Tony Dunkley
-
Posts
3,298 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Tony Dunkley
-
-
Tugs of this size would not come under the MCA
This particular tug would not interest the MCA, but solely because it's clearly no longer being operated as a commercial vessel, . . . . the 'size' of a tug, whatever you actually mean by that, is of no consequence at all. Commercial tugs are rated in terms of horsepower and bollard pull, not overall length or displacement.
-
I haven't touched the leak-off and return pipework - yet. However in my exuberance I nipped up the banjo bolt (that should have the leak-off pipes etc) and stripped the thread. It was already very loose and I should have taken more care in anticipation.
I've been looking at thread sizes, is it possible this thread in the filter body is a 7/16" - 20 UNF, which might be sufficient to catch the "4" threads of a M10 banjo bolt? The Banjo bolt is an M10 x 1.5mm with just 4 threads. I measured it's major diameter and got 9.8mm. The filter body is a CAV 5836B020 but apart from having 1/2" - 20 UNF unions I can't see any info in the banjo thread.
However the (female) banjos in the leak-off and return pipes have an 8mm internal diameter whereas the banjo bolt on the CAV filter is larger! I presume I have the wrong filter housing?
There isn't a banjo bolt shown in that photo, . . . do you mean the bleed screw / blanking plug in the boss on the top of the filter head ?
The filter head you've got is the standard, correct CAV type for that engine.
-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I seem to remember a forum poster getting stuck for quite a while after listening to VHF & trying to avoid a gravel barge but I don't think they operate anymore do they?
No, not since July 2013 when the traffic was ended with minimal notice after Lafarge, who operated the new Besthorpe Quarry, merged with Tarmac and the new management made the decision to supply the concrete plant at Whitwood [near Wakefield] by road from a Tarmac quarry at Nosterfield, a few miles North of Ripon.
-
Hello all,
Always try to respond back to the forums as i'm always very grateful for the input and help :-).
I got back to my neck of the woods late last night. I filed the key and placed it back in and hand tested the prop for any movement and as it was fairly stable I have managed to get home on it, however still with a slightly backed off nut with a split pin through so took it very steady.
Today I think I may try to use washers to shim the prop tight onto the shaft and align the hole, failing that I will try and drill another hole in my bronze nut for the split pin.
I'm really surprised as to how well the prop has behaved on the way home and how stable it seems considering the nut has not been tightened and that the inside of the prop seems quite badly scored from the broken key! However from feeling down the propshaft the shaft itself seems unscored!
Also, the 'o' of what looks like packing on the photo was actually remenants of the inner strands of my rope, you can actually see where some of it made its way into the keyway!
Once again thanks for all the help on the forum, got me out of a very tight spot and i'm very glad to be back on familiar canal. :-)
Due to the scoring and damage that's been done to the propeller boss taper during the time the prop has been loose, you won't be able to do a decent and reliable job by messing about underwater through the weedhatch, and guessing at where to drill another hole through the nut.
If you don't get both of the tapers cleaned up and mating snugly, and an accurately sized key along with a fully tightenable nut and pin made and fitted, there's a high probability that the prop will work loose again, and the time it will be most likely to fail and lose drive again will be just when you need full astern power in an emergency.
-
A follow up question, having looked at the tide times.
So the flood arrives at Torksey about a hour and three-quarters after HW at Hull. So what's the latest it would be practical to set off from there back to Cromwell? I'm guessing that in September we might be ok leaving at 4pm-ish -- but not much later than that. Alternatively, what's the earliest you can go?
You can set off any at any time you wish for the journey back upriver from Torksey to Cromwell, but to get the most help possible from the tide it's best to set off 10 - 15 minutes before Flood at Torksey. That will get you as near to Cromwell as possible before the tide fizzles out and you start feeling the effect of the [downstream] river current slowing you down.
You'll get most assistance and push for furthest upriver from the bigger [spring] tides with very little or no 'fresh' coming down, but if your journey back up to Cromwell coincides with small [Neap] tides and a good bit of 'fresh' as well, then you could find yourself under Ebb before you're even halfway there.
-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Of course the stream direction on the flood is caused by the tide in the North Sea, but all the water in that stream comes from the hills of Yorkshire and they are its source.
.
You wouldn't say that if you had ever been on the Ouse on a really big Spring tide, . . . . such as those that come at the times of the Spring and Autumn Equinox.
The in-coming [Flood] tide can attain around 6 knots to above Selby, with an accompanying rise in river levels of as much as 15 feet, or more, in just about 3 hours at Barmby.
There is no way that such an amount of river/run-off water could arrive in the Ouse around Barmby and Drax in the space of three hours, without most of North Yorkshire being under several feet of water already.
-
The lock is on the left, the barrage is on the right.
What else is there to think about?
You could think about the fact that making sense out of using the terms left and right depends on specifying the direction you're travelling or looking in.
-
I'll play. Unless the water at Barmby is salt or brackish at incoming tide (and I don't think it is) then its source is the Swale and Ure and various other streams combining to form the Ouse. No?
No, . . . the question you responded to was ~ " Where is the source of the incoming tidal stream at Barmby ? ".
I'm not sure why you think the salinity levels in the Ouse at Barmby are at all relevant, but the direction and origin, or source, of the incoming Flood tide certainly is, . . . . . it's origins are in the North Sea, and it runs upriver as a tidal stream.
For the avoidance of ambiguity or confusion in nominating the direction of the stream in a tidal river, it is preferable to use the terms 'upriver' for the Flood and 'downriver' for the Ebb, leaving the terms 'upstream' and 'downstream' confined to the non-tidal reaches.
-
. . . . . . . . you can moor in the disused lock . . . . .
I'm sorry to hear that Elvington lock has fallen back into disuse. Do you know what's happened, and why ?
-
One definition of the word "upstream" is "nearer to the source". If you want to get into a pointless pedantic discussion I'm sorry but I am not playing!:-)
Howard
If you don't want to 'play', then why the petulant and silly response ?
Where is the source of the incoming tidal stream at Barmby ?
-
The lock is on the upstream side.
Howard
. . . . only on the Ebb.
-
There isn't really much that needs adding to what Alan and Nick have already said, except that for those unfamiliar with the river and who don't know just exactly where the deepest water is, there can be some potential benefit to leaving Cromwell about half an hour before HW at Hull if they're only going as far as Torksey.
Leaving Cromwell at this sort of time will mean that it will be easier to judge where the deepest water is relative to either bank/shore due to the shallows drying and baring out, and it will see most boats meeting the Flood just short of Torksey, provided they haven't grounded at [Laneham] Maltkilns where there's a big shoal extending a long way across the river to where the deeper water would normally be expected, from a stream that runs in there.
There are two distinct advantages to this, firstly with the river having already run down to about as low as it's going to get on that tide, some of the shoal will be starting to bare out and be visible extending out from the Western shore making it easier to avoid, and secondly if the boat is unlucky enough to ground here or anywhere else, then it won't have long to wait before the Flood floats it off.
Leaving Cromwell at around local HW [ Hull HW plus approx. 5 hours] does take a few minutes off the journey time, and save a drop or two of fuel, but with a bit over 10 hours of Ebb and barely 2 hours of Flood this far up the river [Torksey], it does leave the possibility of grounding early on the Ebb with the resulting long wait for the next tide to get you going again.
-
By way of keeping everyone up to date re. the progress, or lack of it, of C&RT's latest pointless and idiotic attempt to have me abolished, here is the [my] Witness Statement, ordered to be filed prior to the Directions Hearing, which, according to what the Listings Office in Nottingham told me today, will probably be sometime in early September.
____________________________________
Witness Statement of Anthony K. Dunkley
Para. 4, from Line 2 :
The river bank to which 'Halcyon Daze' Index No.52721[ 'the boat' ] is moored is private property and is not under the management or control of Canal and River Trust [ C&RT ].
From line 6 :
It is true that the boat is moored at the stated location without a C&RT boat Licence, but the river Trent at Barton-in-Fabis where the boat is moored is a River Navigation listed in Schedule 1 of the British Waterways Act 1971 [as amended - BW Act 1974] upon which there is a Common Law Public Right of Navigation and vessels thereon do not require a boat Licence issued by the Navigation Authority.
Any vessel kept or used within the main navigable channel [MNC] of a Scheduled River Navigation is required under Section 5(1) of the 1971 BW Act to be registered by means of a Pleasure Boat Certificate [PBC] issued by the Navigation Authority. The penalty for keeping or using a vessel within the MNC without such a Certificate in force is prescribed in S.5(2) of the same Act.
Extracts from the British Waterways Act 1971 are exhibited by the Claimant, but the page bearing the above mentioned Section 5 has been omitted entirely from the exhibit.
The river Trent at Barton-in-Fabis is approximately 150 feet wide and the MNC [as defined in C&RT dredging and maintenance documentation] is less than 40 feet wide on this section of the river. My boat has been moored against the privately owned riverbank at this location since the last PBC expired on 31 August 2015 and is therefore well outside of the MNC. Whilst it remains so, it is exempted from the requirement for a PBC under Section 4(1) of the 1971 Act.
Having now fully recovered from a lengthy and debilitating illness, I am presently undertaking repair and refitting work on my boat. On completion of this work it is, as C&RT have been made aware, my intention to apply for a new PBC prior to resuming use of the vessel on the river Trent and other adjoining waterways for which no boat Licence is required.
From line 10 :
C&RT is not entitled to remove my boat from 'the Property', or the waterway, under Section 8 of the 1983 British Waterways Act as is stated.
The statutory powers under the 1983 Act entitle C&RT to remove vessels 'sunk, stranded or abandoned' in any waterway, or to remove any vessel left or moored without 'lawful authority', in a waterway owned or controlled by them.
My boat is not 'sunk, stranded or abandoned', and the Common Law PRN applicable on the entire navigable length of the river Trent is the 'lawful authority' for my boat to be on the river Trent, with or without a current PBC.
Para.5 :
It is stated that my boat is moored on C&RT's 'Property'. This is untrue. The river bank to which the boat is moored is privately owned, and ownership extends to the centre of the river.
Para.6 :
In as far as this has any relevance to this Claim, this paragraph is a concoction of both distorted and misrepresented truths, half truths and untruths.
In January 2014 C&RT informed me that they had 'revoked' my boat Licence. This action was solely in order to facilitate a Claim, identical to the present one, to remove my boat from their waters.
At that time my boat, which was not Licensed, and did not need to be, but was registered by means of a current PBC, valid until 30 June 2014, was in constant, almost daily use, on the river Trent mainly between Barton-in Fabis and Holme Pierrepont, downriver from Nottingham, and was frequently and regularly moored overnight near to Holme Lock.
The grounds for revoking what C&RT incorrectly referred to as a Licence were variously stated as contraventions of Licence Terms and Conditions by either ''mooring too frequently and for too long whilst cruising'' or "not cruising sufficiently whilst mooring away from the boat's 'home' mooring'', or ''not complying with the C&RT Cruising Guidelines for boats without a 'home' mooring'', none of which makes any kind of sense, or are lawful grounds under Section 17(4) of the 1995 BW Act to terminate either a boat Licence or a PBC.
C&RT issued a Claim [No.A00NG769] in June 2014 for the removal of my boat from their waters, a Defence was filed, and I applied to renew my boat's PBC just prior to the normal annual renewal date on 1 July 2014, but C&RT refused the renewal of the PBC on the grounds that, despite having issued the two preceding annual PBC's on the basis of my having a 'home' mooring, a mooring where the boat could be lawfully kept when not in use, at Barton-in-Fabis, they now chose to believe that the mooring didn't really exist.
Para.7 :
After a further interval and confirmation from the landowner that my mooring really did exist C&RT issued, not a new Licence, but a new PBC for my boat, and Discontinued the Claim, whilst complaining that my use of the mooring that they had questioned the existence of, and my ongoing compliance with the statutory conditions for holding a PBC had rendered their Claim "worthless and academic".
Para.9, from lines 2 to 25.
C&RT's erroneous beliefs as to the extent of the main navigable channel [MNC] of a river navigation, and the unsupportable assertion that it extends over the full width of the river from bank to bank are shown to be incorrect in the wording of their own General Canal Byelaws.
Byelaw 19(1) states :~
Navigation of Pleasure boats:
19. (1) A pleasure boat when meeting, overtaking or being overtaken by a power-driven vessel other than a pleasure boat shall as far as possible keep out of the main navigable channel.
If, as C&RT claim, the MNC did extend for the full width of the navigation, then it would not be possible for any conventional vessel to comply with this Byelaw, and the only type of craft capable of compliance when confronted by either an oncoming or overtaking commercial vessel would be an amphibious vessel able to remove itself onto dry land under it's own power, or a canoe or similar craft which could be manhandled out of the water.
As either type of craft is in a very small minority of the vessels that customarily use, or have used, C&RT's navigable waterways, it is not conceivable that this Byelaw was drafted with such vessels in mind.
Para.19.
In making this specious Claim, C&RT are well aware that in the event of my compliance, at any time prior to trial, with their unlawful demands that I obtain that which they misleadingly and wrongly describe as a 'Rivers only Licence' for my boat whilst it is confined to use on a Scheduled, PRN River Navigation, they would be obliged to Discontinue, as they were, in similar circumstances, in July 2014.
I believe that, far from being necessary to (quote) - "enable C&RT to comply with it's statutory duty to ensure that the inland waterways controlled by C&RT are safe, well managed and properly conserved", this Claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief is both contemptuous of Statute, in that it disregards the distinction made between a boat Licence and a Pleasure Boat Certificate made in Section 5(1) of the 1971 BW Act and Section 17(1) of the 1995 BW Act, and amounts to an attempt to prevent an individual from exercising a Common Law Public Right, and that as such it is asking the Court to act beyond it's powers and jurisdiction.
I respectfully ask that the Claim be struck out.
Statement of Truth.
I believe that the facts stated in this Statement are true.
Dated day of 2016
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Anthony Kenneth Dunkley
Defendant
-
3
-
-
I've been looking at some images on the net, some bmc engines appear to be plumbed into the fuel tank straight from the leak rail without going to the filter head. Is that what you are suggesting Tony.
No, . . . there MUST be a tank return/bleed-off connection from the top of the filter head in order to ensure that the system is being constantly purged of any air that may have got in, before it reaches the injector pump.
As long as there is a route for a fuel/air return from the top of the filter to the top of the fuel tank, it matters not whether it goes there direct or joins up, at some point, or any point, with the injector leak-off.
-
Where woul l fit the return. I guessing it comes off the banjo that the spill rail * connects to, do I need a longer banjo bolt and a barb fitting.
That's one way of doing it, and is in fact, how some 1.8's and, as far as I know, all, or most, 1.5's were piped up from the factory.
There is, however, the alternative of running the return pipe across the front of the engine, and back to the tank in tandem with the lift pump feed pipe, from either a double or a two way banjo on the leak-off connection of No.1 injector.
Your engine may be piped up like this already, but without a photo showing No.1 injector [timing case end], we can only guess.
The flexible pipe connections in the photo's are distinctly 'iffy' and need improving. It looks as though the flexible is just pushed over a plain pipe stub, . . . they need changing to a nozzle fitting plus clip.
* The term 'spill rail' is now frequently, and wrongly, used when referring to injector leak-off piping or rails. In the context of diesel Fuel Injection, 'spill' is something entirely different, and 'spill cut-off ' is a method for setting injection timing on engines equipped with single or multi-element jerk pumps instead of the DPA type of injector pump, such as fitted to your engine.
-
Andrew Morris from CRT said levels were rising yesterday. Not been able to get home of him today. I guess CRT don't work weekends.
They don't achieve much during the week either.
-
Oh I see, you mean just a trial installation of prop on shaft in workshop, then dismantle to refit the shaft. Yes that would certainly work although one might be slightly nervous leaving the boat floating with no propshaft, I'd want to fit a dummy shaft.
It certainly does work very well, and it always has, . . ever since the standard tailshaft, sterngear and rudder layout for motor narrowboats evolved at the beginning of the last century.
No need for a dummy shaft, . . the normal method of blanking off the stuffing box end of the sterntube by reversing the packing follower and refitting it over a temporary blanking plate/pad [square and a good fit between the follower studs] and a suitable gasket after the shaft has been partially withdrawn has never been known to fail.
-
How would you get the shaft + prop back in with the rudder in the way?
You don't, . . . the tailshaft is removed/re-installed minus the propeller, and with the top bush/bearing loosened and lifted clear of the tube, and the rudder lifted out of the cup and to the side of the skeg.
The bench fitting and pre-assembly makes for satisfactory and easy underwater propeller/nut/pin re-fitting.
-
> . . . . . . . . . . . .
I'm just trying to work out if this is something that sounds like an out of water job,or if I may have to ask Sherborne wharf to tow us into their dry dock whenever possible.
If you need machine shop help, I'm not far away
Richard
Getting the tail shaft out with the boat in the water isn't difficult, if you go about it the right way. On some occasions getting the propeller off can be difficult, but you don't have that problem.
As you have the offer of machine shop facilities from Richard, your best plan would be to get the tailshaft out and get it over to him, with the propeller and all the rest of the bits.
The propeller, with a new key and nut, could then be bench fitted to the tailshaft to make for easy re-installation and re-assembly with boat in the water.
-
Don't bank on it. I would expect pistons and maybe conrods as well. That is if the diagnosis is correct.
I find the idea of a broken camsahft hard to reconcile with BMC engines unless it was a faulty casting from new. I also find the idea of the timing chain jumping a bit hard to accept. I have seen a 1.5 (admittedly different to a 1.8) with so much wear on the timing gear the chain had worn away the cover.
The 1.8's are nothing like as tolerant of worn chains and tensioners as the 1.5's. The timing chain is more than twice the length of the 1.5, and only engages with about one third of the teeth round the bottom of the crankshaft sprocket before passing over a fairly crappy spring loaded mechanical tensioner on it's way to the pump sprocket.
I've known a few that have jumped a tooth and bent valves and pushrods, and occasionally cracked or broken a rocker or two, but as you say, a broken camshaft would be something of a first.
I did alert the owner of this one to the possibility of the timing chain having jumped a tooth last night on the phone, and for the benefit of any other owners of 1.8's with more than 2500 hours on the clock, I would recommend renewing both timing chain and tensioner as a maintenance precaution against breakdown and engine damage.
It's really quite hard to understand why, having made a distinct improvement on the 1.5 by going to a 5 x bearing crank on the 1.8, the makers then spoiled the engine with such a badly designed and engineered mess in the timing case.
-
The boat has been used as a live-aboard by a member of the family for a number of years. I haven't been on the boat for a few years. I know they has used a generator for a while rather than using the engine to charge the batteries. They're also shot and the second alternator has bearing issues!
One issue is where to get a banjo bolt from. I'm not at the boat for a few days and don't know the likely thread size etc. I assume imperial from the sizes of the nuts. It looks like someone has used a plain bolt on the filter body!
Many thanks for all the help. I added the photo to confirm the fuel direction after your posts as I had assumed the connections were correct.
I shall be at the boat this w/e and hope to be in a position to at least swap over the pipes.
Swapping the feed and return pipes from filter to pump won't do anything to re-instate the fuel/air bleed from the top of the filter head back to the tank, and it is essential that this is done.
You should be able to get a suitable banjo bolt and washers, and an NRV/check valve for the pump to filter return from a Fuel Injection engineers, or you could try ASAP Supplies or Calcutt Boats. It also looks as though you may need a new throttle cable, and the throttle control lever on the injector pump needs re-positioning a couple of holes clockwise on the throttle spindle. The max. rpm and idling rpm adjustment stop screws are missing and should be replaced and the maximum governed speed re-set to no more than 3600 rpm.
With the max. rpm stop screw missing it will be possible to rev the engine to destruction once the fuel system has been sorted out.
-
I have removed the gauze and the springs etc from the hexagon nut and cleaned the, although they were not that dirty. The engine is running much better with only the occasional surge but it's still not right. I think it's best that I take the pump off and take it to the local diesel specialist so they can sort it. I'm wary of doing it myself and as its a 1800 I would have to take all the injector pipes off if I was going to take the end plate off.
What exactly does 'etc' comprise ? . . . there are a number of small parts under the large hexagon fitting in the endplate, some of which are difficult to nigh on impossible to remove/re-assemble with the endplate in situ, . . . 2 x washers, 3 x springs, a plunger and a peg in a sleeve, the transfer pressure adjuster, and the small cylindrical nylon gauze filter.
The fact that the engine is now running better after the transfer pressure regulating valve assembly has been disturbed does suggest that the internals may be gummed up, and not operating correctly.
I'm baffled by your comment re. the injector pipes. You will have to remove all the injector pipes anyway, irrespective of whether you're just taking the endplate off the transfer pump or removing the complete injector pump.
It may help if you could post some photo's of the entire fuel system from tank to injectors, . . . there is another thread running at the moment on a BMC 1.5 [almost identical fuel system] that's behaving in a similar fashion to yours, and it is now evident, since a photo was posted, that the pipework has been messed about with in a way which will almost certainly induce similar problems.
-
For info:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7n2d67zhujudvv0/2016-07-25-2051.jpg?dl=0
Having little knowledge of these pumps, I wasn't initially aware of which filter input/output should be attached to which end of the pump. Something tells me these have been fitted the wrong way round.
The injector leak-off pipe is routed back to the sedimentary "filter". A little diesel does leak out between the nut and bolt threads, perhaps expectedly. I have a domed nut than should solve that issue with a coper washer. I don't think ingress of air here would cause the symptoms I'm getting.
That photo may well be showing the cause of your problems, . . . the fuel system piping on the engine is all to cock.
The pipes between the secondary filter [the one mounted on the cylinder head above the flywheel housing] are the wrong way round, . . . the pipe to the injector pump inlet connection [big hexagon fitting on the pump endplate] should run from outlet connection No.3 on the fuel filter head, and the return pipe, from the engine block end of the injector pump body, should go into inlet connection No.4 via a non-return valve.
The injector leak off pipe banjo should not be connected to the tank return pipe banjo with what appears to be an ordinary nut and bolt. They should both be connected, by means of an extended [long] banjo bolt with a small centre drilling [to restrict bleed back volume] into the boss adjacent to the centre bolt on top of the filter head into which someone has fitted a blanking plug.
With the piping arranged and routed as described above, as it would have been originally, the low volume bleed off of fuel back to the tank from the top of the filter head constantly purges out any small quantity of air, which may get into the system between the tank and the lift pump, before it find it's way into the injector pump.
Before undertaking any dismantling/cleaning of the pressure regulating valve and gauze in the injector pump endplate, you need to re-pipe back to the original/correct layout, and change the filter element [because any muck in there will then be on the wrong 'side' of it].
We may possibly have got to the cause of your problems a little sooner if you had posted that photo at the start of this topic.
-
I don't have it in front of me right now, but the engine has two alternators in an arrangement not entirely dissimilar to http://www.calcuttboats.com/wpimages/wp6a6b69de_06.png- as far as I can tell this belt only drove the one alternator (the nearer one in that picture, at least the belt isn't long enough to go round anything else), the second belt remained intact. Am I right in thinking that the water pump is driven by the large pulley immediately above the crankshaft? If so then this was still turning.
Thanks for your offer to come and take a look, Tony, I'm down on the Thames near Staines so might be a bit far for you?
Yes that is the engine circulating pump pulley so that's good news in that it immediately eliminates the possibility of any overheating damage.
To diagnose the problem there are various checks and procedures that you can do yourself whilst being talked through what you're doing over the phone.
I'm busy just now, getting some grass cutting done before it gets dark, but if you would like to call me later on 07486 541302 we can probably get a bit closer to tracking down what's gone wrong.
1.5 from cold starts, then dies and won't restart!
in BMC
Posted · Edited by Tony Dunkley
That is a bleed screw/blanking plug shown in the photo, but the threads on it are too flat on the crests and look not to have been properly formed, . . . . which won't have done the thread in the filter head any good, and is probably why it now appears to be a bigger and finer.
The brass banjo on the end of the leak-off rail goes onto that boss [with the now knackered thread] on top of the filter head, underneath [and hence commonned with] the banjo on the engine end of the tank return pipe.
The ID of the banjos that connect the leak-off rail to the four x injector cap-nuts isn't relevant to any of this.