BilgePump

Fantastic. Same age as my dad and his mates. They're still up for the canals but can't imagine them, me or you thinking it would be a laugh to get in that bateau for so long regardless of where it was floating. Hat is off and double respect; yep the cool dude had to be French!

If anyone needs an extra pair of hands or just walking company in the area, I live near lock 65 and can add a bit of extra middle aged lock work if needed. If I'm not on my own boat, I'd be glad to help passage/company for any boat coming through this way.

Realistically, D and A are both probably retired by now. But, in 1991, if they were very good at welding, had an understanding of the NB evolution, had marine engineering contacts who could fit appropriate engines and others who could fit them out then it could well be a good boat. If if is nearly three decades old, well kept and you like it, I guess it's not a basketcase.

I've seen home builds that have been incredibly well thought out labours of love and the next owner is grateful to get the opportunuity to take it on. Maybe they only built one, but heck, it was a good one. On the other hand anyone could string together some oil drums with a bit of scaffolding, a shed, and call it a 'desirable floating abode'.

at least the plastic duck is only one step removed from a real duck and not that strange place called apolloduck Yesterday on the Peak Forest I saw a weird purple/green/blue duck. It shimmered like covered in fuel but obviously healthy. Now I look on Google they're quite common!

Taken in the spirit the comment was meant Tumsh :-) Best wishes to the happy couple xx eta: Welcome Catali and sorry for diverting your post. No idea about the builder but that's not to be negative. There have been loads of builders who have only done a few boats but that's not to say they're no good. Build spec, recent survey etc. Look at those.

Bloomin' 'eck. Last time I looked there were over 20,000 member on this forum. Sorry Tumsh, just had to be pedantic ? xx

Yes, the 'measurable gap' can be anything. BSS guy said I could have got away with the 2*950mm gap between the doors. Without gas prob able to be a bit more lenient but it had enough anyway with the Louvre.

Can't answer that but I too would be interested to know if someone else can provide one. I'd already got the plywood door in place and my boat in the water before realising that as the opening vents in the side of the hull weren't 'fixed' they couldn't be counted. Consequently, I had to cut the hole in a rush with a pad-saw and it's not the prettiest job on the inside so I thought about tidying it up with another louvre sandwiching the ply. Didn't do it though because I didn't know how an examiner would calculate the airspace with one on each side and didn't want to necessitate a re-test which would have meant more time and money wasted on another short term licence (boat had never been on CaRT waters before and never had a BSS cert so couldn't get a long term licence until I had the BSS pass).

On the type of vent you've linked to, without being able to see exactly how they're constructed and the sizes of the holes / gaps, it may be nigh impossible to get anything other than a pretty wild guess on the airspace they will give. Surely MC should have a tech sheet for them somewhere, given their safety function. Like said in the preceding post, it's prob a case of asking them to have a look on/in the box. They're described as a Taiwanese copy of another so poss not properly certed but maybe MC could at least give you an 'unofficial' idea of the size of the originals. They do look smart if they will be big enough for your mm2 requirement. With all the talk of louvre vents in this thread (despite not being the type the OP is wanting to fit) I realised just before the BSS test that I had to have fixed ventilation on the boat even without gas so just got some louvvres for £1.50 each from toolstation. After having tried and failed to work out their bloomin' airspace beforehand, when I got them, it was stamped on the packet! The ones that cover up to a max of 9"x3" openings give over 3000mm2 iirc. The bigger ones, for a 9"x6" opening, provide 8500mm2 airspace. That should give an idea of the size of louvre vent needed to give that kind of airspace, although these ones are only thin and cheap aluminium, don't have any CE markings and say not suitable for venting gas appliances.

People used to take the mick out of Springers 40 years ago when they were seen as the equivalent of a Lada and the steel a few mm thinner than contemporary builds. The fact that plenty of them are still going strong with little loss of steel when a load of boats from 'better' builders have gone for scrap must say something. Quality of initial steel, treatment, marina environment (stray electric), maintenance etc will all come into play. Sea going boats don't need 10mm of steel, no actual need for a canal going boat to have it. Just that it costs very little extra in cost of steel to beef up all the thicknesses. eta: poorly phrased about sea boats v NBs. Sticking a great thick baseplate on a leisure narrowboat can make a lot of sense. It will last, you won't need as much ballast, shallower bilge, more headroom possible, but not a necessity. The narrowboat design is basically something to carry freight and should be able to carry hundreds of kilos per foot of length. Extra thickness in the steel doesn't need to worry the modern NB owner. If a few mil on the steel adds a few tons overall its easy to accommodate. They're not going to be loading up with twenty tons of coal. Compare this to a yacht design that may be perfectly ballasted by keels and perform well if built out of 6mm steel. If you built the same thing in 10mm the boat could well be a deathtrap. TLDR; if it was built with 6mm and it's still got near enough the same, and you intend to maintain it, then quite possibly a better proposition than a 10mm shell peppered with 2mm pits

Watched timewatch last night about Cook. Very good https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D-5ApP0jr5Wg&ved=2ahUKEwiE0fjm2tLiAhVVtXEKHWd0C9QQwqsBMAB6BAgHEAU&usg=Aovvaw1ikxohu5-ntgnstaqmuis8

As far as I understand .site is the top level domain (TLD) (operated by DotSite Inc) business.site is the second level domain which is registered to Google (registrar MarkMonitor provide management services to big brands). Google give out third level domains free to businesses at addresses like bobthebuilder.business.site .- consequently, you can't search for registrant info on these third level domains via usual WHOIS lookup. It is like me giving out free third level domains for you to build a site at for example yourname.mybusinessname.com . The registry only has details related to mybusinessname.com. Anything at the third level will be managed by the nameservers I have pointed mybusinessname.com to and not known to the registrar or TLD registry operator.

Can I just point out that the address https://victory-narrowboats.business.site/ is as far as we know a legitimate small company. See the comments by the OP and owner of that single page site. It is the fake brokerage site with ridiculously cheap boats that was on display at victory-narrowboats.c0.uk (no link for scammers) that caused the OP to draw our attention to it in the first place. It is actually still live now I check ?

I sincerely hope that this is because the hosting company have finally acted and not because the site has snared someone and parted them from their money. The DNS record still points to namecheap hosting.

Well, those figures seem to be a more accurate way of averaging things out and reflect the fact that the maintenance at over £200 per month (and coming in with bills most months) will be a far greater consideration than the rounding error of less than £4 per month for the BSS test.

For fuels Heffalump and Kudzucraft have very different monthly figures, but both may be entirely accurate forecasts to cover their requirements. 100 / 40 / 13 (£153) vs. 42 / 25 / 12 (£79) for Diesel / coal / gas - over £850 pa difference. Start with the reasonably accurately knowns and then try to make an educated guess for those unknown (long term repairs) or variables (fuels). Aggregated out I think that Heffalump's ability to set aside £700 per month and with some practical ability to do the DIY it is a sensible figure to keep a boat of the type he mentions especially if a mooring isn't required.

No need to apologise, I could have been more diplomatic and I realise that your costs will not be typical of the average UK boat owner. I imagine visa and health cover do not come cheap. I was just trying to emphasise that if we include things like blacking, usually every 3yrs and BSS every 4yrs into monthly calculations then we should look at the cost of boat ownership over a much longer time scale and that must include provision for major repairs. For those of us that couldn't afford an unexpected bill running into thousands, we would have to build up and maintain a contingency fund from month one. The running costs of consumables like diesel, gas, coal, having a TV, washer, having a huge battery bank do not fundamentally affect the integrity of the boat or put you in contravention of CaRT rules should you suddenly cut back on them drastically. Bills related to the boat and keeping it in good condition in the water can be either accurately known and budgeted for or covered by the contingency fund. Bills related to lifestyle and requirements can vary wildly.

I'm not wanting to bicker but I would think the CaRT licence is more than a miscellaneous expense and can be budgeted for as a known cost, be that paid monthly or paid annually and put aside each month. I would look at priorities being things like Licence, Mooring (if required, even CCers sometimes need to put into a marina for a few weeks), Insurance, BSS, essential maintenance including engine servicing and blacking to avoid the boat deteriorating, a contingency fund for bigger problems, diesel to move it and provide hot water and electric. Then as much coal, gas, internet and smart stuff as you require and can afford.

My sympathies go to the OP, it's a horrible thing to have happen. The two part locks that go over the clamps, and where the lock is an integral part, do the job. You can't just use a pair of bolt cutters like on a padlock. However, the sad thing is that the scrotes will just use an angle grinder to remove part of the transom along with the engine. Years ago that happened to a boat my dad had and they made off with a 40hp Johnson. The OP's post mentioned a repair bill in addition to the engine so it didn't sound as though they had removed it cleanly. That said, it's easier for the amateur to do GRP repairs than work with steel and like Kernunnos points out even the smallest, cheapest engine will move a small cruiser. I'm a big fan of Seagull engines but the direct drive single gear ones (no neutral or reverse on models like the forty plus) could get a bit hairy in some situations on the canal. I tried it with a small Mariner 3.3hp engine with only neutral and forward, having to spin it for reverse. A bit too difficult on a cruiser where you can't reach too far over the back and I ended up running bow on into the armco trying to spin the engine round. A cheap two stroke with forward and reverse gears, old but working, seems to be in the region of £120+.

With a a forty year old Yam o/b and a GRP hull, I don't think I'll have those problems now!

Not being rude but if phone and internet are budgeted as costing more than maintenance, pumpouts, moorings and repairs combined, we're entering Narnia territory. You can know exactly what a broadband bill will be but when something sounds nasty in the engine bay, is it a few quid or a few months wages to fix?