Wroxham Bridge ?

[BroadScot]

I am sure many of us watch the Web Cam at Barnes Brinkcraft, and particulary at the Bridge itself. Today and other days this week, I have seen several hire craft go through not stopping to use the Pilot.

 

Is it the £12 fee that Richos charge is causing this, or are they just ignoring the information given in the Skippers Manuals etc. 

 

I personally miss taking the boat through the bridge, but I accept the rules are there to be observed.

 

 

Iain.

 

 

 

[riyadhcrew]

I agree that rules are rules and they are there for a reason.

 

The other angle that I have on it is - if the pilot is helming and hits the bridge, it is his fault and will cost me nothing.

 

If I am helming and for whatever reason, I hit the bridge - I'm sure I'd be made to pay for any damage caused and it would be a lot more than 12 quid.

[BroadScot]

The past week or so the water level has been a good 7ft6" Which equates to nearer 7ft9" I would guess. What some of these skippers may not realise, the return trip is not as easy as going UP river, and the level may well be less on their return.

 

 

Iain

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Not all hirefleets require you to use the pilot service. We`ve nevr used it as we know full well whether a boat will go under it. Read the plaque on the helm, then read the bridge height gague. However, i do understand that SOME peoples helming skills are not as good as others.

 

However, if we hired a boat and the yard requires the use of the pilot, then we would have to go along with it.  I would`nt be very happy if the pilot had gone home, and we know we could take it under safely ourselves though.  That could mean a restriction on cruising time.

[BroadScot]

Hi Neil,

 

Herbert Woods deffo do as does Faircraft Loynes and Richardsons and its their craft I have seen going through.

 

I agree completely that stopping at 5.30p in high season does limit cruising time.

 

 

Iain

[Gracie]

Well, I wouldn't know Iain as I am not a great watcher of the web cams  Seriously, I would rather pay the 12 quid than risk damaging the Boat, the Hire yards obviously put this rule in place for a reason and should be abided by in my opinion, although I did watch a Stag party take a boat through early last night and by a long stretch I'm no expert (Bridges are like Sailies for me lol) they seemed to do a pretty good job but a lot of people may not be able to handle a boat so well

 

Grace

[ChrisB]

I think the main problem with Wroxham, apart from being arched is that it is not at 90 degrees to the river. If you do not keep well to starboard that allows you to line up on the key stone and you are long, then, by the time the stern is coming through you can be in trouble.

[Matt]

I think the main problem with Wroxham bridge is that it is not 10 foot taller!

[ChrisB]

I doubt those that live along the river and those of us who have no difficulty with it's height would agree. Raise Potter and Wroxham and Beccles old and you will wreck what is left of the best of Broadland.

[Stranger]

we used the pilot for the first time this year as it was a newish boat and with an air draft of 7ft it was a bit near the gap on the hight guage pilot took it through no problem then at the moorings was so agressive with the throttle and bow thuster had me on my **** and hitting the step with an ally edge had me black and blue for the rest tof the trip so i shall be sorely tempted not to use them again or had more thought to photo it and sue them the pilot that is        lol

[donnygeoff]

I'm no expert (Bridges are like Sailies for me lol)

 

Grace

Gracie......

Bridges are NOT like sailies at all........

 

Bridges go from one side of the river to the other for a reason......

 

[quo vadis]

Geoff sallies go from one side of the river to the other for a reason, I will let you figure out why

[donnygeoff]

my brain hurts trying to think why Quo.......

 

Is it to get in my way....

 

No....

 

I know, it is to dry the big sheet on the stick in the middle of their boat....

 

Knew I would get it eventually....

 

[Alan]

Never knew that there was a pilot for Wroxham bridge. Is this quite a new thing? Back down there on the 18th July after a 3 year gap - must do better !

[BroadScot]

Never knew that there was a pilot for Wroxham bridge. Is this quite a new thing? Back down there on the 18th July after a 3 year gap - must do better !

Hi Alan,

 

I take it you have not been to Wroxham for a wee while? It is at least six years possibly longer, since a pilot was there.

 

 

Iain

[Alan]

I think the last two trips would take us up to about 5 years ago but we didn't go through the bridge on either so probably 10 years since we last went through. Shame I won't be able to show off my skills this time ;-) Going to visit Coltishall this time - must be more than 30 years since we were there. I believe our daughter was about 2 and having a strop underneath the pub table !

[BroadScot]

I think the last two trips would take us up to about 5 years ago but we didn't go through the bridge on either so probably 10 years since we last went through. Shame I won't be able to show off my skills this time ;-) Going to visit Coltishall this time - must be more than 30 years since we were there. I believe our daughter was about 2 and having a strop underneath the pub table !

Lovely above the bridge to Coltishall Alan, enjoy.

 

 

Iain.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

I doubt those that live along the river and those of us who have no difficulty with it's height would agree. Raise Potter and Wroxham and Beccles old and you will wreck what is left of the best of Broadland.

 

I would disagree with that completely Chris.

 

You would`nt have to raise either by any great amount, but you would have to carry out serious improvements to the base structures and how they`re built into the bed of the river.

 

If the foundations were much improved to stablise the base structure, then they won`t sink any further into the soft base layer. Once this has been achieved, it would be relatively simple, and quite inexpensive to re-build the main structure with a greater air draught.

 

With an increase in airdraught to Wroxham bridge, of about 6 inches, and 12 inches at Potter Heigham, you`d still only have an ahw airdraught of around 7ft 3-6ins. Still plenty low enough to stop all these hi level boats, but plenty high enough to allow ALL the boats that were originally designed to go under them the ability to do so again.

 

This would also benefit what buisnesses that are left above the bridges. It would also give much improved access to a sustantial number of moorings which would free up what little mooring space there is below the bridges for those boats NOT designed to go under them.

[donnygeoff]

Still plenty low enough to stop all these hi level boats, but plenty high enough to allow ALL the boats that were originally designed to go under them the ability to do so again.

Should we all still be driving Morris Minors, I don't understand why, that at every chance Neil, you have to mention   ALL    boats designed for the broads....

 

They weren't designed that good if they can't fit under now....

 

Sorry mate, but getting tedious.....

 

Or does the bridge just have to be raised enough to let your boat through at any state of tide

 

[Warp]

I think it would be nice to stop potter sinking at least.

 

I'm pretty sure it's got lower since I first took a 'full size' hire boat under there around 25 years ago without a second thought. Either that or I'm less confident now than I was as a teenager...

 

Jacking it back up again would possibly be a rather difficult and expensive thing to do to such an old bridge. It certainly shouldn't be replaced by a modern one for the modern 'full size' hire boats as it it's a beautiful old thing. It also preserves a backwater that shelters a classic 'feeling' area of the broads from interests that would 'develop' it and then possibly slap a star shaped luminous pink discount sticker on it - if it were a more frequently travelled area that is. Yes I know I'm a snob!

[Swift]

With apologies for hijacking a thread about Wroxham Bridge, but the problem with myths is that, over time, if repeated often enough, they soon become facts.  During the last thirty years I have watched teams of surveyors inspect and measure every inch of Potter Bridge.  FACT:  Potter bridge is NOT sinking.  FACT:  Potter Bridge has not sunk. 

 

That the bridge appears to have sunk is an illusion caused by the fact that water levels have risen.  That, too, is a FACT. As part of my old job, I recorded the tidal rise and fall every single day for ten years during the 1990s.  The water levels rose steadily throughout those ten years and are continuing to rise to this day.  We still get the odd day or two of tides as low as they were in the 1990s but they are few and far between.  Over the season, Easter to October, low water at Potter used to average 6' 11"  Today I doubt that that it averages much more than 6' 8"  Winter tides are also getting higher with 4' 11" at the bridge more and more often.  At this height the river water is overtopping the flood defences and cannot get higher until the surrounding villages are under water.

[ranworthbreeze]

People always talk about the old bridge, jacking it up, diversions and even blowing it up. They forget however that the other bridge is only about a foot higher at high water, it is almost the same height as Wroxham & Ludham bridges.

Regards

Alan

[Warp]

With apologies for hijacking a thread about Wroxham Bridge, but the problem with myths is that, over time, if repeated often enough, they soon become facts.  During the last thirty years I have watched teams of surveyors inspect and measure every inch of Potter Bridge.  FACT:  Potter bridge is NOT sinking.  FACT:  Potter Bridge has not sunk. 

 

That the bridge appears to have sunk is an illusion caused by the fact that water levels have risen.  That, too, is a FACT. As part of my old job, I recorded the tidal rise and fall every single day for ten years during the 1990s.  The water levels rose steadily throughout those ten years and are continuing to rise to this day.  We still get the odd day or two of tides as low as they were in the 1990s but they are few and far between.  Over the season, Easter to October, low water at Potter used to average 6' 11"  Today I doubt that that it averages much more than 6' 8"  Winter tides are also getting higher with 4' 11" at the bridge more and more often.  At this height the river water is overtopping the flood defences and cannot get higher until the surrounding villages are under water.

 

 

So are you saying is that it's the stinkies own fault they can't get under anymore because of their contribution to global warming raising sea levels and the like? 

[BroadScot]

So are you saying is that it's the stinkies own fault they can't get under anymore because of their contribution to global warming raising sea levels and the like? 

Very brave statement Warp. What kind of fruit do you like at your hospital bed?  

 

Cannot be MM (Nyx) he is biodegradable or something like that 

 

 

Iain

[Timbo]

 

Cannot be MM (Nyx) he is biodegradable or something like that 

 

 

Iain

Our beloved Maurice isn't biodegradable, incorrigible is the word I think you're looking for Iain? 

 

Back to that there bridge Swift...can you point me in the direction of some of those surveys as I'm currently writing a paper on historical water levels and the archaeological datum I have indicates very little or no difference in water levels between 63 BC and present levels?