

Paul C
Member-
Posts
12,389 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Everything posted by Paul C
-
Review my fitout plan - Electrics Cabinet
Paul C replied to Gybe Ho's topic in Boat Building & Maintenance
Having experienced an electrical fire on a boat (1500w inverter went up in smoke): 1 where ever the electrics cupboard vents to/from, you want to be able to see it while driving the boat 2 make sure the isolator switches are somewhere else and accessible (I had to moor then throw a stool and a duckboard onto the towpath to get to mine) So, I’d say outside venting is better, and there’s plenty of engineering solutions to avoid water ingress. Worth thinking about and planning properly -
Review my fitout plan - Electrics Cabinet
Paul C replied to Gybe Ho's topic in Boat Building & Maintenance
Personally, if I were designing a boat from scratch, I'd duct the air from the cabinet to the outside. The reason being, if there's a fire (which is more likely than other areas, since its full of electrics) it would minimise the spread. -
I think we are losing focus and becoming very muddled with these 2 pieces of legislation. Put simply: CRA2015 covers the contractual relationship between the BUYER and the SELLER RCR covers the responsibilities of a DISTRIBUTOR in the SUPPLY CHAIN Its not a case that they're contradictory, they cover different things. Its like going to a car dealer and the car you're buying doesn't have the correct Type Approval for the UK - that's an administrative thing which a car dealer may very well face a penalty for, but which doesn't directly relate to the physical characteristics of the thing they're selling. It might do, and it might be that its not "fit for purpose" because of it, but it can't be assumed that it automatically does. Its just an administrative step that's not been done, after all. Its possible that a boat without RCR is also deficient to the point that its not fit for purpose, but that's just speculation or worry. The not having the admin in itself alone, is just like having a minor fault. For example on a secondhand car, if the rear wiper doesn't work, it doesn't mean its a fault serious enough to reject the car.
-
Review my fitout plan - Electrics Cabinet
Paul C replied to Gybe Ho's topic in Boat Building & Maintenance
I think its definitely an area where there's a number of options, all valid. There are very simple setup, then you can gradually add complexity. But I'd say for each extra step of complexity, you need to decide if the extra effort and expense yields a benefit. Things seem to have "settled" on a reasonably modern boat having twin alternators, a domestic bank of 3-4x 100Ah or thereabouts lead acid batteries and a mains hookup. Having a combi really helps the simplicity, because it combines charger/inverter/selection switch/consumer unit into one and eliminates some complexity. But then if it fails, you have to replace an expensive unit not just the failed component. But there's plenty of boats out there with separate charger and inverter too. And plenty older which don't have, or need, mains at all. -
I don't see how, because you never previously paid for transit. There was an agreement with CRT to allow free use, and I can't see that many Bridgewater licence holders moving off (and giving up their moorings). The various boatyards along the canal will struggle, for sure, though.
-
Review my fitout plan - Electrics Cabinet
Paul C replied to Gybe Ho's topic in Boat Building & Maintenance
I'll stick with my previous suggestion - actually go boating, rather than sit at home planning things. Hire boats tend to be quite logically laid out and it doesn't take long to suss out what's what on their electrics systems. Private boats, especially older ones, tend to be more of a mess with "organic" additions over time, so it could be a good idea to try look at as many private boats to see what NOT to do. -
You're getting mixed up with CRA2015 and RCR/RCD
-
This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
-
So with that in mind: If Marina A predominantly buys stock in, then sells it to punters, I think we both agree they're part of the supply chain and a "distributor" of boats. If Marina B a couple of miles along the canal is in fact a brokerage and they simply sell on commission, are they off the hook? A common sense approach would say as far as the punter is concerned, its a marina selling boats as a commercial venture, to which they ought to be offered the same protections.
-
That's one way of interpreting it (Are you saying Ravenscroft was right and the judge was wrong?) Another way of interpreting it could be, one side (Ravenscroft) chose to argue about the definition of something, which the other side didn't even mention, and thought they found a loophole. The judge took a common sense approach instead of believing the long convoluted argument which was dreamt up. In other words, you can't evade a licence by mooring at the edge.
-
It backfired on Ravenscroft much more, though!
-
We haven't heard from Higgs in a while.
-
Sorry, what was the solution there?
-
Does the water come out in a different place? Its quite possible you have two bilge pumps.
-
If you're planning ahead on breaking down, you could also plan ahead to NOT break down.
-
Do you have a wiring diagram for the boat?
-
Its not well established. You can be responsible for something you don't legally own - for example a car. Loads of lease cars etc out there are a good example.
-
The concept that you'd set the price of something as what's fair to charge or based on the actual cost of supplying it; versus the achievable price in a capital market, is romantic but a bit 20th century. Anyway, the CRT Commission isn't about the setting of prices.
-
Because it comes down to how tightly or loosely you define "supply chain" (because the RCR defines a distributor as someone other than the manufacturer or importer, who is in the supply chain). Its an interpretation on the words, which is different from (for example) Consumer Rights Act 2015 or Sale of Goods Act 1979 - for which there is much case law. There is no case law for this. So different opinions can sit alongside, with no better merit than each other.
-
All the canals are rubbish up north, don't bother coming. 😉
-
One way would be to walk a dog along the same stretch of canal 15+ days.
-
Yes, in this instance making a circuit on the 2nd coil of the calorifier to the new heater and the internal radiators is the best way. The fact that if valves are open then the boat gets some amount of heating off the engine, is a little bonus but not optimal if the new heater wasn't there. Canal boat engines are run too cool all the time. I believe some have a 2 stage thermostat (to prevent the coolant flowing through the skin tank), and/or you can add valves in, to prevent the internal pipes being involved during engine running (but you might need a 2nd header tank). You can keep the pipework/valves simple and have some compromises, or make it more complicated and achieve better efficiency.
-
The extra soil/etc being washed away at the moment isn't good base to build on, it would need to all be shifted out the way anyway. So I don't think the leaky stop planks and lack of proper damming is as big an issue as people are making out. And the ground to build the track to big in the big machines is (probably) underwater at the moment too. I'd not be surprised if they delay any significant work until March. Also, to happen on 1st Jan is really bad timing. And with 2-3rd being the tail of a week, many aren't back in and had made commitments. Obviously there are some on-call staff, who would have loved the 5am wakeup call. This is a big civil engineering project we're looking at here, not a half day "shove some quick drying concrete to plug it" bodge job.