James Owen

Hi Tim, yes the National I have still retains it's splash plates and also wondered if they did anything or indeed were worth saving but decided to stick with them. I still have a brand new National liner as a spare for when I need it, unfortunately the chap I got it from had thought it a rather suitable door stop to use in his workshop for many years...bless him.

Unlikely to be anything too serious, may probably just be a failed or stuck blower motor which will prevent any fuel from burning properly and causing the combustion gases (i.e smoke) from being expelled through the exhaust. Any wiring shortouts within the unit should see the fuses doing their job (assuming it has been installed well) and any fuel issues will be contained within the heat exchanger. ECU safety cutouts should prevent anything getting too hot in the event of an airlock...

Sold one on fleabay last year for about 400 IIRC to a chap from London, a fairly clean non-runner but all the bits there...the Sabb that is, not the chap from London.

It isn't CRT who are determining the risk, it's the underwriters who are determining risk/liability and then imposing increased premiums.

Those 96 folks are of all ages, abilities and are left to their own skills to 'navigate' that tunnel safely. Then, worst case scenario a rescue needs to be carried out due to a fire on the lead boat...all under the watchful eye of a good willed volunteer. I'd say that was quite a risk, one which any underwriter is likely to impose a considerable premium to account for. This is hardly relevant to Laurence's original post I know, but purely as a (late night/half asleep) example of where 'liability' can make people nervous about utilising volunteers.

Yes you could get volunteers to operate Harecastle and I don't dispute it would be 'a doddle' as you so eloquently put it, but CRT do not do so. Why ? The underwriters consider it too much risk. A convoy of eight boats, potentially twelve persons aboard each...that's 96 people in a tunnel at once and at one point a mile from the surface...

The liability from an underwriters perspective is far too great, CRT will be monitoring costs and those costs are too high. As an example ask this question - why aren't volunteers enlisted to operate...for example..Harecastle ?

You're right Laurence, CRT do not want skilled, equipped volunteers...put simply, they are too much of a liability. Sell up, move on and stop whining about it.

Brilliant, thank you for that...your description was spot on. Do you happen to know just how many, if any, features or parts are shared between the BM engines and the Penta models ? Spares are something we'll likely need in due course but availability seems patchy at best...?

They'll likely also fall foul of your BSS examiner, covered terminals and properly secured... ...unless they pre-date the introduction of the jumping/rolling around type now readily available ;-)

Im trying to source any information and/or history on the marine variant of a Volvo Penta D67c engine currently installed in a Luxe motor. If my memory serves it is a six pot marine unit badged as MD67c and has origins or indeed similarities to the Bolinder-Munktel produced threes. Does anyone have any knowledge of these engines ?...or if I allow myself a dream scenario, perhaps a manual ?? :-)

A good set of solar panels will keep your batteries topped up but as has been suggested also, removing them and giving each a good charge on a dedicated charger will bring them back. The sooner the better. Don't expect the solar panels once fitted to then recharge the batteries from flat, this could take some time and the longer you leave them uncharged.....

There is a marina at Aldermaston.IIRC it's Frouds Bridge or something ??

As built, only little H&W boats used 1 3/4" shafts IIRC.

The middle boats also have, from memory, a 2 1/4" tailshaft.

The scope of the examiner is determined by their training and the minimum requirements as set out by the Boat Safety Scheme. An examiner must follow the applicability in accordance with each check. Where the check requires 'no discernable pressure drop' then that requirement must be met in order for that examiner to issue a certificate of compliance. If the test, on the face of it, reveals that there is a leak then a 'fail' must be recorded by that examiner and suitable procedures are then followed in accordance with his findings. The examiner, as set out by the checking procedures and their role as a representative of the Boat Safety Scheme, is not permitted to apply those parts of PD 5482-3 allowing permissable pressure drops to which you refer as part of an examination. The requirement PD 5482-3 is a Gas Safe regulation and as such, when applied by a Gas Safe engineer, may allow a pressure drop as per that requirement. This is for the Gas Safe engineer to determine, not the Boat Safety Examiner. How to reach a middle ground that proves satisfactory for all parties is a to and fro conversation that, I doubt, will ever be resolved.

Sorry Mike but this isn't wholly accurate. There is no insistence by the Safety Scheme for bubble testers to be located "out of sight, out of mind" within the gas locker unless they are the sole means of testing for soundness of the LPG system. Any safety minded boater who wished to fit one in a convenient, readily accessible location could do so without incurring the wrath of his or her local BSS examiner providing there were a test point elsewhere in the system.

Raw water cooled engine or rather the pump/filter/pipework that hasn't been drained or isolated...add a good dollop of freezing temperatures and some frost damage...perhaps??

Okay Laurence, my mistake. I wrongly assumed you were interested in dealing with facts, not fiction. Let us both hope that out of your error, more information comes to light that we never new existed and provides us with the answer.

I apologise, I was purely trying to establish accurate information relating to the details of the middle Northwich boats. Alas, it would appear I have failed.

Yes, but earlier posts of yours Laurence confidently state that the middle boats, especially Taygeta, had "extremely forward set" exhaust outlets. You have reneged on the concept of them being canted back, can we now assume your claims that they were forward up to the bulkhead are equally unreliable?

Two pictures (if they work) of Taygeta when she was up for auction circa 2009. http://imgur.com/qq7lUUd http://imgur.com/WWwuYH2 I struggle to see evidence of an "extremely forward set" exhaust outlet.

If I can work out how to post pictures later on I'll see what photos I can find....

My research is based around my current boat you see Laurence, which emphatically does not concur with yours.

I'm not anti-Scottish, I merely oppose independence, which I'd say was quite obvious from my post unless of course you're the sort who likes to the negative in everything, pick it up and run with it.