DHutch

Yeah, the modern high-spec ones can do. They in effect test the thickness of the paint and the steel and then do a sum. They can also be a bit better at not measuring the thickness of debris on the far side too. Still only works if you stick the probe on a sensible bit of steel, measure the depth of any pitting, and spot other serious but potentially less obvious hull defects such as the top of the weed hatch being under the waterline, the rudder tube being thin as thin, and the condition of underwater fittings. Dont get me started!

Depending on the survey there might not be any thickness readings taken. If there are, they should be few and far between, sporadic and targeted. Certainly I would question the competency of any surveyor who is taking a 'matrix' style set of readings every few feet on a narrowboat, even though it is sadly still common place in the industry from people who have done the ten day course but then applied the gain knowledge incorrectly without sufficient thought to what they where doing!

Agree.

Fair enough. I guess maybe one last consideration is the boat itself, displacement, lines, prop. But I presume the above graph is based on a reasonable quality prop. Tixall is a fairly standard narrowboat with a 23" X 24" prop. so probably not far off comparable. And better than some of the awful props some new boats have, and or bent up mess some boats have! Emilyanne is a touch heavier than most, drawing around 2ft9 under way to swing a 26x32" prop.

I bet its less than that, given how relatively oversize they are for the task, like 50hp when you typically only need more like 4hp. However I do am somewhat surprised its 'only ten time more fuel' (or 15x if you take 12mph vs 0.8mpg) for the steam boat. As suggested, a very large amount of heat goes up the funnel, and a significant amount out of the condenser which is raw water cooled. No superheat, and no feed water heater, although the condensate from the hot well is good and and warm. Working pressure for EmilyAnne is 200psi, and we aim to keep it at around 150-180 cruising. Tixall is 150psi working and especially now she is oil fired I presume Matt runs her pretty close to that. EmilyAnne and Tixall actually have near identical engines, the only two from the specific builder, and both have vertical fire tube boilers, all be in difference shapes. Cut off is very good for steam locos, when you are running at high speed and low loads. But on a boat you obviously have a huge great torque converter on the end of the shaft. So you dont really get the same effect, so running in full gear is much more common in a marine environment.

Apologies, I did miss that! I actually intentional excluded it from my list, in order to focus on narrowboats. But you are very much correct, and it was interesting information. While we are on the topic of 'not narrowboats' when I was on Steam Tug Challenge on her way back from Pegasus Bridge in Normandy it was suggested that the oil consumption was around 10litres per minute, which is 600l/hr. And if you assume to a trip length 300miles, over 26 hours. 11 gallons per mile, or 0.087mpg! So very broadly, a steam narrowboat does ten times less miles to the gallon than a diesel narrowboat, and a 240ton ocean going steam tug does ten time less miles to the gallon than that. Maybe.

Typically, you dont! If you record anything, you record revolutions. (note; not revolutions per minute) Although in the case of a steam boat fitted with a electrically fired forced air oil fired burner. You can log burner hours and or system on hours. Hurrah, someone who read the question! And another! Three! Four! Thank you. Brill. Nice. Well, more replies than I was expect, but some good information. Averaging the seven figures above gives 13mph. Or, you take out NB Alnwicks and Bargebuilders, 10.6mpg. As was mentioned, litres/hour is a more common measurement for canal boat, and may even be a better figure for consumption. Certainly it is potentially an easier figure to work out. And I guess it could be argued that the point in a narrowboat is an enjoyable time not a transited distance, although less so if you are touring rallies or running a fuel boat. It appears that this is typically around the 1-2l/hr for a narrowboat. I don't have much data yet, but the very first run oil firing showed around 30litres doing 10miles, which is 0.8mpg on. Maybe 5l/hour.

Has anyone ever tried to log their fuel consumption and mileage and hence been able to work out an average consumption per mile for their boat? Perhaps easier for those with day tanks, and certainly harder for those with diesel heating. Early testing of a friends steam powered narrowboat which he has recently converted from coal to oil firing got me thinking about comparing his fuel (and our) consumption with that of an internal combustion engined 'diesel fired' narrow boat. Cheers Daniel

Ha! Nice though isnt it. The mad thing is not that this happened, but that it still happens nearly daily 35 years later. Oh yes, very nice. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ovaltine+Court,+Ovaltine+Dr,+Kings+Langley+WD4+8GY,+UK/@51.710919,-0.4428438,3a,75.6y,34.44h,90.74t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sCIHM0ogKEICAgICE28P_5AE!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2Fgpms-cs-s%2FAB8u6HalXHmtxNJTv0xDsmXI1tGiCY0YYM4kNzfM_QYpQKxdyKw9U8zZFaFqvUGsIkQYoF__HO2P9Py9Hj4QpQbvtE53nN8lhMm-qmabNmvydqT6wBI_yG4V534a7LnNtDpfK1hNxZxW7g%3Dw900-h600-k-no-pi-0.7369142870049927-ya300.23854042380725-ro0-fo100!7i5376!8i2688!4m6!3m5!1s0x487641bb074726ff:0x2ddb6a4e029b4f1c!8m2!3d51.7116594!4d-0.4424802!16s%2Fg%2F1tm68f07?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYxNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D Very nice that isnt it, simple, understated. Incase nobody had guessed, I guessed happened on this thread looking for something else, but have enjoyed it a lot! Daniel

It is also worth adding to the above, that if there is a specific reason for wanting to close the thread, and or if the content of the replied breaches our site rules and guidelines, the thread and or replied can always be reported to our moderation team along with a reason for the report, and will then be review and appropriate actions be carried out.

It's a very good point well raised. I guess the events sub-forum allows better conversation maybe, but the calendar view is a nice touch too. Clearly posting to both would work well in many ways, but leads to duplication if manual will also lead to gaps. If we were to close one section, which would you prefer to use going forwards?

Sounds good to me. But I am certainly happy to have a bit of a review. Thanks Daniel

I have merged this topic with a very similar one in the 'Suggestions and Feedback' subforum, which gives a bit more information around the topic, as well as highlighting the risk with having too may sub forums!!

Very interesting. This is the only other photo I can find of steam boat Phoenix, the other being in the steamboat register. Link and short summary below. https://steamboat.org.uk/user.php?id=61575 Hull designed by Uffa Fox Built 1968 by A. Austen at Alvechurch Designed and built for first owner Norman Terry. 1983 donated to Droitwich Canal Trust. 1997-1998 fully restored by owners, The Phoenix Club, fresh boiler fitted. Sold 2004 I have no recent history for the last 20 years. Unless anyone can come forward with anything.

Yeah well, maybe that wants remaining too!

Humm, yes, there are a surprising (to me) number of technical questions in the living afloat sub forum. Again, we could draft suitable heading to the section to add some clarity. Clearly theoretically there might be technical question that is for some reason exclusively specific to living on board, but broadly if its more general and could apply to any boat then I would place it in the building and maintenance (technical?) section. And keep the living afloat for topics more specific to living in on the boat, or specific to saying onboard a very large amount and or the amount of the time.

Yes, I would broadly shy away from sub-sections, for various reasons above if anything the move is to broader sub areas, with some forum sites even going to no sub areas at all although we don't have any plans for that. Perhaps what we could and should do it is have a better explanation paragraph at the top of some of the sections to clarify what is expected where. Broadly in my mind: Boat Building & Maintenance section; covers all technical aspects of the boat including engines, electrics, plumbing. (ie, integral things fixed to the boat) Boat Equipment; covers boat related equipment such as ropes, poles, planks, anchors, wifi systems. (ie, detachable or plug in fixtures and fittings) That said there is clearly some confusion, there are a number of topics that cross over both sections, so it probably is a somewhat common issue. Batteries, Chargers, Solar Panels, Gas hobs/ovens, Outboard motors. For me asking for information about making a switch from Lead Acid to LiFePO4 battery for an extant boat would fall under maintenance not equipment, but maybe the 'building' part of that subsection puts people off? Would it be better to rename it to "Boat Maintenance & Building" maybe?

Good pair of clips. Add this one into the mix. Only thing missing now is a good 'before' of the culvert.

Is it that time of year again already?

Yeah. Your relying on radar/ais or whatever at the point really arnt you, no better (or worse) than sailing at night. The thing that is odd is, that is the busy section of the Solongs route, and yet it appears nobody was watching the screens. Daniel

Guilty as charged! This is the rudder fitted to Emily Anne, which we found did improve handling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schilling_rudder#/media/File:Schilling_CAD.jpg Daniel Also if the prop is damaged/bend/etc, close to the uxter plate at the top as most are, and if close to the bottom of the canal as can also be the case in shallow waters! Also, its not at all unheard of for rudders to be bent, and or set up so they turn a different amount one way to the other. You can also have too much rudder angle as well as not enough. Daniel

Mmmm, I did wonder if that would work or not. But as you say, does require some pre-planning!

Agree. But also agree its not a small job, and that I would atleast do a year with it as it is as you might well like, and or consider a semi-trad stern. If you do then decided to change it anyway, research your boat builder/repairer of choice carefully as the difference between a well thoughtout and implemented job and a badly planned cut and shut which be huge, both in terms of how well the boat works, sheds water, looks etc as well as the resale value should you ever wish to change boat.

On a PC: Click on your 'username' (lop left, just below the site logo), and once on your profile, click 'edit profile' (top right corner of your profile image). On a mobile device: Click on the 'three bars' menu drop down on the top right, touch on your 'username' (where it says 'signed in as'), and then once on your profile click 'Edit Profile' which is again on the top right of the profile image, if often replaced with just a pencil icon. You can also get to your profile by clicking on your username on any existing post of yours. Hope that helps.

Of cause, the obvious solution there is to up the max file size, if its not enough. The default tends to be low and software updates can trigger it to be reset. Current limit for me appears to be 100mb but other user groups may have lower limits? Yeah I do simular on another forum which gives you 5mins to edit a post without it appearing edited! I believe so, yes. There is currently a time limit, and it can potentially be adjusted. If its currently set at 60mins maybe thats too long and we can reduced it done, to say 5mins? One thing there is not, or certainly wasnt, is the option to stick a 'carriage return' between the two merged posts to force a new paragraph. Obviously you can do this manually, but only if you know to, and are in the 'know the system and play to your best avantage' camp which obvious will not be all members. Its slightly harder if you second post is quoting another, as it wont let you insert a carriage return in above the reply box. Although you can stick one in below the reply box and used the top left corner to drag the reply box down a line, which is what I did the build up the above post. Thanks Daniel