about removing the bridge/digging a canal!

Broads Serenade - well possibly, but very ,long odds I think.

The point about beam is valid I'm sure and to my knowledge roof profile makes a difference, which was kind of the premise behind my original question.

Clive - Broadsman is out of my price range at the moment but I'm guessing the Prelude/Fairway type might be a good bet? Their former base was above Wroxham Bridge so I guess they were built for a tight squeeze. Dan - yes the Le Boat Admirals and Emperors could be good for the same reason.

[ranworthbreeze]

Hello Simon,

What is needed is an agreement with a number of hire companies to provide day boats as part of their weekly hire fee and space to moor up whilst they are above Potter Heigham. Herbert Woods would be the ideal company to provide the day boats due to location but it could also be an opportunity for a new company or another roll for the pilot.

I know you can hire day boats and I have done for above Wroxham but an all in price for the facility from an hire company would save the hirer a lot of messing about.

What are your thoughts Clive?

Regards

Alan

[C.Ricko]

The Traditions (fairway/Tideway) etc show 7.00 foot. The Aquafibre Pearls (Mars,/ Soverign etc) mainly show 6.10 although depending on builder some show different.

I dont have any dayboats in Potter, if I built in a charge for one I would not be being fair to those who only were not bothered about going under.

[Guest]

All bar one of the Step Sheer AFs (as we used to call them - Sovereign, Mars etc) need 6' 11" clearance at Potter Bridge.

The old centre cockpit, sliding canopy Connoisseurs (Tideway etc) need 6' 8" at Potter - provided their canopies still reach their original stops.

The newer Connoisseurs, now Le Boat 's Admiral, Emperor etc, need 6' 6" - that's the same clearance needed by a Hampton Safari or a Dream Gem.

Serenade, Broadsman I would suggest need 7' 0" PLUS at Potter bridge.

When we were putting 15,000 hire boats through each year (upto 1999), 6' 11" was a good LW level. Today, you're lucky to see 6' 9" on two days running during the summer. Hence this year's total number of boats through the bridge is probably nearer 2,000 than 15,000.

[MauriceMynah]

In fairness Strowager, although I see what you are driving at, I think you've been perhaps a little harsh.

Yes I agree that there is a significant number of boaters who see the holiday as a waterborn pub crawl, but I would match that number with those who go for having a boating (and lock free) holiday, frequently those would be families. Then, as you know there are the anglers, twitchers, ramblers and a host of other interests where the broads offer the holidaymaker the opportunity to endulge.

So, when you say "Some see it is a giant commercial waterborn theme park for adults to cruise from Pub to Pub with a beatiful natural backdrop as a bonus. Others see it as a rare and beautiful waterland area which you are allowed to explore by boat and see nature in a unique way."

I have to say that in my "never humble opinion" it is both, and many other things too.

You go on to say... "For anyone that can't understand the difference between the two, then there's the problem...." For whom is there a problem, and what is it.

Finally, might I take just a small issue with those who refer to a "Theme park" of which you are just one. What is your definition of "Theme Park"?

[senator]

Well the Northern Broads are a bit like the Dodgems

Potter does give the ideal two route situation as favoured by our European counterparts. Having two roads so close together would allow lifting bridges in both with a waiting area inbetween. The road traffic could be diverted down one road while the other was open and visa versa. and the hallowed bridge could remain as is, just bypass it with a ditch.

If you were to put in an opening crossing in place of the rusted old pile of junk currently in situ at Yarmouth then convert the existing road into lifting you could allow all boats up to the height of Accle Bridge up onto the northern Broads and by opening up the area above Potter possibly even reduce the crowding.

It would also really do something positive to encourage visiting boaters onto the Broads from Sea and start to transform things into the water wonderland for boats that they are so keen to sell.

From Ex pilots post it looks like you would have 15000 boats a year plus all the boats that have never been able to make it above Potter or Yarmouth and more visiting boaters, shall we say a conservative 20,000 boats a year through the bridges.

At least it is a number to start the viability study.

[Guest]

You go on to say... "For anyone that can't understand the difference between the two, then there's the problem...." For whom is there a problem, and what is it.

On re-reading my post, I agree, it was a bit strong, this particular thread on the subject hasn't yet contained some of the more vociferous condemnations of "that" bridge, nor accusations of Nimbyism or that a "select few" locals wish to keep the area to themselves.

That was my reason for mentioning people who couldn't understand the difference.

The Broads has 120 miles of lock-free cruising, and less than 10 of it is beyond Potter bridge. By this strange quirk of fate, this (almost) natural restriction to fewer boats has made that small area much quieter than the other usually congested parts of the Northern broads and rivers. That peace and tranquility can be enjoyed by anyone, in a suitable owned or hired boat. If it became accessible to almost every size of boat, it would then become just as congested, and then everyone would lose the peace and tranquility that it used to provide.

Someone once gave a good analogy on a forum, it would be like building a road to the top of Mount Snowdon, alongside the railway. Would that be a good thing ?

Finally, might I take just a small issue with those who refer to a "Theme park" of which you are just one. What is your definition of "Theme Park"?

My understanding of "Theme Park" is an area that is primarilly for commercial purposes. whereas a "National Park" is an area of outstanding beauty that contains some businesses to help the Public enjoy the experience of seeing it.

( just in case we have any anti-BA zealots on here, for "National Park" please read "Member of the National Parks"......

[VetChugger]

"It would also really do something positive to encourage visiting boaters onto the Broads from Sea and start to transform things into the water wonderland for boats that they are so keen to sell."

I'm afraid that single sentence would have me either eagerly derusting that pile of scrap at Yarmouth or even lowering the bridge levels!

Trevor

www.normanboats.co.uk

[senator]

If Perry is reading this, I rest my case.

[C.Ricko]

If my boats cant get under and there is nearly 10% past the bridge, do you reckon I will be allowed a 10% reduction in my tolls?

After all, it is only really sailing boats which go up there who need the dredging to be done

Is this helping with your decision on which boat to hire Simon?

Perhaps what the area needs is a waterbourne Theme park??