Mooring at Thorpe Green

[MBA Marine]

Sorry Mark, if you find my italics insulting then you're imagining insults that just aren't there.

 

I have no disrespect for you personally, I just don't agree with some of the things you post on the forum.

 

 

I italicised "some" to emphasize that I do agree with plenty of other things that you've said.

 

Is that insulting ?

It would depend on how the sentence is constructed as to whether the words that are written to stand out could be deemed an insult.

[ExSurveyor]

Ok, now for the idiot view. What about all those outlet holes dotted around the boat just above the waterline, I guess you could fit non-return valves, but would you trust them.

I know from personal experience when my Calypso ran out of battery power during the floods that a full bilge of water, just under the floor didn't lower the boat noticeably and was only obvious when I lifted the inspection hatch in the floor.

The big yards could always have a number of small day boats adjacent to the bridge for a small fee, a bit like the bridge pilot scheme.

[JennyMorgan]

Mark & Strowager, please.

[BroadScot]

Yes Mark and Strowy dinny lose the place please, slagging matches just aint allowed on here. If you wish to discuss further do so by PM. I like good banter with the best of them, this I don't think it is.

 

Thank you.

 

Iain.

[jillR]

hi mark
 

Ok, now for the idiot view. What about all those outlet holes dotted around the boat just above the waterline, I guess you could fit non-return valves, but would you trust them.
I know from personal experience when my Calypso ran out of battery power during the floods that a full bilge of water, just under the floor didn't lower the boat noticeably and was only obvious when I lifted the inspection hatch in the floor.

 

I recon snorkels are the way to go as is illustrated in this picture

of a broads cruiser on breydon

 

 

[Matt]

The big yards could always have a number of small day boats adjacent to the bridge for a small fee, a bit like the bridge pilot scheme.

Or a number of fat people

[BroadScot]

As the river was I assume there before the railway, why were both bridges not built higher from the water there and then?

 

Iain.

[Guest]

Yes Mark and Strowy dinny lose the place please, slagging matches just aint allowed on here. If you wish to discuss further do so by PM. I like good banter with the best of them, this I don't think it is.

 

Thank you.

 

Iain.

 

It takes two to create a "Slagging Match", and I abhore them as much as anyone else.

 

Despite Mark taking things down to a personal level, I've never responded in that vein at all, and I've kept to the subject being discussed.

 

If things can't be discussed in open forum, then they're certainly not worth discussing by PM, which is why I always disable that function on any forum.

 

OK, from now on I will refrain from any futher responses to Mark, other than joining in on thread discussion subject material.

[JawsOrca]

As the river was I assume there before the railway, why were both bridges not built higher from the water there and then?

 

Iain.

 

Railway people are soo selfish although at least they made the "bypass".. I've resigned myself that I will never visit thorpe by boat...

[kfurbank]

Quote "As the river was I assume there before the railway, why were both bridges not built higher from the water there and then?

 

I may be wrong but I believe the part of the river on the outside of the railway line that runs parallel to the part of the river on the inside of the railway line is actually a new cut. Therefore I always assumed this was dug around the same time as the railway line went through to ensure that access into Norwich wasn't blocked by the bridges. I'm guessing in those days there was little of interest in Thorpe if anything to warrant keeping good river access, the port in Norwich being the important factor. If I'm right then the original course of the river is the bit that passes through Thorpe.

[Guest]

..... If I'm right then the original course of the river is the bit that passes through Thorpe.

 

Yes indeed Keith, as Alan says, the straight section bypassing the Thorpe loop was a new cut, dug when the bridges were constructed.

 

Bearing in mind the size of commercial vessels, (Ships and Thames Barges), that went up to Norwich, the two bridges would have needed to be swing bridges, rather than just higher from the water.

 

Lucky for Network Rail, they can't even properly maintain the ones they've got

[kfurbank]

Given the length of the cut and the width and depth, and the lack of heavy machinery in those days, I wonder what would have been cheaper? Construction of two swing bridges or digging the cut? I'm guessing it was close enough to the gravel pits that some useful material came out of the dig that could be sold on, so could almost have been self funding?

[JawsOrca]

Two swing bridges would have been better! although don't the broads ones always get stuck closed or are the operators just being lazy? 

[kfurbank]

I guess there's a number of other factors taken into consideration. The proximity to Norwich means that stretch of line is more heavily used than say Reedham or Somerleyton swing bridges. After Brundall the line splits three ways. Two lines go to Yarmouth via different routes and at Reedham it splits again to go across the river to Lowestoft. When the railway was built I assume a lot more freight went between Norwich and Yarmouth to the docks. Therefore if there were two swing bridges at Thorpe there would have been a lot of contention between the much increased rail traffic in those days and the much heavier river traffic.

 

I don't know the history of that line, but would also assume the Norwich to Yarmouth line went in before the spur to Reedham? therefore was the swing bridge technology even around when the railway went through Thorpe? 

[MBA Marine]

Yes Mark and Strowy dinny lose the place please, slagging matches just aint allowed on here. If you wish to discuss further do so by PM. I like good banter with the best of them, this I don't think it is.

 

Thank you.

 

Iain.

Far from a slagging match, but I hear what you say, my view on the matter was voiced, issues brought to attention and i'm sure no more problem.

[marshman]

Missed a railway line as just after Whitlingham station and therefore after the bridges,  the branch to Cromer and Sheringham splits off as well. All of those lines were very busy - I can remember even in the '50s the number of trains going to Yarmouth was enormous, especially on a Saturday. They used to be stacked up at almost every signal all the way down the line.  Believe it or not people used to flock to Yarmouth for their holidays!!!!!  Add in Cromer and Sheringham, and yes, it would have been busy.

 

In any case labour was cheap and knowing the navvies (which I did not!!! ) they probably dug it over a weekend!!!!!!

[BroadScot]

Interesting replys to those bridges. Aye, Gt Yarmouth I was told use to be called Little Scotland in the days of the of Glasgow Fair fortnight.

 

I thought it may have been a new type cut, personally, I have moored there many times when able to get under the bridge, over and above starting holidays there. Never noticed the traffic. Probably the Adnams Broadside had someting to do with that 

 

Iain.

[kfurbank]

In my defence, I did say after Brundall the line splits into three  but good point about the line to Cromer and Sheringham, which in those days before Beeching would have continued on to Holt as well.