Tony Brooks

I confirm what Stephen said. Definitely a 1.5 and unless it has had an engine change it is an early Madeira because it is a sort of mishmash of heat exchanger cooling and direct raw water cooling. The manifold is the original direct cooling type here as the header tank cum heat exchanger is more modern than some, because the original "across the front" heat exchanger as a totally separate unit. It is a more modern alternator though, that you could replace with an A127 for a maximum 70 amps output. I am surprised it is branded Captain because that was the name from the official BMC mariniser and Meakes, I know, did their own marinisation. However, all 1.5/Captain parts should fit so Calcutt Boats can supply and advise. Be aware that the RAW water pumps (Jabsco) have gone through a whole slew of types, and obsolescence and if you need a new one, the last time I looked it was £300+. Go by the size of rubber impeller because there are at least two sizes of pump (Direct raw water and indirect - heat exchange/keel cooling) I would strongly advise that you remove, clean and replace if needed, the injector pump skew gear oil strainer and jet, It is a service procedure, but often they are overlooked and if it blocks you could be looking at a new camshaft and pump drive gear. If you want to know anything else feel free to ask. PS I am almost sure the boat was made from the Elysian moulds, so it is very similar to an aft cockpit Eysian 27.

Oh. I don't know, but think he may have flounced. 😁

Added for clarity: If that arm drops on the pivot at the engine end while in use it is likely to snap one of the alternator end brackets, I suspect the front would be the most likely, and the pulley would run out of alignment, causing rapid belt wear.

What it sparked in my mind was the way early Liverpool boats had separate cabin sides and roof, with the roof folded down over the top of the cabin sides.

However, the two fixing eyes on alternators, not the adjusting eye, need to be in line with each other and permanently kept in line. I can't see how that strap that is fixed to the engine at one end can ever be relied on to keep the back mounting point in the correct position unless it is braced or fixed to prevent rotation on the engine end bolt in same way. Just getting rid of the play can't be a long term answer, simply relying on friction between the two engine lugs and the boss on the strap can never be reliable, especially in view of the thickness of those lugs.

Same for me, and I am grateful when people point them out to me, so I can edit the post.

I think that you may have got that back to front, Tonka said he thought TEST POINTS were being outlawed. However I suspect, like Nick, it is towpath confusion between the BSS and GSIUR demands. One live-aboard gets told that a BSS inspector with no gas ticket can't test the gas in his home without a bubble tester and it suddenly becomes "test points are banned".

and even if it had, it is not too onerous to flat back with fine wet & dry, used wet, and repaint.

Professional, yes, DIY, nowhere near that amount, I doubt it would cost a DIYer £1000 in materials, and the OP seemed interested in the DIY option.

As BEngo told you, it is feasible to prep and paint your boat outside and along the cut, but it takes a long time because once you put paint on an area it needs to dry before you prep another area. and you have to wait for suitable weather. When I did mine (whole cabin sides at a time), I dried off and painted fairy early - after the dew had gone, and then went out for most of the day while the point dried. You do not need a boat shed for the heavy-duty prep work this one will need, but you will need power for tools, so that probably means a generator, but remember BEngo's advice about applying non-porous primer. A paint shed or covered dock will make paining faster, but it would not take a whole summer, BEngo said 4 to 6 weeks for the whole job or 1 to 2 for just the painting. I am not saying this boat is worth pursuing. but you need to look back through the forum to get a feel for who seems to have a good idea about the advice they give and who can be a bit "dramatic". It will be a lot of work, but you will know it has been done well, which you won't know if it had been painted up for sale. Note that more than one person gave you advice about the job and possible problem areas, only one was negative.

Sorry, mistype, I should have said it will not hurt to soak

If you are correct, and you may well be, the marks/distortion along the top suggest that it has been tack welded along its length rather than continuousely and that would seem to be an ideal invitation for rusting.

I would do exactly as I suggested, but it won't help to soak them with proper penetrating oil. Even better if you can use tissue or rag to keep the oil on them overnight. I suspect that may come out far easier than you fear.

FWIW the images around the engine area look as expected on an older boat and far better than many. What does give me concerns is that black strip along the top of the cabin side, bridging the area where the cabin side joins the roof/handrail. It looks as if it is a separate piece of material (not necessary cloth, just something unidentified), and it looks as if rust is creeping down from below it. I wonder what it is hiding and why it was fitted. I wonder if it is hiding rust holes or something.

I would get the engine nice and warm and hen "worry" them out. That is TIGHTEN a little then loosen by a similar amount and gradually increase how far you loosen them each time. At least they are likely to be the modern "thick" ones, not the easily snapped pins like 1.5s use.

I agree, but can the OP weld, or is whoever he employs used to doing that kind of welding. I suspect it would have to be stick welded because of the thickness of metal involved.

Yes, but I would not like to try it with either a cast iron or aluminium block. Too close for my liking.

I suspect this might refer to some marina's practices to charge a fee even if the boat is sold by another broker or privately. That is easy enough to circumvent, but it does not stop them trying it on. I have not heard what the OP asks about but can see this may have been ruled illegal.

Thanks for that. It is what I suspected it was. I expect the holes are worn by constant vibration as is the thread by the look of it, and regrettably I can't think of a simple/easy way of solving it. I think even if you fund a dowel bolt that has a slightly oversized shank to take the play out there would still be problems because there is nothing to clamp that arm it the correct angular position. I don't know how PSA fitted the alternators in vehicles, but am all but sure it was not using that. Looking at the double lug where the bolt with the play runs through. It looks as if those lugs have been welded to the engine block that seems an odd think to do. Can you find three screws/bolts, or two at a pinch, that you could use to fix a rigid bracket to the engine with it outer hole in the same position as where the movable arm's one is. It would have to be made from say 6mm plate and bent at a right angle so one side fits tight against the block and the other is in the correct position for the alternator mount. I think that I can see the top of an engien mount stud in your video. Another way could be to make up a long and strong strap, bent up and twisted to fit, that runs between the mount stud (nutted down tight onto the mount nut) and the back alternator bolt, so that arm is held in the correct position. I wonder if this is the result of fitting a non-standard, larger, alternator or fitting twin alternators. If you look carefully you might find the now redundant original back mounting point.

The air is contained either by a bladder like a football bladder or balloon with the neck fixed to the valve, or a diaphragm between two halves of the metal canister, so it does not matter how you mount the, the air pressure and bladder/diaphragm will force water out of wherever the outlet is. But there are a few that typically are shaped like a lemonade bottle that have to be mounted vertically with the outlet at the bottom because there is nothing separating the air and water. The accumulator in question is a diaphragm/bladder type so how it is fitted is of little consequence, apart from getting easy access to the air valve. Yes, it is to do with central heating ones being protected against corrosion by antifreeze/inhibitor in the water. Potable ones are either internally coated with glass or something like epoxy or the water is contained in the bladder. In the short term either will do, but a central heating one is likely to rust out. This sort of thing has been raised many times before, but it hits the same problems. Who decides what is useful and what is not, who edits the threads to cut out the rubbish, and who has the time to make the wiki. The forum is a treasure trove of information IF the user cares to look for it, but time and time again it has been shown people are not prepared to search.

That is absolutely appalling. There should be no good reason to cut into the marinisers wiring harness. Fitting a bus bar and link lead under the panel would suffice with only moving on of the mariniser's connections from ignition switch to the bus bar. I fear that if you do go to court then as soon as you look like winning you will find the company has liquidated itself so you are left to pay your court and lawyers' fees. It has happened before and will happen again. I suspect it would be cheaper to pay for the rectification yourself, however much it galls, but certainly talk to Trading Standards via Citizens Advice because it seems the event has proven the boat was not of merchantable quality and did not meet the RCR (was RCD) standard that is legally required. It seems the builder falsified (unintentionally?) the RCR documentation which is an offence - you do have the full RCR documentation and correct hull markings I assume. Do not hold your breath on this, Trading Standards seem to do very little prosecuting RCR infringements. Name and shame I say so others can be warned. PS I thought for a moment, from the topic title, that the control (Morse) cables had caught fire. If they had then it is a symptom of no proper 12V negative earth bond cable to the engine.

Here we go again, lashing out and/or ignoring things that do not suit. I am pleased Arthur seems to have him on ignore after his earlier outburst. I could say a lot more, but best keep quiet. Edited to add: I wonder why?

Well, no more evidence unless you were prepared to look for it, which you obviously aren't, and it was EXACTLY the same advice that the forum gave you weeks ago, and I know I explained why and how on at least one occasion. The fact you presented it as something new and claimed that you had to think about it strongly suggest you ignored what you were told before - I wonder why, that is all just wonder. As you admit there are numerous variations you should see that we don't know what your layout is or anything about your deck drains etc. However, you were asked for more information as to the relative positions of the rear bulkhead, the engine, the calorifier, and to confirm if the rear bulkhead is totally sealed to the hull sides and baseplate and if it has holes to allow water to drain through. A simple sketch was suggested. This was also ignored - I wonder why, that is all just wonder. The reason all this is important is because the bulkhead locations and if it is sealed or not aids the diagnosis of where potential leaks may be - behind or in front of the bulkhead. I also note that there we have never been offered a photo, however blurry, showing the relative locations of those items. I wonder why, that is all, just wonder. So you were awaiting a plumber to look at the calorifier, no report of what he has told you has been forthcoming, so presumably he has not yet been, and you order a new calorifier for over £700 from Ebay, but can't get a camera or phone that takes clear photos. This is not a logical action and fault-finding by substitution is a very expensive way of doing things. That is unless you really have identified the leak and not told us, but as you don't know exactly where it is leaking from AND at one time you claimed the leak had stopped with the pump turned on, apparently ignoring being told that as the calorifier inlet was not isolated so it was still pressurised, it all seems very illogical and fixated. I wonder why, that is all, just wonder. Your interpretation of what I told you, not actually what you were told. especially as you do not make it clear WHERE you were looking for air or water to come out, I wonder why -etc. If no air came out of the accumulator valve when you pushed the valve pin down then all that means is that it has no air pressure in it, it does not tell you why. To determine that needs further tests. If water came out of the accumulator valve when you pushed the valve pin down it DOES mean that accumulator is knackered. When you open a tap with the pump OFF and pump air into the accumulator some water, but not air should come out of the open TAP. If a mixture of water and air of just air comes out of the tap it means the accumulator is almost certainly knackered UNLESS you had drained the system down so no water was in it. But the location and watertightness of the rear bulkhead is vital to draw conclusions from that, something you have not made clear. Based on what you have reported and the photos it SUGGESTS that the bulkhead is not watertight, but I think that you have claimed that it is. Just another contradiction that hinders faultfinding. I wonder etc. Yes, correct, but not if there are obstructions to the flow like a sealed bulkhead or blocked limber holes in floor bearers. How do you know about the calorifier? Did the plumber take it out and show you or have you physically found the leak, neither of which you have clearly communicated with us. Water pooling around it could be from another source, but you seem fixated by the calorifier leaking. The taps weren't to blame for what? If you mean water pooling around the calorifier then yes, but that was never in question. If you mean the pump running with the taps closed running at short intervals then you are not right. ANY, I repeat ANY leak out of the pressurised system will cause the pump to run at intervals when it would not normally do so. That includes dripping taps, plumbing leaks, or back leakage back into the bulk water tank. You seemed to accept this from the other boater, but not from the forum. I wonder why - just wonder. If you don't like the conclusions my wondering leads me to consider this post may show you how and what you need to communicate so such conclusions can not, legitimately be drawn.