Jump to content

Bargebuilder

Member
  • Posts

    886
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by Bargebuilder

  1. I've cruised the East coast for 25 years and lived aboard a barge in tidal waters, rising and falling 10 feet or so twice each day without issue, but we were in a mudberth with access to fairly solid ground. 

     

    In your area, large tides are always around lunchtime or early afternoon, so don't coincide with the daily commute for most people and don't imped ones path across a salt marsh.

     

    Outside of marinas, pretty much everyone flushes their toilet directly into the sea, as there are no pump-out facilities that I am aware of within a day's sailing of Brightlingsea: a tiny minority use composting toilets. Liveaboards in marinas use marina toilets when convenient and sail out of the marina to pump out their holding tank into the sea. 

     

    When using a sea toilet, your fresh water onboard lasts MUCH longer, but if on a swinging mooring, taking a large steel vessel into a marina for water when you need it will be nerve wracking, with very little room for manoeuvring amongst some very expensive plastic boats.

     

    There are local swinging moorings for a few hundred pounds a year, but you are responsible for your own ground tackle. There are even mudberths a mile's walk from the nearest car park for less than £100 a year, but neither are convenient or suitable for liveaboard use.

     

     

  2. 28 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

    In my experience of marine leisure boats (reasonable, but far less than my military seafaring), I've rarely moored near a vessel I thought looked as if the owner has absolutely no concept of boat safety as I have on canals. The odd one, yes, but this is perhaps the distinction.

    @Alan de Enfield has more leisure cruising experience than me though, and has done extensive cruising in both inland and marine environments, so may well be able to comment more definitively.

    You are absolutely correct, but those boats on the cut that have no concern for safety are likely the very ones that don't have BSCs.

     

    I'll bet that there are tens of thousands of coastal boats that wouldn't pass the BSS inspection if it were compulsory: no CO detectors, glass water separator bowls on the diesel filter, too much petrol carried in cans, hoses not to the correct standard etc. Yet no statistics showing that accident rates are higher than on the canals.

  3. 14 minutes ago, MartynG said:

    I don't think they are.

    The bss are quite open about the need for a business case to be made amd they are clear about their fees for training and for processing certificates

     

    That didn't stop our BSS examiner moaning about how it would take him more years to pay off the costs than he had left before he retired: I didn't ask the details.

     

     

  4. 48 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

    Clearly a boat with (insert name of realistic BSS failure here) is less safe than one without the hazard.

    But if the percentage of boats on inland waterways that fail is applied to sea boats, then amongst sea boats one would expect huge numbers of undetected 'unsafe' boats and a proportionally higher number of accidents and deaths; are there?

     

    If there are not, then the BSS certificate doesn't seem to be making much difference.

     

    It would seem that prospective examiners are lured into the ridiculously expensive training process with an unrealistic expectation of a decent financial return. 

  5. 5 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

    Remember that the BSS is not there to protect boaters from dangers on their craft - it's to protect other boats and the general public from someone mooring a potential hazard nearby. This potential risk to others, rightly or wrongly, is seen as a greater risk on inland waterways than in the marine environment. Only the recently added CO alarm requirement explicitly targets  boat owners' own safety.

    Indeed, but does it?

     

    The only 'control' experiment we have is to compare accidents in tested craft with those which are not tested.

     

     

     

  6. 2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

     

    I'd also suggest that a GRP 'Sea Boat" costing single figure £'000s will be in far better condition than a similar priced steel NB and, is likely to have fewer 'safety faults'.

    The shell of the boat certainly, but surely not the bits of the boat that the boat safety inspector is interested in.

     

    Coastal marina's are full of boats with affluent owners, but so are inland marinas, so both are likely to have well maintained boats. Even more coastal boats use swinging moorings or mud berths and are maintained on a tiny budget if at all, similar to many continuous inland cruisers. 

     

    Can fresh water boat owners really be less well informed over safety matters or less willing to take responsibility for safety or even less affluent and able to pay for professionals to do the work than owners of coastal boats.

     

     

  7. 7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

     

     

    I think on the whole, the boating fraternity ethos on 'lumpy water' is very different to that on the canals.

     

    There will be extremes in both factions but IMO there is not the 'subsitute for cheap housing' on salt-water, there is not the facilities of "tie up to the towpath" that there is on the canals & there is not the infrastructure of water, elsan emptying and toilets, access to shops etc

    Yes there is the ability to anchor up in some deserted bay FoC but that is not sustainable for many folk. Marina moorings are expensive, and could not be used by 'those on a budget' (no different to the canal users). There are swinging moorings, which are cheaper than in a marina but then you need to run a tender to get to shore. A frying mooring is not easy to use as there can be no access to and from the boat for many hours per day.

     

    Yes, there are salt-water 'project boats' bought and sold but those buying generally seem to have the resources to rebuild 'properly' whilst many canal boat projects (as we so often see on the forum) are folks dreaming of being a boat owner, or getting onto the first rung of the housing ladder and have no idea of the work needed, or the cost, of rebuilding a derelict boat.

     

    Generalisations - Yes, but that is how I see it from over 40 years of being on 'both sides' of the divide.

     

     

    I agree with your generalisations, but for the few that do it, living on a yacht in a coastal marina, on average costs a lot less than living on a narrowboat in an inland marina, if only because of the length difference.

     

    If you don't live aboard, you can get a mud berth or a swinging mooring for less than £150 per year and there is no annual licence fee or BSC to pay for either, so it can be a cheap hobby.

     

    With tens of thousands of sea boats costing less than 5k and very low running costs possible, there are many owners with minimal budgets, so perhaps 'safety' spending might be neglected. If the BSC was effective, I'd expect considerably more explosions, fires, CO poisonings on the tens of thousands of cheap coastal boats where inspections aren't required. 

  8. 10 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

    I would say that is a mixed answer. Lots of boats not requiring a BSS will be very well maintained, but some as has been shown with fires and CO deaths have not. How many on the inland waterways would be maintained to a very unsafe level with no BSS?

    Agreed, but the same could be said about salty boats.

     

    Are there fewer fires and CO deaths on inland boats than on salty boats?

  9. 1 hour ago, Sea Dog said:

    Since this is completely the opposite of my experience, did you mean former rather than latter? Or do you need to expand on your own experience for balance?

    My last BSS inspector operated my gas bubble detector, then sat drinking tea whilst asking me questions about my safety systems without looking for himself; useless! 

     

    I have two boats, one salty, the other fresh and I am very happy that both are safe, even though only one of them has ever been inspected.

     

    Nobody seems to be able to produce any evidence that inland boats requiring BSCs suffer fewer accidents than the much more numerous salty boats that don't.

     

    There is plenty of evidence, however, that a lot of people make a lot of money out of the BSS gravy train.

     

    • Greenie 1
  10. 2 minutes ago, peterboat said:

    Two of the boats on our moorings use canal water for flushing neither have had problems I have heard of, it might on a holding tank add valuable bacteria?

    My experience is from 30 years of coastal cruising, so I can't speak for river water, although I'd say canal water was more laden with organic matter than sea water.

     

    Sea water, however, gives a stunning display of phosphorescence if you flush in the dark!

    • Greenie 1
  11. 4 minutes ago, IanD said:

    I've often wondered why boats on inland waterways (e.g. narrowboats) don't do the same, it would certainly mean refilling the water tank lass often. Maybe it's just that canal water is sometimes rather dirty compared to river/seawater?

    Unless you live aboard and flush the toilet every day, even sea water, if left stagnant in the toilet's U bend for a week will start to smell, so a tap water flush prior to leaving the boat is essential.

  12. 19 minutes ago, DShK said:

    The list of users is truly impressive; huge, demanding companies.

     

    The product is well established in the arguably more rigorous marine environment, but yet to get the foothold it deserves in the inland waterway market. It will take a few brave boat owners prepared to make the change and spread the word. 

  13. 5 hours ago, blackrose said:

    I had a look on their website which I found a bit confusing

    I used the RA 500 range of products, but that was the best part of 15 years ago, so if I were you I'd speak to their technical chap for up to date advice on their current range.

     

    The website is designed for the commercial market where the stuff is purchased by the pallet load, not for private individuals who want a few tins, although they are very happy to supply.

    I guess that water authorities, BNF, ship builders, BP etc have their own technical experts, so Chemco aim their website at them; just a guess. 

  14. 15 minutes ago, dmr said:

    You keep advertising this company, if their stuff is really good then it would be great, I'm tempted to get a bit and try it, but I have concerns.

     

    This huge international marine coatings company looks to be mostly a small bunch of marketing men operating out of a medium sized unit on an industrial estate in Scotland. There is a retired technical man who maybe got his knowledge when "associated" with another company. They sell almst 40 products so must be buying this stuff in, or at least contracting out their manufacturing. Who is formulating it?

     

    How can such a small marketing company match the research and expertise of somebody like Jotun?

     

    Its not impossible, Reactive Resins were a one man show and they made some decent stuff, but there are alarm bells, and if something is "too good to be true" then ...........

     

    My guess is that this stuff has a significant disadvantage that we are not aware of.

     

    Do you use your boat and take it through locks etc? and does this stuff stay on? I believe that glass flakes can make a brittle coating that might fail on impacys when the stell moves a bit???

     

    I don't buy your theory that boatyards won't use it because its too good, more likely they are not convinced it will last long term, or its higher cost is not justified by better performance. The last thing a boatyard wants is getting a bad reputation due to an epoxy failing after a couple of years.

    I have no idea where Chemco do their manufacturing, but I have used glass flake myself and seen it used on several other coastal vessels. Thinking back, mine must have been on for 14 or 15 years -where do the years go?-  and still looks good.

     

    There is no doubt that if you hit concrete hard enough, any coating will be scratched off, but the hardness of the aligned glass flakes without doubt increases the coatings resistance to abrasion; just try and rub it back with abrasive paper if you need convincing.

     

    Look at the commercial applications where it's trusted.

     

    You are right, my barge is mainly coastal, with occasional visits inland, but it is in salt water and has a half tide mooring so it scapes the gravelly sea bed twice each day; not a kind environment for hull coatings.

     

    Chemco's version of glass flake (it is sold by others too), once cured remains flexible. If after several weeks you return to the roller tray you used, you can peel off a 2 or 3mm thickness and bend it back and forth without it fracturing.

     

    Fortunately, Chemco will supply 1litre pots, so you really don't have to take my word for it, try it for yourself and any concerns you have will evaporate.

    • Greenie 1
  15. Just now, blackrose said:

     

    Are you sure you don't have shares in Chemco International? 🤣

    I wish.

     

    I discovered the product some 15 years ago when a commercial fishing vessel near to us on the East Coast had it applied. I was so impressed that I applied the primer and top coat to my barge from new and I couldn't be more impressed with how it has out-performed the various other two-packs, blackings, epoxy tars etc. used on boats around me.

     

    I used it on the hull, topsides and in the bilge and nowhere has is failed. I used more traditional paints on the decks and cabin and the rust bubbles up on those every few years in places, so I wish I had coated everything in glass flake first.

     

    I find it frustrating that boatyards refuse to recommend or even acknowledge the existence of a product that is far better than that which they offer as standard.

     

    It is a bit more expensive, but as a proportion of the whole job the difference is tiny.

  16. Or, extend the period between inspections even further by using the product that is used on oil rigs, the Forth Bridge, cooling water intakes for nuclear power stations and ships ballast water tanks. Although it is relatively undiscovered in the private boating world, glass flake epoxy is recognised in industry as one of the longest lasting, hardest and most resistant steel coatings available.

     

    It is easy to mix and apply by brush or roller, and even after many years, after a simple jet-wash it can be over-coated without further abrasion.

     

    It is designed for a service life of at least 25 years and is so hard that if you need to remove it you will need an angle grinder!

     

    The boat yards won't suggest using it, because they may never see you again for further coats; why would they?

     

    Chemco International have a great technical advisor that will explain everything.

  17. You certainly need flexible tile adhesive as already mentioned, but grout tends to be less flexible and if that fails water gets behind the tiles. I used a good quality silicone mastic to grout the tiles in our shower and some 14 years later the job is still perfect. Unlike grout, silicone leaves a shiny surface that for us hasn't gone black as traditional grout often does; one wipe and it's clean.

  18. 7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

     

    I fairly sure that DSC is not allowed to be used 'inland', and, secondly a VHF will not work at the bottom of a lock (line of sight only), However what you describe is alrady available in the market and is called a PLB (Personal Location beacon) we all have one.

    Local emergency services are (generally) notified within 5 minutes of you pressing the button.

    They can be used on land, sea, Canals and aircraft anywhere in the world, and will always notify the emergency services where you are, not your home location.

     

     

     

     

     

    Screenshot (1197).png

    Probably best use in combination with a life jacket: you could easily drown in the time it would take for the emergency services to reach you.

     

    Do you think the bottom of a deep lock would reveal enough sky for at least three satellites to pinpoint ones position?

  19. It's easy to think; I'll be able to pull myself out, or, I'll be able to swim to a ladder or shallow area, or, my partner will be able to rescue me, but this is often not the case.

     

    I was involved in a rescue just weeks ago and it took three of us, all men, to heave the person out. It only took minutes for the person to become so cold that they couldn't help themselves, let alone swim and if there had only been one person to help, I don't want to think about the possible consequences.

     

    I'm not a regular life jacket wearer apart from when I'm coastal sailing, but that incident was genuinely frightening.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.