IanD
-
Posts
15,872 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
117
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by IanD
-
-
34 minutes ago, jacko264 said:
Hi
We got back from the Stratford ring two weeks ago after two weeks holiday it definitely was not a rush we started from Alverchurch and went clock wise stopping at numerous pubs as we went
i my self thinks it’s the most beautiful ring I have been on and that’s most of them
the loc is are a little hard for the girls to wind the paddle on but that’s the fun of boating
ps we did the Tardebigge. locks in 3.5 hours it says 7 in the book and the ring was very quiet from traffic
Graham
With a big enough crew who know what they're doing (e.g. sending ahead to prepare next lock and staying behind boat to close up) and no slowcoach in front, you can do Tardebigge in 3 hours or less if everything goes well -- we certainly would have if not for the single boater we caught up with (who I went ahead to help)...
-
Anyway, to get back to the OPs question it would be almost certainly be possible to add a parallel hybrid setup onto an existing trad engine, one like the Hybridmarine one just couples onto the prop shaft via belt drive.
I'm pretty sure one of the motor kit suppliers could do this at a cost not much more than buying the components, for example:
https://www.voltsport.co.uk/Marine-Propulsion-Systems/Small-Yacht-Drive-Kit
From memory when I was talking to them early last year, the drive system (not this one) cost a few thousand pounds, I'm sure they could provide a quote for an add-on system. On top of that you'd need batteries and battery management (another few grand at least), but also a way of getting a decent amount of charge into the batteries. Assuming no onboard generator, this would need some *big* alternators (maybe polyvee drive?) and a suitable external controller (Wakespeed?) to be added to the engine, that's another few grand.
Depending on battery size and type (LFP strongly advised to keep engine run times for charging down) I suspect even doing the actual installation yourself you'd be looking at an absolute minimum of £10000 total, and that's with a pretty small battery. If the engineering to add on the alternators and the belt drive is done professionally this would add to the cost, as would a more sensible sized battery.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Morat said:
Yep, 35W is the standard issue now. At least, we didn't ask for anything special and the rectangular version arrived.
I can't imagine anyone being interested in the $5000 version.
Starlink ISL does look to be something that the HFT boyos will enjoy, for the longer links anyway. Interesting.
35W does make Starlink a *lot* more feasible for narrowboats who really *need* high-speed Internet access where the mobile networks can't provide it and can afford it -- after the latest price rises, probably around £115/month with the mobility option that lets you move around.
The $5000/month version isn't targeted at individuals, unless they own a superyacht where this is a tiny addition to the running costs:
https://www.eetimes.com/starlinks-space-speed-up-a-battle-for-internet-leadership/
"The company has just added a maritime option for all kinds of shipping — from luxury yachts to oil rigs — to deliver internet in the coastal waters around the Americas, Australia, and Europe at present. The satellite link is enabled by paying $10,000 for two terminals that are ruggedized against sea salt to maintain the connection in choppy seas and heavy storms. The service itself costs $5,000 a month."
-
3 minutes ago, Morat said:
Yes, the cost reduction is true. Also, they reduced the power consumption by 2/3 which is very welcome. However, it might be a bit tricky to get a Starlink box now as they've sent 15,000 units to Ukraine 😮
That's quite a commitment to the cause!
https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/5/23058181/starlink-portability-internet-price-locations
Starlink reportedly draws between 60-70W (newer circular version), according to Jeff Geerling’s blog, an improvement on the 80-100W draw from just a year ago. (older circular versions)
https://seabits.com/starlink-finally-useful-aboard/
Version 2 dishy (newest rectangular version) takes about 35 watts to run on average, much better than the original version, which topped out around 100 watts.
These are still only usable when stationary (e.g. when moored), but you can roam about from one place to another. The one which works while moving is the super-expensive one I referred to above.
-
6 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:
It's been suggested that the exhaust of modern boat diesels is actually more dangerous to health than that of vintage/traditional diesels.
The claim is that modern engines, although emitting visibly clear exhaust which is not as choking or pungent, the particulate matter size is dangerously small, whereas traditional engines presumably only produced large, visible particulates, which it is suggested are safe or at least safer.
Could this be the case, or is it more likely that traditional engines produce more particulates of all sizes.
It could be the case, but I'd need to see actual evidence to be convinced -- I think it's more likely that they produce more particulates of all sizes (but don't have any evidence of this).
-
11 minutes ago, Morat said:
Ooh yes, nice article.
There is much Clever Stuff inside the Skylink box, that's for sure. Ours is a different version, and is rectangular. I assume it's a new version.I still want one for our boat!
Yes, the new rectangular one is to try and get the cost down, it's a bit smaller and rectangles cut out of big PCB panels more economically than circles do.
Starlink need to get the cost down because IIRC the older circular antenna costs more than 2x as much to manufacture as they were being sold for, the new rectangular one has brought this down -- but the purchase price is still lower than the cost, Starlink are subsidising this to get more people to adopt it, so bigger volumes bring the cost down further.
They've just announced a mobile (for boats etc.) station but it's very expensive ($5000/month?), it's aimed at commercial shipping/cruise liners/superyachts not narrowboats 😞
Given the cost of the satellites I'm pretty sure Starlink are either losing money or at best breaking even, the Holy Grail for them is when they get the inter-satellite laser links up and running (being trialled at the moment) so they can start selling low-latency links to high-frequency traders for an absolute fortune...
(they laid a new straight-line fiber optic cable across the Atlantic just for this market, spent hundreds of millions of dollars to shave a few milliseconds off the delay -- Starlink should reduce this further, this market is worth billions to them)
-
13 minutes ago, Morat said:
It's a shame Starlink uses so much power. We installed one at work for a remote office a month ago it was giving 150Mb down and ~34ms ping to our own firewall for VPN use. It's a huge step above Geo-sync satellite systems.
It's a shame but it's not unexpected -- it's a massive actively-steered phased array with a *load* of electronics in there, including hundreds of channels of RF receivers, so it's not surprising that it takes way more power than a normal satellite dish.
And realistically there's no other way to build it since it has to simultaneously track multiple satellites moving quite fast overhead -- see here...
-
17 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:
Yes I have proof, thank you for enquiring
It would have been great to have seen some proper research, but I suspect that there isn't any.
I'd be very surprised if vintage diesels are anywhere near as clean on emissions -- particulates included -- as modern diesel engines, especially as used in cars with high-pressure common-rail DI, catalysts and particulate filters.
How much better they are than the "modern" diesels actually used in boats is another matter, since these really aren't "modern" in any sense of the word, they're mostly simple mechanically injected IDI diesels (e.g. Beta), or even worse mechanically injected DI diesels (e.g. Barrus) with no pollution reduction measures.
They're only "clean" in the sense that their exhausts are less smoky than most/many vintage diesels, they're technically comparable to car diesels from 30 years ago (like the Citroen/Peugeot XUD engines that I drove) which were certainly not "clean" by today's standards...
-
On 10/07/2022 at 18:48, Paul C said:
There's a good theoretical debate to be had on the merits of series vs parallel hybrids on boat applications. All I can go on is looking at companies such as Braidbar Boats, who seem to have plumped for parallel. I am sure there's other builders who do serial hybrids though.
Either way, hybrids are a "stopgap" to solve the problem of limited charging infrastructure currently (and the continued availability of diesel, albeit at higher and higher prices). A good stopgap though, for a problem that shouldn't exist.....but does.
I spent a lot of time -- many months -- looking in depth into all the pros and cons of hybrids, and indeed whether to go for one at all. I started off leaning towards an ultra-well-silenced diesel (not a hybrid at all) with big externally-regulated (Wakespeed) alternators and lead-carbon batteries, looked in detail at parallel hybrids (like the HybridMarine system that Braidbar anothers use) with traction cells, and ended up going for a series hybrid with LFP batteries from Finesse.
The problem with the parallel hybrids (as available today) is they're neither fish nor fowl, they keep an existing diesel (usually Beta 43) with dual 24V alternators and gearbox and add on a relatively small 48V belt-driven motor/generator. The diesel is too big so still ends up running at low power levels whether running or charging batteries, and can only charge at a few kW (via inefficient alternators) when stationary because the motor is coupled to the propshaft after the gearbox -- so long running times and a lot of fuel burned if you want to do this, especially with LA batteries.
More and more builders are now going the series hybrid route, but because doing this properly (like Finesse...) is expensive they cut corners, typically using a cheap belt-driven motor and controller which hasn't got enough power for river use, a cheaper diesel generator, and an undersized battery bank -- often lead-carbon (or traction cells) which again means long running times to equalise the cells and prevent sulphation. A higher-power (and quieter) water-cooled PMAC motor/controller with a good-quality cocooned generator and a big enough LFP battery bank (and lots of solar panels) is the best hybrid solution, but is also the most expensive... 😞
As you say, these are all a stopgap until system-wide charging points emerge, until then an onboard generator is needed. Diesel consumption is typically at least half compared to a diesel boat, and can be zero in summer with not too much cruising, so it is "eco-friendly" from the emissions point of view -- but the fuel cost saving may never make up for the high installation cost, saving money isn't the reason to go this way, silent cruising is... 🙂
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Heartland said:
The building in the background in both images is in a regeneration area. The first with Sue Yates steering shows an area which has been subsequently transformed in 2003 when sadly canal heritage structures were destroyed. Laurence Hogg campaigned to save them, but failed, and sadly any chance of any application for a World Heritage site were dashed from that moment. To look at the structures in this specific part of what was then a town, it may have been hard to accept the canal transport history, but that history when all the adjacent sites were considered together a more sympathetic council to waterways heritage might have acted differently to preserve and improve them for the mutual benefit of the area. They did not. And so piecemeal development has continued, with much still to be done.
Had the council acted on what Laurence and others had said, the City which is now the controlling authority may well, by now, have a show piece canal attraction. Now most boaters choose to speed past, which is probably a reason why no body has guessed this "where I am"
I attach another image this time of No 2, the other pottery boat, of 2001. It should be possible to identify where this place is !
Looks like the Cape of Good Hope at Warwick to me -- or maybedefinitely not, looking at some details... -
1 hour ago, Ronaldo47 said:
You could consider your single-glazed windows to be a form of air conditioning that requires no operating power. Water will condense out of moist air on any surface having a temperature lower than its dew point, and if you are getting condensation on your windows, that means they are removing moisture that would otherwise condense somewhere else inside your boat.
Not necessarily, if the rest of the boat is warmer (above the dew point) it won't condense anywhere else...
-
57 minutes ago, AndrewIC said:
That’ll be me then… it seemed like a good idea at the time. I think there may now be thermal break frames available, but frankly I probably wouldn’t bother with double glazed again. Ditto anodised frames, which also seemed like a good idea at the time
What was your problem with anodised frames? Was going to go for these rather than powder coated...
-
17 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:
You'll probably agree too then, that a Schilling rudder is simply an improved rudder design, it has no additional moving parts, it just offers better performance. A bow thruster is a bit different, it can fail and although it makes life easier, a competent and practiced helm is able to handle his or her vessel without one (our sort of boat anyway). If one always relies on a bow or stern thruster and it fails, then the lack of practice/expertise in manoeuvring at close quarters is lost, just when you need it most, perhaps when in Portishead marina and surrounded by shiny grp gin palaces worth many hundreds of thousands of pounds.
That may indeed be true, but clearly if they need a bow thruster then it isn't!
Agreed completely about the Schilling rudder, it's an elegant and far better solution than a stern thruster,, and I also don't understand why they're not more common -- except maybe not being "traditional"...
A bow thruster however can do things that a Schilling rudder can't, such as moving the bows across when you don't have space to swing the stern over -- no matter how competent a steerer you are... 😉
I don't think a bow thruster is *needed*, but there are situations I've been in -- usually involving crosswinds and moored boats -- when having one would be have been quite helpful...
-
1 hour ago, Bargebuilder said:
Perhaps they had their rudder modified to a Schilling type design as I did.
For not a lot of money, a good welder can dramatically improve the performance of a flat plate rudder which starts to lose effectiveness at around 35⁰ each side, to one that gives dramatic lateral thrust at a full 70⁰ each side. Having a Schilling rudder is very much like having a stern thruster, allowing one to move the stern sideways. It makes manoeuvring much easier and turning within ones own length a possibility. They have no detrimental effect on directional stability in either forward or astern, but make reversing easier as they provide lateral thrust more effectively when needed for correcting ones course.
I'm surprised that more aren't fitted; they are excellent!
Agreed -- but when I posted something similar there was a shower of comments on the lines of "why change what isn't broken, I can handle my boat just fine with a flat plate rudder". Luddism is alive and well on CWDF... 😉
-
41 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:
Deploying an anchor from the stern of a narrowboat in a fast flowing waterway will draw the stern down closer to the surface and risks the level over topping the engine bay vents (on boats that have them).
(Dual fuel boats may of course not)
No vents on mine... 😉
Note that I'm not saying that what I'm proposing is the right solution for everyone, just that it is for me -- on a boat that's rather different to the norm...
-
1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:
It is not a case of having differing anchors for bow and stern - it is reasons behind why you should not anchor off the stern.
You would only have a kedge if you have already deployed and set the bower anchor.
I'm not sure most narrowboaters would have a clue what kedge and bower anchors are, all they want/need is something they can chuck overboard in a rare (maybe never) emergency like an engine failure on a river.
I know you've said many times that people should not only have a high-holding-power anchor but know how to deploy it and even practise the same, but in reality most narrowboats have a Danforth (with too short/light chain/rope) in the bows which has never been used and probably never will be, and which might -- as you point out repeatedly -- not even do the job if it's ever needed.
Compared to that a Fortress 37 in the stern with the recommended chain and rope (my solution) is likely to be a lot better, even if it doesn't meet with the high standards of perfection of grizzled mariners like you 😉
-
54 minutes ago, magnetman said:
A narrow boat anchored from the stern in a tidway with 3 knots of water running and other craft creating wash might be a bit naughty. The rudder would pull over to one side and cause problems.
Thinking of the pool of London as an example. Actually not just thinking about it but I am also sitting and watching it at the moment. You do NOT want to be stern on at anchor.
I'd rather have the anchor on the bows and a clear way to get through the boat to deploy it.
If you do need it then it's unlikely you will need it in the blink of an eye, and if you hurry or panic then you are screwed. Better to spend a bit of time passing through the cabin then chuck the anchor in when you get to it.
Anchor at stern is well dodgy. Handy to have in addition and in some situations could be useful as an additional braking device if drifting towards a weir or a bridge but not as the main anchor.
If you don't have space or access right at the front then lead the chain back and put it somewhere you can get to it. Or mount it on a slide of some sort with a pin connected to a rope or a phone app actuated solenoid.
Or just don't have an anchor.
Like I said, the only case I would ever anticipate possibly needing an anchor would be engine failure on a river (e.g. Trent, Ribble Crossing) -- I've never moored at anchor in a tideway and have no intention of ever doing so. If drifting towards a weir or bridge with no power then there's only one anchor, it's not an "additional braking device", and in this case it makes little difference which end it's at, and you *do* need to deploy it quickly.
And should this ever happen, having one is still *far* better than having none...
Yes if you spend a lot of time moored up in rivers or tideways or estuaries (like you?) then a better solution might be needed -- logically, bow *and* stern anchors. But that's simply not the case here... 😉
-
18 minutes ago, Tonka said:
Where do you store the bow anchor, when not needed and ready when you do need it.
At the stern, where it would also be deployed from if ever needed -- which again is unlikely...
In theory it could also sit on top of the potter's cabin at the bows, but then you'd have to get there in a hurry and deploy it from the small bow deck -- much safer to do it from the stern. Bear in mind this isn't an ocean-going vessel which needs to anchor regularly, if something ever goes wrong on a river (e.g. loss of power) then you could be going upstream or downstream so the odds of the anchor being at the "right" (upstream) end are 50:50, and if you deploy from the "wrong" end the boat will swing round.
You could say this is not ideal, my response would be that very few boaters on narrowboats ever have to deploy an anchor in an emergency over their entire boating career, and it's more important to have one that's suitable for the boat (probably a Fortress) and be able to deploy it safely -- in my case, from the stern -- than worry too much about which end of the boat it's at.
No doubt Alan or someone else with a lot of maritime experience will come along to tell me this is all wrong, but then I'm not going to be regularly mooring a yacht off a rocky lee shore in a gale... 😉
-
17 hours ago, cuthound said:
An Houdini hatch in the deck head would provide an alternative exit route thst could be used in the event of a sinking in a narrow lock without spoiling the looks of your boat.
Perhaps, but I don't like Houdini hatches (looks, condensation drips), the roof is mostly covered in solar panels -- and as I keep saying, I'm perfectly happy with the side doors as an emergency exit, as is the BSS 🙂
Anyone genuinely worried about the (extremely small) risk of their boat sinking in a narrow lock in a way that meant they needed to get out of side doors but couldn't might also want to think about things which are many *many* times more likely to kill them -- so don't drive to your boat (car crashes), don't cycle to get the shopping (cyclist deaths), don't cross the road to get to the pub (pedestrian deaths) -- and when you get there (or on the boat) don't eat any peanuts or anything chewy (risk of choking to death)... 😉
-
7 minutes ago, Laurie Booth said:
Also available in Tipton
Just in case anyone is wondering what they do to delicious healthy potato chips in the Black Country to make them orange...
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/how-make-your-black-country-18039073
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, Rob-M said:
Last time I went through Swindon it was on the Staffs and Worcs.
Last time I went through Swindon it was just off the M4 in Wiltshire... 😉
-
13 minutes ago, Tony1 said:
This does bring to mind my single most embarrassing moment of the last decade. After a week in chester basin I had around 3 weeks worth of stuff to wash- clothes, bedding, you name it.
I had been mostly out in the sticks for a few weeks, just washing the odd shirt as needed, but underwear had been accumulating at the bottom of the basket in the most sinister fashion. Some particularly unpleasant socks, hidden under a long-neglected shirt, had been in there long enough that they were probably eligible for some sort of housing benefit.
I've lost my sense of smell, so the true horror of this washing load wasn't immediately apparent, although I feared the worst. My plan was to get to the launderette at a quiet time in the morning, and hoik everything into a machine so quickly that nobody nearby could smell how awful it was.
I traipsed up to the launderette which google said was up the hill and fairly close by, and I was mortified to see a counter barring access to the machines.
What devilry could this be? I wondered. Does the lady have to approve me somehow, and allow me in to use the machines?
The reality was worse than I could possibly have imagined. Their system was that you hand over your bag of washing, and they load it into the machines.
I recoiled in shock at the thought of this innocent young lady handling socks that had evaded at least two wash cycles, and thus been sat in the laundry box for as long as 2 months. I'm sure I must have gone pale.
I felt that some sort of PPE was in order- these items were surely verging on being a biohazard.
I stood there for a few moments, whilst she obviously wondered what was going on. Finally the need to get the clothes washed overcame the titanic embarrassment of allowing another human being to handle my 8 week old socks.
I handed over my deadly cargo with great reluctance, and tried to explain the potential risks.
'There is a slight problem with them. I live on a boat, you see, and some of the clothes have been stored for a few weeks. Well, more than a few weeks, really. Erm, do you have gloves at all?'
The woman was already reaching for a pair of gloves, so the perils of handling dirty washing were clearly nothing new to her. But was she ready for the awfulness of this load? Could anyone be?
I doubted it. I felt sure this would be beyond anything in her professional experience.
'So I can only apologise, really, if some of the things are in a bit of a state. It's hard to find laundries in some places, you see. It's all a bit unfortunate, the way its worked out, really...'
By now she was already loading the clothes into the machine. Mercifully her back was turned, so I didnt have to see what kind of face she might be pulling. I fled.
The clothes were offensive enough that it felt like it should be illegal, but I skulked back to the place later that day to collect the cleaned laundry.
If it were possible to actually die from embarrassment, that would have been the incident that nailed me. I may still be suffering from a form of post-embarrassment stress disorder even now.
She was a lovely and helpful woman, but hope I never see her again.
Maybe she had anosmia?
-
3 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:
Try following someone doing this. It's all calm, serene and smug until they get to low bridges then comical panic ensues.
At which point they are still wearing their light clothing while standing in the rain trying to take the brolly down in a great hurry. The brolly that's attached to their steering device, with predictable results ...
And when the rain doesn't fall vertically, as so often happens...? 😉
-
16 minutes ago, Trawler said:
That of course is the right answer.
Incidentally, in cold water there is only a 50/50 chance of making it 50’ to shore. Hypothermia is real. Again, not a canal problem.
Ian, I had read his post as the BSS missing the most likEly scenario of narrow locks where you couldn’t get through the side hatches in their regulations not that they didn’t meet them requirements?
anyway, I have diverted enough attention while I am waiting for my son to wake up.
Nope, he said that such a layout was non-compliant, and that's incorrect.
And the BSS does not miss the potential risk with side doors in narrow locks, it specifically points this out -- but nevertheless side hatches are an approved emergency exit.
Presumably whoever drafted the rules is aware that by far the most likely reason for needing an emergency exit is a fire (or similar) when moored (for which side doors are fine), and that in locks the most common emergency is catching the stern on the cill and going down by the bows (so exiting at the stern is OK). Disallowing side doors as an exit would suddenly mean lots of boats already out there would fail their BSS which would cause a massive uproar, especially if there is little or no evidence that this would save any lives in reality.
If David wants something different on his boat then that's his decision, but the BSS rules don't require it and many people -- me included -- are OK with that.
Hybrid drive conversion question
in Boat Building & Maintenance
Posted
Maybe common sense intervened -- an electric motor emits no pollution, and a generator needs no requalification since any needed will have been done by the manufacturer...