Tony1

The radiator overflow hose can produce a small amount of water, and there is another hose on that side that I think it related to the diesel CH which produces a little bit. Its small amounts, but its very slow to evaporate if not caught, so it forms a thin film on the floor under the engine, which is the worst place I want to see rust developing. That was easily dealt with using a plastic container which I drain every week or two. The stern locker can get a lot of rain ingress (draining down the rear cabin wall), and that also had two drain holes into the engine bay, so I've sealed those for now until I can think of a better catchment idea. The deck drain channels around the engine cover board normally drain through exit tubes at each side, but they are sometimes temporarily overwhelmed during a heavy downpour, so there is some overflow directly into the engine bay from those, but that isn't very common. Its not possible to entirely catch, block or divert all of the water ingress, but I would like to see a dry floor most of the times when I look in there, whereas last year it was wet almost all the time. There may be a small leak from the stern tube, I'm not sure yet. It feels dry, and the recent rain is so persistent that when I do see a few mm of water around the bilge pump, I can't yet be sure that its not more rain ingress from somewhere I havent spotted. Certainly there's more messing about to be done before I get it totally dry.

Yes, and I've been identifying all the routes for water to get into the engine bilge. The problem with the drain hole on the lowest step is that it is at or below the water line, so it can't be drained to the outside of the hull by gravity alone. I could put a bilge pump on the lower step, but if that pump fails the step will fill after 3 or 4days of proper rain, and will overflow- and that means it goes over the porch of the door and into the cabin area. Also, it would need a cage or something to protect it from being constantly stood on, and all this would reduce the amount of area to place your feet on that step. I feel my solution is the next best thing, which is to allow the water to drain from the step into the engine bay, but catch it in a plastic tray before it hits the floor. If water is allowed to drain freely into the bilge, then from that location the water will slosh around until it gets to the back of the engine bay, where the bilge pump will eventually remove it, once it gets to say 10mmmm depth. But that approach means there is a constant presence of a few mm of water on that floor. The fact that it's never 100% dry will I think will give rise to rust in the longer term, in fact there are already signs of that developing, so I need to stop it asap. My second bilge pump idea will also allow the main bilge pump to act as a back up system. For long periods away from the boat, the real solution to rain ingress would be to cover the stern area (or at least the steps) with a tarp of some sort. I'd also like to route some solar power back into the lead acid batteries to help them stay fully charged and able to work (as it all goes to the lithiums at the moment), but that's probably a summer project.

It sounds a bit daft to me. So that particular insurance company are no longer going to insure Liverpool boats that have been surveyed as per their new guidelines? Despite the fact that a customer could call them up looking for insurance on a 7 year old Liverpool boat that has not been surveyed to these new rules, and that customer can get insurance no problem, even though their boat has these same 'problematic' skin fittings?

My problem is that I'm not much of a tinkerer, I like to get the thing done and forget about it. My current obsession is dry bilges, and even having a small standing pool of water in the main bilge recess square is not ideal- because that recess will rust and eventually need remedial work. Ideally I want the bilge to be totally dry as the normal situation for 90% of the time. I want water to be the exception- and when I do see water, I will dry it out before it causes rust. So I'll probably fit a skin fitting for the second bilge pump, so that it goes straight out. That way, when I do see water in the main bilge pump recess, I'll know its a genuine ingress from somewhere. I'd rather water in there be the exception than the rule, is my thinking.

I honestly don't know what to make of that. My guess is that hundreds of Liverpool boats, and probably a lot of others, will be non-compliant overnight if that assessment of the surveyor becomes a generally accepted principle or rule. But to clear, that was not a BSS survey, right? It was a pre-sale survey?

The main bilge pump is automatic, but the problem with any bilge pump is that the water has be at least few mm deep before it will kick into action, and it never removes all the water- there is always a few mm of water hanging around that it leaves behind. And ideally I'm trying to keep the bilge dry for as long as possible. My goal is to minimise long term rust by not allowing water to collect in the bilge at all, as a general rule (and also painting with vactan etc). The main bilge pump does sit in a small vertically recessed square, about 15mm deep and maybe 30cm along each side. So in theory it should suck out any water that I tip into that little recess (from the other bilge pump), and it should suck it out before it overspills from the recess and starts running along the engine bay floor. In theory. But yes, your idea could work, and it might be worth a try before cutting holes in the hull. So I would route the waste pipe from the second bilge pump so it drains into the small square recess where the main bilge pump is,, and let the main bilge pump suck it out. It means that that the little recess for the main bilge pump will have a more or less permanent layer of a few mm of water in it, but at least the thin layer of water is contained in one small area, so any potential rust is limited to a small spot.

I totally get your point about a screw-in fitting not being 100% secure, but that said, even if it breaks off, the hole will be 10 inches above the waterline, so any water ingress will be a momentary/freak one-off splash, and I should spot the broken fitting before there is any risk of sinking. In an ideal world I would get the skin fitting welded on, but it will depend on finding a mobile welder, and I bet there will be significant cost for that.

Thanks Tony, I'll put that on my jobs list. So you can buy a swan neck as a fitting? To attach to a skin outlet/fitting? I need to measure the pipe size, I think it might be the 38mm type.

Thanks Tony, I'll plan on at least 10 inches above WL. I can only imagine that the bilge pump itself, when not actually pumping, must effective seal the route for the water, and must block any water from coming back down the waste tube into the bilge. But It does seem a bit of a potential weak point at first glance, having the exit hole so close the the WL. I'm sure I've seen turbulence in locks and even small waves in very windy weather, when the surges of water have reached a few inches above the nominal WL. Now that its been pointed out how low it is, I'm not over the moon about it tbh, even its not mandatory for BSS. I wonder if I could fit another length of waste pipe in there, long enough that it has a gooseneck in it so the pipe is tilting down as it approaches the hull.

Thanks guys, I hadn't given any thought to the height above waterline. The height of the exit hole on the left side for the existing bilge pump cant be more than 5 inches above the water, so if that's now a BSS issue then I already have something to sort out. Unless there's some kind of one-way valve on it that stops water coming back in. The price difference doesn't seem too bad, so brass seems like the way to go for longevity, although I will be blacking/painting over the skin fitting anyway in a couple of months.

It has occurred to me- rather belatedly two years after moving aboard- that I ought to make more effort to keep the engine bay floor dry. My first step in achieving this laudable aim was to catch the water that drains into the engine bay from the entry-steps on the stern. So I placed a 10 litre water container and a funnel under the drain hole in the bottom step (its a Liverpool boat, and it has a wooden entry door set to one side on the stern, instead of the more normal double-opening hatch arrangement in the middle). That container has to be pulled out and emptied every 2 days or so in very rainy weather, and every week or two when its drier. But it occurred to me that there is room for automation in this system, so my next cunning plan is to replace the 10 litre water container with a deep plastic catchment tray that will fit into that same small area, and then to place a 12v bilge pump into that tray. Given how much water can sometimes drain from the steps down through that hole, it seems to make sense to catch it and suck it out automatically, in case I am ever away from the boat for a few days at time of heavy rain- or if I just forget. So the plan is a second bilge pump specifically to remove the water that is caught underneath the stern steps- which leads to my question. Would it be more sensible to cut a new drain hole in the hull on that side of the boat, or to lead the water drain tube across/around the engine bay, and create a join with the other drain tube from the main bilge pump? The main bilge pump drain hole is on the rear left 'corner' of the engine bay (looking forwards), whereas the drain for the steps is on the other side of the engine bay, and is almost level with the forward end of the engine block. I dont really want to cut new holes in the skin, but I'm not sure how well the drainage will work if the waste water tubing for the second pump runs from under the steps and about 2 metres diagonally across the engine bay. And as well as needing a junction for the two waste tubes, I think I might need some kind of valve to stop waste water from one tube going back down into the other tube at the junction. So at the moment I'm temped to cut a new hole on the right hand side where the steps are, and have a much shorter run of waste pipe to that.

I think Mr M's point here is that the example boats I linked are sited in Chertsey, so a large lorry would be needed to get them to Cambridge. But those were just random examples, there will be others (although less numerous), that can be cruised to the OPs home area.

In fairness, you and your OH are both perfectly happy to spend weeks at a time on narrowboats- but as I said, the number of women who are truly comfortable and happy on a narrowboat is not that large, and it is that factor that makes me ponder a wider beam boat (as well as a personal interest in them, so I'm being honest about that). If a widebeam GRP has double glazing and full insulation, plus a SF stove and decent size water tanks etc, what would be your objections to that scenario? If they are purely based on aesthetics and the plastic looks, that is of course valid, but a plasticky appearance may not be of the slightest importance to the OP's wife. She may prioritise space over the outer appearance of the craft. Roses and castles are utterly irrelevant to many women- I bet they would prefer a spacious lounge that fits two sofas facing each other with a coffee table or a large rug in between for the dog, with large windows with lots of natural light. But the point really is that we dont know her preferences on these issues either way.. So my advice to the OP would be to take his wife and younger child down to a few brokers and step aboard a few of the likely craft- including narrowboats of course. If feasible, hire a narrowboat for a few days and see if all three of you are ok with the space and the various compromises. If you can live with the space constraints narrowboats are definitely the best solution, but not everyone can live happily with those constraints. My ex loved the idea of a narrowboat when we initially talked about it and looked at some pics and videos of them, but after a single holiday on a narrowboat, she went off the whole idea, permanently. This is predominantly a narrowboat cruising forum, but I think it would be wrong to blithely assume that his wife will be fine with living aboard one, when actually the majority of wives are not ok with that.

This one is outside the OPs budget at £75k, so mainly for interest (although it was valued at £50k and has had some work done since that doesn't really increase its value to £75k). This one has had a lot of rebuild and refit work done, including apparently both floor and wall insulation, and some form of extra glazing for insulation. https://www.apolloduck.com/boat/wilds-bahama-42-for-sale/720095 Not perfect by any means, and they've under specced a few of the components (only a 1.6kw inverter for example, which might be a bit feeble for a family situation). Also it has bottled gas heating, which could be very expensive, and a SF stove might be better? But its an example that there are at least a few examples out there of wide beam GRPs that have been fixed (or could be fixed) to address the insulation issue. I wouldn't fancy a 1975 perkins diesel, even if reconditioned in 2017, so that is a significant issue in my eyes. But its had a shedload of work done, and (with some limitations) its probably almost ready to just turn the key and cruise.

There was a kernel of seriousness in my joking about, which is that the OPs missus might still need to be convinced that it is a pleasant life. And that sales pitch will be a lot easier to do in a living space that feels spacious, with big windows and lot of natural light, with views out onto the waterway. Let's be realistic, there is not a large proportion of women who are happy to make the compromises that are needed to live on a narrowboat, and particularly in this situation where they are not travelling the canals (for a few years anyway). I was downplaying the insulation issue, but I do appreciate that it is very serious. But it is something that I personally might decide to tackle head on. It all depends how critical the living space issue is to you personally. And it could well be that in 5 or 10 years, I'll be more than ready for a 12 ft wide living room. Once I've done most of the narrow waterways, I might well be happy to retire to a more restricted cruising range based in the EA waterways- after all, you can still cross the wash and end up on the L+L, and the other eastern waterways. The guy who sold my boat to me near Ely was replacing it with a widebeam, and he cruised his new boat along the L+L and over the wash, and on to the Great Ouse.

Indubitably. Surely the only serious issue with replacing it is to seal off the hole in the boat's skin.

My current plan is to invent a nuclear fusion reactor that will fit inside a morso squirrel, and use that to heat the boat to such a temperature that damp will be too frightened to enter.

Guys, I totally get the need to sort out insulation (and a toilet), but for me personally that's something to examine and try to solve, not a reason to abandon the idea immediately. And this is a very personal and biased take on the dilemma- but I would try as hard as I could to make the idea of a wide beam GRP work, if that was an option. I have a narrowboat because it is the only way I can visit lovely canals like the Llangollen, but if I were stuck around Cambridge for a few years, I'd do everything possible to make a widebeam work. The sense of space and comfort on those things is just brilliant. In fact, at some point when I'm not fit enough to do locks and general canal shenanigans, I might well consider retiring from the cut to live aboard one of those broads cruisers, and I will host parties of jealous narrowboaters, and lo, I shall mock their metal tubes. Don't crush my dream, guys. Lie to me.

Bit of a long shot admittedly, but is this the sort of thing that might suit? https://www.apolloduck.com/boat/narrow-boats-widebeam-for-sale/718643 It would leave almost 20k of your budget for the inevitable upgrades and repairs, and it has a solid fuel stove, so not as cold as some of them during the winter. There are no details there about the engine though.

No doubt about it, without a guarantee of some extra muscle to speed things up, and if working outdoors, two weeks has to be the way to go. I've heard a couple of tales about marina/boatyard staff applying the final coat the night before the boat is going back into the water, and boats having to go back and get it re-done, so there is a part of me that would prefer to DIY it. But I suspect my arms are not currently ready for the task of getting everything done in a week, especially if I do something with the baseplate. I think your 2 week plan is the way to go.

This is where the likes of Ellesmere dry dock starts to look like decent value. With a covered work area, if you do the job in June or July you can probably get it done within a week with a bit of help. If you have to book two weeks at a cheaper marina because you're outdoors and it might rain, the 2 week price will probably go above the Ellesmere 1-week price, although at Ellesmere you do need to factor in the hire of the pressure washer for 1 or 2 days, whereas in many marinas you'll get the washer included in the price. But the issue at Ellesmere is that its that bit further away from local contacts and people who might be willing to help, whereas at Aqueduct for example, its less hassle for them to reach me.

I haven't done any research tbh, although this primer kit mentioned by Lady G looks decent, and it is designed for use where there is already some blacking in situ. https://www.smlmarinepaints.co.uk/offers/epoxykits/Epoxykit50 At £166 for my 50ft boat (plus the top coat) it seems reasonable, although I'll need some further products for the base plate. I like the idea of getting almost all the gear you need in one purchase, as I'll only get transport support offered on probably a single day of the operation.

Arthur, you gotta get hip with the times. Only squares don't have a smartphone these days. Us cool cats all have them, daddio.

My boat had only done 650 hours in less than 5 years before I bought it, as it was a holiday/part time boat, and the owner had misread the service instructions. He had stuck to the recommended 200 hours regardless of the time elapsed- so when I got it, it had been I think 15 months or more since the last service, although still not quite 200 hours run in that time. I'm not sure if this was related, but it did produce a fair bit of whiteish smoke for about 4 or 5 seconds upon starting up in the mornings. I had it serviced about 2 weeks in, and that reduced the smoke issue. It does still produce a bit of smoke on startup for maybe 3 seconds, and especially in winter- but I've been told that's not unusual for a Kioti. But I dont intend to ever exceed the 12 month max service time that they give, regardless of engine hours run. I spoke to a guy the other day who had an injury and wasnt able to get in and service his engine, and he had been let down by a succession of canal tradesmen who were supposed to do the service. I may have misheard, but I think he said it was over 700 hours since the last service. I looked horrified and said I wouldn't even dare to start my engine if it had been that long overdue, but thankfully he got it sorted a day or so later.

I think CRTs objectives need to considered, if they were to increase the number of pay-to-moor locations, to include places like Nantwich and Chester etc. Are they trying to solve a problem of overstaying in popular spots, or do they want to gain more revenue- or perhaps both? The level of enforcement doesn't seem overly strict at the moment, judging from the number of boats I've seen stay for more than a week on the 48 hour Nantwich moorings. And to make the enforcement effective it would probably require more staff patrolling those paid moorings- perhaps a third of a full-time person to enforce at Nantwich? So there is a significant staff cost in implementing that, plus the up front cost of the IT system plus an app to manage it (this is assuming there will not be any hookup put in place). And the mooring price would have to be set such that they would at least recoup the annual enforcement cost, but it would also have to be acceptable to the target customers. CRT know that there are thousands of boaters who would hardly ever use the Nantwich moorings again if there was a daily charge, so they don't want to go too high and have the moorings deserted most of the time. I bet they've already done a quick estimate of how much revenue there might be form paid visitor moorings. If there were (very roughly) 50 paid moorings marked out at Nantwich, and if they had a bit under 30% occupancy over a year, then they'd see a total of maybe 5,000 uses per year? To recoup a staff/enforcement cost of say £20k per year, and to also encourage more use of the moorings, you'd want to set the charge at £4 or £5, right? So it could probably pay for itself (not including the cost of the IT system and the app), but then you'd have lots of boats moored (for free) just to the south of Nantwich, more or less semi-permanently, so the congestion problem would just move south. I don't honestly see that much revenue in it for them, at first glance anyway. Llangollen is a special case as it includes the electricity, which itself now has a significant cost.