Alan de Enfield

I thimk the answer depends on "is it a temporary movement BAN, or a request to minimise lock usage due to lack of water, or, Is this to be a permananent amedment ala 'licensing commission / NBTA recommendation' ?

Are you suggesting that the quoting of forum members who have suffered the problem, along with numerous scientific papers (including their author and titles so they can be viewed) is scare mongering - maybe the information should be supressed to avoid upsetting the inland waterways deniers? Ask @matty40s how many cases he is personally aware of ? (I seem to remember he has commented on several) Macrobiological attack is the well known phenomenon of mussels, barnacles, slimes, grasses and seaweeds attaching to the hull. These items do not usually cause serious harm to the metal but they can and do slow the boat down and increase the fuel consumption for a given speed. They are more or less satisfactorily dealt with by scrubbing the hull clean and coating with a suitable antifouling paint. However, there is a different kind of corrosion which is also found on boat hulls, particularly those lying in water such as canals or rivers containing decaying vegetable matter. Very few people are aware of the problem or that it is caused by micro-biological attack MIC is a highly unpredictable process but the marine surveyor should realise that, under the influence of microorganisms, corrosion processes can happen in a matter of months compared to the years it would take for ordinary abiotic corrosion to reach serious proportions. Further, also due to its unpredictability, it is often difficult to include microbiologically induced corrosion in risk analyses and, more often than not, its possibility is not even considered in a vessel’s design phase. The impact can be enormous and an estimated 20% of all corrosion damage is caused by micro-organisms leading to costs as high as 2-5% of GDP.. Or, in other words, metal worm.................................................... These organisms are commonly found in ballast tanks where the boat has ballasted by taking on muddy river water or lying in the mud of harbours or in the waters of canals particularly those running through farm land where surface water often deposits chemical fertilizers into the canal. Souce : Microbial Attack on Iron and Steel or What’s Eating You?

I have various technical documents that say the same thing -but - it is no use just moving away whulst the spreading is being done, you will need to give the water several days to 'move on' particularly if on a virtually still canal. A couple of threads from forum members who have suffered with it : It was 1st found in the bilges of sea going vessels in the 60s and examples showing it to be capable of 'eating thru' in 22mm of steel hull per annum . It is a major problem which has always been denied by the inland waterways experts - however more and more evidence is coming to light that it truly is a problem. Boat owners and yards know all about rust. There is endless literature on electro-chemical and galvanic corrosion – all under the general heading of ‘rust’. But there are other types of corrosion which closely resemble (but are not) rust in the conventional sense about which little is known by boat owners and by many yards. This is a corrosion caused by microbiological action which is can occur on boat hulls, particularly those lying in canals or rivers containing high levels of chemicals or decaying vegetable matter. Microbially Induced Corrosion (MIC) is a highly unpredictable process but under the influence of micro-organisms, corrosion processes can be rapid, happening in a matter of months compared to the years it would take for ordinary abiotic corrosion to reach serious proportions. This phenomenon is well known in the oil, gas, water and mining industries but is little understood in the steel boating world. MIC frequently occurs in areas with high nitrate content in the water – this particularly pertains to arable regions of the canal network and particularly to canals and rivers on the east side of the UK and where there is intensive crop farming using non organic chemical fertilizers with consequential phosphate, sulphate and nitrate run-off into the watercourses. Marinas fed by rivers are another risk area and, in salt water environments, it is well known that harbour muds are highly contaminated by sulphides produced by these creatures. Sulphide films are, by their very nature, highly corrosive and the identification of such very obvious. It is usually found under muddy and slimy surfaces, sometimes even behind paint coatings and a very careful visual inspection is necessary to locate it. It is not discoverable by non-destructive testing such as ultrasonic thickness measurement, eddy current testing or the magnetic method familiar to most marine surveyors. The bacteria are often found inside oxidised welds or in areas which contain physical defects such as porosity, overlap or lack of penetration. The microbes leading to this condition can both cause corrosion from beneath existing coatings or seek out pinpricks in the steel coating and cause the reaction to occur from the outside. MIC bacteria can be present under previous blackings and is not eradicated by simple pressure washing. Unless correctly treated, MIC can continue to thrive beneath the coating, emerging as major pitting. If a hull is found with evidence of microbial attack, it is necessary to deal with it to try to prevent it recurring. A simple solution is for the whole area to be washed with copious amounts of high pressure fresh water. When dry the area affected should be coated with a strong bleaching agent (sodium hypochlorite) diluted 1:4 with water and left for twenty four hours. Afterwards a second high pressure fresh water wash is necessary followed by recoating. This will probably remove around 90% of the microbes but the only real solution is to blast back to bare steel and to treat any inaccessible areas such as tack-welded rubbing strakes as best one can with the bleach solution before applying the next stage of the coating process. The main problem is that the microbes can continue to live beneath the existing paint coatings and once sealed in with a fresh blacking, the lack of oxygen and light is the perfect environment for them to thrive leading to a risk of corrosion from the inside out. No coatings are entirely proof against a microbial attack from the exterior. Minute pinpricks, mechanical damage below the waterline are all opportunities for the microbes to penetrate the steel and commence the process from the outside in.. WARNING SODIUM HYPERCHLORITE IS HIGHLY CAUSTIC AND TOXIC. IT MUST BE TREATED WITH GREAT CARE AND RUBBER GLOVES, WELLINGTON BOOTS AND EYE SHIELDS ARE ESSENTIAL. FINAL FINISHING If the pressure washing has exposed areas of bare steel, it is recommended that a zinc-phosphate rust prevention system such as Fertan be applied. This should be allowed to work over a 24 hour period and MUST be thoroughly washed off with water and a brush to ensure that only the bare steel retains the Fertan before a top coat of Keelblack is applied. This is essential to ensure that any subsequent coating is properly attached to the hull. Nevertheless, the microbes can still live underneath adjacent prior paint coatings so the only certain way to remove the risk of future attacks is by blasting back to bare steel – an expense many owners may not wish to contemplate. Bibliography International Institute of Marine Surveyors: A brief introduction to iron and steel, testing, ferrous corrosion and cathodic protection by Alan Broomfield M.I.I.M.S. https://www.iims.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Introduction-to-iron-and-steel-testing-ferrous-corrosion-and-cathodic-protection.pptx. American Society for Microbiology: Corrosion of Iron by Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria: New Views of an Old Problem http://aem.asm.org/content/80/4/1226.full Port Technology: Microbiological contribution to accelerated low water corrosion of support piles https://www.porttechnology.org/technical_papers/microbiological_contribution_to_accelerated_low_water_corrosion_of_support Corrosion Doctors: Corrosion Theory. http://corrosion-doctors.org/Principles/Theory.htm

Only in Reform majority council areas (apparently)

You cannot say that - apparently there are now 26 legally recognised genders in the UK

Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding, but that reads to a simpleton such as myself, that a (say) 600Ah bank could increase by : 2x 600 = 1200 degrees C per minute. I doubt that is correct so could you show a calculation, as an example, of what that formula means in real life ?

Considering how much NBTA terminology is used in the report I'd suggest that NBTA called a 3-line whip and a very high percentage of those that answered the questionnaire were non-moving- widebeam-itinerants

except- see my last paragraph.

Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless— (a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel; (b)an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and (c)either— (i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or (ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances. the problem would be that (say) there is a water shortage in Yorkshire so movement is not required, the Baton Twirlers would claim that London should be included or it is discrimination against Southern boaters

Hose pipe ban introduced in Yorkshire and another expected to be announced soon for the North West Yorkshire Water has announced a hosepipe ban following the region's driest and warmest spring on record. It is the first UK hosepipe ban to be brought in this summer, and will come into force on Friday 11 July, just as a third heatwave is forecast this week. Yorkshire Water said the area it covers has experienced both the driest and warmest spring on record this year, having had only 15cm of rainfall between February and June, less than half what is expected in an average year. There are a number of activities which are banned as a result. These include: Watering a garden using a hosepipe, which includes a park, a lawn, a grass verge, an area used for sport, an allotment or any other green space Cleaning your car with a hosepipe Watering plants on domestic or other non-commercial premises Washing a private boat using a hosepipe Filling a domestic swimming pool or paddling pool Drawing water using a hosepipe for domestic recreational use Filling or maintaining a domestic pond Filling or maintaining an ornamental fountain with a hosepipe Who is exempt from the hosepipe ban? Blue badge holders, people listed on Yorkshire Water's priority services register or customers using the WaterSure tariff for medical reasons are exempt from the restrictions.

A 'mooring-neighbours', mooring fees, licence and insurance were paid for by the LA. They would not pay the electricity or BSS examination as they wouldn't do that (or equivalnce) for a house. We were in a 'pukka' marina with residential and leisure moorings and were part of a multi-marina group

If I remember correctly the 250 hour versions had a deeper oil pan and a bigger oil filter than the 100 hour versions.

OK thanks for understanding - but you do realise that the run length on a 26 foot boat can be 52 feet, but the run length on a 26 foot vehicle is 26 feet - so double the volt drop for the same piece of wire and same load

I am just trying to assist - for example the volt drop in a 26 foot boat could be in excess of twice that in a similar length automotive vehicle. But its your boat you do as you wish.

In wiring small boats to the required standards ? The regulations are very different to cars and caravans.

A boat cannot get that bad in 4 years - it just reinforces my own experiences that the BSS is worthless as a method in improving safety, and is just a way of generating some cash for the old 'retired boaters boys club'.

You do need to do it the "BSS Way" rather than "the examiners way" as that will lead to frustrations in the future. The examiners do not work to what is required in the rules' they seem to work on their own interpretations of what is required and I have 'knocked heads' with examiners where they are demonstrably wrong - providing copies of the BSS requirements will often make them change their mind but in a couple of instances I have had to report the examiner to the BSS for failing things that are either a pass or only an advisory. It works both ways and I have had things 'pass' which were known failures which were set up to test the examiner.

The BSS examination report does in fact state that it is an advisory

Has it ever had a BSSC ? So it failed on Fuel system Mains wiring AC wiring Battery retention Gas system. For me, the gas is the most dangerous and critical - I'd be starting with that, but, each to their own, As you are starting with the DC system are you fully aware of the acceptable cable types and termination methods ? Good luck.

And there are a number of others with a similar message eg : Myth-busting the Inherent Stability: While LiFePO4 boasts superior thermal stability compared to traditional lithium-ion batteries, they’re not entirely immune to fiery surprises. Under extreme circumstances, even these sturdy powerhouses can succumb to the flames. Here’s what can spark the inferno: Overcharging: Pushing a LiFePO4 battery beyond its designated limit can generate excessive heat, potentially triggering thermal runaway and leading to fire. Short-circuiting: A direct connection between the positive and negative terminals can cause an uncontrolled release of energy, creating dangerous heat and fire hazards. Physical Damage: Punctures, crushing, or severe impacts can damage the internal structure of the battery, increasing the risk of internal short circuits and fires. Extreme Temperatures: While LiFePO4 batteries offer superior thermal tolerance, prolonged exposure to scorching heat or freezing temperatures can put stress on the system and raise the risk of fire. They Won’t Burn When Exposed to Fire: Even when engulfed in flames, a unique advantage sets LiFePO4 batteries apart from their brethren. They won’t actively contribute to the fire! Unlike some lithium-ion batteries that can explode or release toxic fumes when burning, LiFePO4 maintains its structural integrity. This remarkable characteristic makes them safer options for applications in sensitive environments like homes and hospitals.

In addition to reading the BSS requirements (which anyone owning a boat should do) it would be to your advantage to read and apply the requirements of ISO specification required by the RCR for small recreational vessels (up to 72 feet)

# The buyer states ................. I will add the boat has a recent post construction assessment completed by a surveyor in order to get a declaration of conformity in order to sell. So, it is fully RCD compliant - that is worth a lot of money in itself.