Bargebuilder
-
Posts
886 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Bargebuilder
-
-
Everyone's wee, including Rasputin's, ends up in the sea, unless it is intercepted downstream of the sewage works and processed once again for drinking water!
Oh, apart from that of the composting fraternity who pour their urine considerately into the soil to be broken down naturally.
-
1
-
-
Most sailing boats have sea toilets and would certainly pump out directly into the tidal River Blackwater quite legally.
Crew members produce relatively tiny amounts of urine and only a tiny amount of that, (5%) is anything other than water.
Urine is not the environmental problem, being essentially sterile and hugely diluted, but faeces certainly is: According to the water authority anyway.
-
I shouldn't think that the weed in the canal is because someone weed in the canal, but it might have contributed!
Nitrate is the nutrient that wee is guilty of adding to river water. It does contribute to the unwanted growth of algae, in fact it is the only ingredient of urine that could be described as in the least bit harmful to river water, however, since nitrate only makes up 50 parts per million of urine, if every crew member of every boat weed in the canal network, the nitrate would be so heavily diluted that the algae wouldn't notice any difference. Not that I am advocating weeing in the canal, but just using it as an illustration.
Just for comparison, Southern water allow a maximum nitrate level of 50ppm in drinking water, the same as in raw urine.
-
Hi Mr, Smelly,
I understand that the expensive composting loos hasten the composting process with additional fans, heaters and stirrers, but I imagine that for the very reason you highlight, even those require an additional period of 'rest' outside of the toilet to mature. These are outside of my experience.
A simple, cheap, home made separator toilet certainly needs a three bucket rotation to achieve a crumbly smell free compost. Also required is the addition of a little sawdust or peat to improve the texture and aid the composting process, plus an occasional shake of the bucket or stir to mix things up a little. Bucket 1 is in use for 2-3 months, then it is stored for 4-6 months before emptying and becoming bucket 1 again.
Some people, I'm sure, just use the separator concept because it is cheap and blockage and smell free. It is very possible that they only use a single bucket, make no attempt to achieve compost, but just tip the tiny volume of poo 'nuggets' down the Elsan sluice every three weeks or so. It's not composting, but I suppose that a couple of Kg every three weeks is better than 20Kg twice a week for a cassette user.
Where I live there is no public access, it is coastal and therefore tidal and I am surrounded by marshland, consequently, disposing of compost and urine is easy and safe both for the public and the environment.
I can't speak for people who chuck poo in the hedgerow, or those who occasionally empty their cassette toilet into the canal, but given the relative number of users of each, I'll bet that the latter is a far bigger problem. That being said, it would be quite wrong to accuse every cassette toilet user of such disgusting behaviour.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Since faeces are 85 to 90% water, the drying out process alone reduces the weight and volume dramatically and that is without the microbial decomposition.
20Kg of finished compost could be derived from up to 1/5 tonne of raw product, which confirms a previous poster's figure of 260cc contributed per person per day for 6 months.
If a maceration toilet uses 2l to flush (some use more and some less), then the same 6 months of faeces would have its weight and volume increased by 800% to about 1 & 1/2 tonnes.
A dump through or cassette toilet flushes with much less water, but add volume and weight they certainly do.
You can choose to produce, store and pay to pump out 1500 litres of liquidised faeces every 6 months or to produce and store just 20Kg of composted toilet waste.
You can choose to house a 'black water' tank with a capacity of hundreds of litres or you can store a couple of 20l lidded buckets.
You can choose to carry and flush away 20Kg of waste in a cassette twice a week.
These posts will be read by thousands of people over the coming years who are Googling around composting toilets. They will look at the facts and choose.
-
1
-
-
Haggis,
"I'm not suggesting that I do or that anyone should" (bin composted toilet waste)........... This was what I actually wrote.
You obviously haven't seen or smelt composted human manure, it is very much like composted horse manure and no less pleasant to dig into the soil, but not laced with tetanus as horse and cow manure often is.
Once again, let's stick to facts and first hand experience.
-
1
-
-
Hi Haggis,
Your nappy sack concern is unfounded, as my post simply said that the lightly soiled loo paper was put into the sacks and then into the bin. When you think what usually goes into a nappy sack (YUCK!) it is nowhere near as bad.
Perhaps you, in your time, have had babies or possibly grandchildren. Since you are so disgusted by binning lightly soiled loo paper, I wonder what your family does (if you have children) with its gooey pungent soiled disposable nappies. Might you possibly bin them?
Councils now insist that nappies and incontinence pads are disposed of with household waste, so a tiny scented nappy sack with dry but lightly soiled loo paper in it won't be a problem and by comparison isn't anywhere near as disgusting.
-
The Chelmer and Blackwater is indeed a canal, but very poorly maintained and sometimes impassable because of weed build-up. It would, for most, require a coastal passage to reach and I'm not sure I would bother.
-
Hi Frank,
One of the composting converts where we moor bought a thousand pound composter that does everything, including rotating the bucket a quarter turn and flicking back a 'modesty' hatch (so you can't see the deposits) using the weight applied to the loo seat when one sits down. She is, I understand, pleased with it, but the seat activated mechanism has failed, so the build quality can't be great.
We didn't know if we would like 'composting' or even if it would work, so I bought a urine separator, a bucket, a computer fan with some ducting and built a box in which to house it. The parts are readily available from ebay and excellent instructions can be found on the littlehouse Web site. About £100 plus the box, which can be as fancy or otherwise as you like. Mine is tongue and groove pine, but I have seen simple plywood and very smart varnished oak. My advice is to spend as little as possible to see if it is for you.
Don't listen to the converts or the doubters, make up your own mind.
-
1
-
-
Rasputin, I neither urinate in the canal or defecate in the bin: I live on the tidal East coast, a very long way from any canal.
Let's limit the discussion to facts and first hand experience and remain civil.
I have listed the advantages as I see them of composting over other types of toilet and it is your gift to disagree with them.
When our posh pump-out loo broke and the electronic control unit was to cost almost as much as the toilet did in the first place, we had nothing to lose in experimenting with a separating composter, after all it cost less than £150 and was a simple diy project to build.
Like many 'better halves', my wife was sceptical and reluctant, but now that smells and blockages are a thing of the past, she is completely sold on the idea.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Jerra said:
Please note I am not saying that all/any of the suggested points aren't sensible it is just that to me it seemed to ignore one or two things and be a bit heavily biased against
I do indeed have a special hatred of macerating toilets, because I have lived with one for 4 years, put up with the smells, needed to unblock it on numerous occasions and carried on board large volumes of liquidised sewage.
My wife and I are full time live-aboards and I really hate lugging around and swilling out toilet cassettes. Doing that every three days would be my least preferred option of all.
Urine is almost sterile and a great deal cleaner than river water. Only stale urine reaks because bacteria has partially converted it into ammonia. There are numerous bankside places that the mild fertilising effect of urine would benefit. In addition, the liquid can be poured into any public toilet.
In my experience, a wide mouth urine bottle is a lot less likely to splash than a toilet cassette, but much more importantly, it would be vastly less unpleasant if it did!
It goes without saying, that if you have invested heavily in a pump-out type toilet and it smells sweet, never blocks and you are happy with the ongoing costs then you wouldn't think about changing it. Likewise, if you don't mind the endless emptying of toilet cassettes then you wouldn't change either. This thread is aimed at people who are deciding what to install either for the first time or as a replacement for old, smelly or faulty equipment, and there will be plenty of those.
-
1
-
-
No "sensible" reasons for having a composting loo seems a bit harsh! How about:
1. Costs a tiny fraction to Instal: As low as £150 compared to £1500 for a macerator, tank and all the associated cabling and plumbing.
2. Cannot block...... ever: Unlike mine and lots of my friends experience of macerating toilets and at the most inconvenient times.
3. Cannot smell within the boat and usually hardly noticeably outside. (My macerating toilet eventually smelt horrible, although I accept that yours may not)
4. Requires you to store two small lidded buckets (10Kg each) of maturing compost that doesn't smell, instead of hundreds of litres of the most foul smelling slurry.
5. Avoids the not inconsiderable cost of pump-out.
6. Avoids the regular carting of heavy toilet cassettes and those splashes in the eye!
7. Vastly reduces the amount of water you need to take on board and so the frequency of fill-ups compared to a boat with a flushing macerator loo.
8. Ecologically, composting is much more 'green' than having your sewage transported and treated, even more so when it is mixed with 'blue' chemicals that are toxic to the environment.
9. Almost zero maintenance costs: no macerator pump or control box failures, no flexible hose replacement, no agressive 'black' water eating away at steel or even stainless steel tanks from the inside.
10. For static liveaboards, no more trips to the pump-out in mid-winter when the canal might be frozen.
Are none of these reasons sensible?
-
1
-
-
Composing anything, even garden waste which is relatively easy, requires attention to some basic rules: Compositon, moisture content, aeration, temperature and mixing. This is why the posh, all singing all dancing, expensive composting toilets produce smells, because the mixing/aeration releases all the sealed-in gasses. Undeniably, during and immediately after the mixing of the soon to be compost, the smell produced is appalling, but this is outside of the building or boat where the ventilator terminates. In addition, the incorporation of wood shavings or peat modifies the composition and the fan and heating element (where one exists) controls the moisture level.
The converting of poo to compost is a great thing, but a dessicating toilet simply dries out the poo in order to reduce its volume and weight by at least 80%, the resulting dessicated poo is safe and easy to bury or compost without smell. The fact that it needs no mixing in the bucket almost eliminates the production of nasty niffs, because each turd very quickly 'crusts' over and seals in the presence of the continuous draft produced by the tiny fan. The smell outside the boat is also minimal compared to that from a recently 'mixed' composting toilet.
Leaving the boat for weeks unattended is great for dessicating toilets as the passing of time aids dessication and reduces odours. A tiny solar panel will keep your battery topped up in your absence.
-
There is a difference between passing on ones experiences and telling others what to do. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my intention, which was to let readers know that a good alternative to more conventional toilets was available, fit for purpose and inexpensive to set up; in my opinion of course.
Haggis mentioned in his post that he moored next to a boat with a composting loo that had a smelly vent. It is, of course, the case that with ones nose directly above the vent it isn't fragrant, but then that is why no smells escape into the bathroom. You never walk into the bathroom after another has deposited something particularly malodorous and wish you hadn't, because the gasses are evacuated from beneath the seat as they are 'produced'.
I do wonder if a lot of the bad experiences that have permanently put folks off of the very idea of 'composting' hark back to outdated designs or poor installations. In addition, the toilets that don't separate the liquids from the solids are doomed to failure, being more likely to produce a stinking mess rather than friable compost. The designs of composting loos that by various methods evaporate urine are going to be the ones with the stinky vents; stale urine.....yuck!
A dog poo on a pavement doesn't smell after a couple of hours, unless of course you step in it. The same is true of human deposits, don't disturb it and any whif is barely noticeable, and even then, only outside the boat because of the extractor fan.
-
2
-
-
Hi Mr. Smelly and Haggis,
I know why composting isn't popular, it's the thought of what is in the bucket beneath you, but you very soon forget that. The ladies are usually difficult to convince, but those that I know that have tried it are now converted.
I certainly concede that guests are very reluctant to use it: We keep a cassette toilet on board for visitors, but haven't had to deploy it yet.
Like you, I don't like the idea of putting the 'compost' into a bin, but the article was from a local authority who was insisting that bagged raw faeces should be put into domestic bins, it having withdrawn the special collection service that it used to provide before the 'cuts'. They were, in fact, insisting that this should be done. There are many more pleasant ways of disposing of your dessicated poo without having to annoy the bin men. I should state though, that there is a world of difference between the gooey stinking mess in a soiled nappy and a bag of crumbly dessicated poo.
The loo paper goes into a tiny flip-top bin that is lined with a scented nappy sac. These are a fraction of a penny each and can be tied off and binned daily and contribute no nasty niffs to the room at all.
Disgust and revoltion are emotions not always based on fact or reality. You and I might be revolted by eating sheep's eyes, but some may relish them as a delicacy. Our views on keeping poo on board dry and crumbly in a bucket or as a liquidised sewage soup might be different, but that is fine.
Your 'domestic' type loo is more socially acceptable. We both have loos that we are convinced don't smell. Your macerator loo with associated equipment costs vastly more than a diy composting toilet. There are maintenance costs and pump-out costs associated with macerator toilets and virtually none with a composter. You don't like the idea of composting, but I don't find it in the least disgusting, no worse than spreading horse manure on the veg patch.
-
2
-
-
I'm new to this forum lark, but you guys seem to be having so much fun with this topic, I thought that I might dare to join in.
For background, I am a long term live-aboard together with my wife and until last year we struggled to live with a macerator toilet. We 'splashed out' on the very pricey Tecma Silence as fitted to many of the world's super-yachts, simply because it was one area where only the best will do and we definitely didn't want problems. Tecma boast an unblockable system which it certainly isn't and despite using the very best butyl lined flexible hose and impervious solvent-weld fixed pipework, after 4 years of daily use, it stinks! We clean it thoroughly almost every day, flushing it with warm soapy water, but it doesn't resolve the odour problem. This model of toilet also has a tiny air bleed pipe near the macerator chamber so that once evacuated by the pump it then re-fills with clean 'flush' water so that the pump is primed for next time. You guessed it, this little tube gets blocked regularly with 'you know what', the chamber doesn't re-fill, the pump/macerator doesn't prime and the toilet bowl refuses to evacuate. One has to empty the bowl manually (use your imagination), unbolt the toilet, tip it on its side, remove the hoses, unblock the mess and re-assemble; nice!
Even if you have found a toilet that never blocks (and I doubt it), I refuse to believe that your toilet/hoses/pipework don't smell at all and if they don't now, they surely will at some point. In addition, we carried around large volumes of liquidised sewage and obviously that 'black' tank needs a vent to stop it exploding and you don't want to get near that vent; believe me!
What about the costs: the best part of £1000 for the toilet, several hundred for the custom built 'black' tank, various pipes, hoses, electric cabling, skin fittings etc, totalling north of £1500, then factoring in the cost of pump-out, repairs, spare macerator pump, it is not a cheap system. If it was reliable and pleasant it would be a price worth paying, but for so many reasons it wasn't.
Then, a good live-aboard friend of mine introduced me to his 'dessicating toilet' This is not a new product, but simply a composting toilet that doesn't compost fully, and for him, over four years of continuous use, it works faultlessly and is totally without odour. I have been in his bathroom and I can confirm that his 'little room' is fragrant, whereas mine is most definitely not.
Like me, for many years he tolerated the blockages and smells of his Vetus macerator toilet, so out of desperation, he went over to composting and hasn't looked back.
The secret, as many have said before, is to separate the liquids from the solids, by the use of a urine separator, the solids being collected to decompose and dry out in a plastic bucket. This process reduces the volume and weight of the solids to around 10-15% of its original. For the sceptics, I invite you to think about those little dessicated turds that one used to find on pavements before the time when dog owners carried their dogs bowel movements with them like little designer handbags. Those dried out, biscuit dry droppings had no smell whatever and could be kicked without the risk of messing ones shoes into the gutter: You get the idea?
Although not truly compost, because he adds no sawdust, peat or activator and he doesn't allow the bucket to stand for another 3 months, the contents of the bucket are dessicated and not unpleasant and can be disposed of in many ways that have already been discussed.
I should add that, although possibly distasteful, it is perfectly legal to dispose of human waste with household rubbish. I'm not suggesting that I do or that anyone should, but if there were to be no better option, you most certainly are permitted to. I quote from the directive of a local borough council:
“These changes have been made to bring the collection of these waste types in line with similar wastes such as nappies that have always been collected via the residential waste stream. It is considered safe for householders to dispose of their own hygiene waste, such as nappies, incontinence pads and dressings via their residential waste collection service"
This extract was to confirm that soiled nappies and soiled pads of adults who suffer double incontinence should placed in ones domestic wheelie bin. The dessicated, crumbly material of which I am talking would be much more pleasant than this raw faecal matter. Any such material should, of course, be double wrapped.
As I said though, there are many other ways to hygienically dispose of your waste without resorting to binning it.
The liquid element can be collected in a large bottle, or if you are in a permitted area, simply drained overboard. My friend has his drain into his grey water reception tank where it is mixed with water from his shower, sink, hand basin and washing machine before it is pumped overboard quite legally. He needs to empty his bucket every 10 to 12 weeks and this he returns to 'nature'.
The loo itself is inexpensive to make: Less than £100 for the separator, bucket, toilet seat, tubing, computer fan with ducting and an airtight box into which everything goes. The whole thing needn't be much larger than the toilet seat or the bucket, whichever is larger. The box can a simple painted plywood affair, or maybe tongue and groove pine or even very posh varnished oak, depending on your taste and budget. I won't go into the construction details because they do it so well at Littlehouse.co.uk.
I now use the above system and it certainly doesn't smell and it simply can't block or jam. There is no maintenance apart from giving the bucket a quarter turn once a month to even things out a little and giving the separator a wipe round with a disinfectant wipe when it needs it. I line the bucket with two bin liners before use so that the contents can be safely lifted out and securely sealed before carrying off the boat.
When I think of the smells and disgusting maintenance associated with my old Tecma and my friends Vetus and think about the money wasted on setup, maintenance and pump-out, I really wish that I had considered the composting route when I first commissioned the boat.
I can't understand how those who dismiss separator toilets as rubbish can have actually lived with one: They are a simple diy project to make and foolproof to operate. They are pleasant and odour free to use and almost zero maintenance. It is a shame that such negative comments might be putting people off from taking the plunge and freeing themselves of the undoubted problems associated with macerator toilets, the process of pumping out, or the chore of lugging heavy cassettes of sewage around every few days.
Those with 'green' concerns might consider that dessicated poo is safe and hygienic to bury or further compost and urine is almost sterile wherever you pour it. Cassette sewage often has 'blue' chemicals added to it making it toxic to the environment and the sewage storage tanks into which pump outs often go are taken away by polluting diesel sewage tankers.
Where our live-aboards are moored, to start with all 11 boats had either macerator or cassette toilets. First one went over to composting and now there are four of us as the good feedback is spreading: Perhaps this trend will continue.
Composting/dessicating toilets won't be for everyone, but for some they are a revelation, making life on board more pleasant. I say give it a try: It won't cost much to set up and you may be glad you didn't listen to the doubters.
-
3
-
-
From all of the published advice, just 4 days ago I turned up at the Anderton lift without having previously booked and went into the administration/visitor centre to see if there might be a slot available for me to go down. The staff member to whom I spoke said that they had recently decided to only allow pre-booked boats to use the lift. I asked why, since all the information indicates that one can just turn up and if a slot is available one can use it without booking or incurring the booking fee. I was told that so many people turn up without insurance certificates, licences etc that it caused too many problems for them.
I didn't seek a second opinion from another member of staff, but he was operating the lift so I assumed that he would know. He might have given me inaccurate information and I hope that he was, but it might be worth a telephone call to confirm.
-
Sorry, slip of the keyboard, I meant to write Al or Mg. Aluminium or Magnesium.
Further research on my part has revealed that 'hot zinc spray' is 10 to 15% porous! This information comes from 'Metallisation' the only UK manufacturer of thermal spraying equipment, as I understand it. If this is the case, then for total immersion one would be reliant on a good coating to keep the water out. This rather renders the sprayed zinc as unnecessary. Just go for the best possible coating and save yourself a fortune!
-
It's not mine, but try googling on:
ship a classic ensign 30
and click on the photo.
-
But should you be considering hot metal zinc spraying? I would suggest not of you have a steel hulled boat that is to be used primarily in fresh water as opposed to sea water.
The reason for chosing this system as stated by some suppliers in their promotional material is:
"How is all this relevant to the narrowboat owner? Well, we’re used to having to fit sacrificial zinc anodes to help protect a narrowboat’s hull from pitting, but we also know how localised this protection can be. Metal spraying effectively turns the entire hull into an anode. This means that when the blacking starts to wear or is damaged by underwater obstacles, the steel is still protected and the risks of pitting are substantially reduced."
The first problem with this statement is, that zinc is not recommended for anodes on boats in fresh water, instead, aluminium or magnesium is used. The main reason for this is that in contact with fresh water, within a few months, the surface of the zinc is made completely inactive by a build-up of zinc hydroxide, rendering it useless in terms of anodic protection. Magnesium gives excellent protection in fresh water and aluminium gives an acceptable level of protection in both fresh and salt water.
Even if the boat was used in salt water, if it has resided in fresh water first, then the layer of zinc hydroxide build-up creates a barrier that subsequently prevents the sprayed zink from providing any anodic protection.
In addition, it is often recommended that the sprayed zinc surface is then blacked or epoxy coated. This will also prevent it from giving anodic protection.
Another problem, is that if you fit magnesium anodes, the magnesium will not only be protecting the propeller, the prop shaft and the steel hull, it will also be protecting the hot zinc spray that you have just had sprayed on.
Whatever you coat your hull with, you cannot avoid fitting the recommended number of anodes and you must used Al or Zn in fresh water. The more exposed metal that your anodes have to protect, the heavier they need to be for any given period of protection, so achieving a really good coating of your steel hull is key to making your anodes last longer: Hot zinc coatings won't help. For anodes to work, it is imperative that the anode itself and the metal object that it is protecting remains as bare metal. Aluminium out-drives (z-drives) for instance will be protected by some sort of paint finish, but a magnesium anode will protect any parts where the paint is missing.
Having established that hot zinc spray provides no protection as an anode in fresh water, then its only use is as a protective coating, but is it the best available, especially considering the price and that you still are recommended to overcoat it?
It is true to say that a zinc spray should give protection from oxidation (rust), but so will paint!
Zinc spray will give no protection at all from electrolytic erosion, the sort that can produce serious hull thickness reduction due to stray electrical currents; particularly when the boat is connected to 'shore power', whereas, a good hull paint will.
The yard will say that any hull paint will erode away or be scraped off in time, which is correct, but just look at the digs and scrapes in the actual steel of any narrow boat! It is wrong to pretend that any surface coating, even zinc won't be heavily damaged during cruising and some epoxy coatings are incredibly hard and resistant to abrasion.
One huge disadvantage of zinc coatings, whether sprayed-on or proper hot-dip galvanising, is that it is a surface to which it is very difficult to apply other coatings: Just look at most gloss paints and read about the special metal etch primers which are needed to make them adhere properly. You often see galvanised garage doors with flakey paintwork for this very reason.
Any paint finish or two-pack epoxy coating is only as good as the surface preparation beneath it. If a steel hull is grit blasted first, that is perfect preparation, but if you then hot metal spray it, it will be rendered shiny smooth again and a very poor surface for subsequent coating. If an epoxy paint coating is to be used, it alone will provide full protection against corrosion (rusting) and galvanic and electrolytic erosion, without the need for zinc spraying. The zinc coating will only reduce the adhesion of the subsequent paint job.
There are some incredible two pack coatings that are used in industry, but available to informed members of the public. Materials that are used to protect oil rigs, cooling water intakes for nuclear power stations, balast water tanks in ocean going tankers etc. and I have used one of them on my my barge. The material is called glass flake epoxy and actually contains flakes of glass for superb hardness and resistance to scratching and abrasion. It is best applied to blasted steel, but in conjunction with its surface tolerant primer it can be applied to gingered wet steel such as you are left with after wet-blasting. It can be applied by roller, brush or airless sprayer and is a very easy diy job.... if you like jobs done properly that is! What's even better is that it sells for around £12 per kg so about £1,500 to £2,000 for a 60ft narrow boat.
The manufacturer I used only supplies the stuff in grey, so a cosmetic coat of something black over the top might be required for visible areas. The glass flake epoxy itself will provide excellent protection for 15 years, if you don't scrape it all off as you bounce through tunnels!
I can see no point in hot metal zinc spraying, especially since there are arguably better and cheaper materials available and no waiting list for application.
I do have first hand experience of applying glass flake epoxy onto wet gingered steel and I can report that after 8 years it is still exactly the same as the day it was applied, but less the shine. Still providing complete protection against rust and because the surface of the steel is 100% coated, the anodes are hardly reduced at all because they have nothing to protect. Before you worry on my behalf, I have checked for electrical continuity between the anodes and the metals they are protecting and they are doing their job.
-
1
-
-
Mine is a 'Classic 30' built in 1984. Not many about, but nice looking and very well designed and built.
We have just pulled over for the day having spent a number of hours on the cut watching the narrowboat skippers getting drenched in the torrential rain, whilst we were cosy and warm in our centre cockpit with the canopy up; yet another advantage of narrow grp cruisers. I even manage to stay dry at the locks by sending the wife outside!
-
Hi to you all,
The original poster of the question declared earlier in the thread that he had, after much research, bought a grp cruiser and I hope that he is still enjoying it. Having read the entire thread myself, I was aware of this and of course the age of the original post, so my post was not for his benefit at all.
My reason for taking the time to add to the thread was to speak on behalf of the many owners and prospective owners of grp cruisers, to counter some of the mis-information and sometimes, dare I say, predudice from those who rather disparagingly refer to grp boats as 'yoghurt pots' and 'tupperware'.
Grp cruisers are a great way to get afloat, just as much fun as a steel vessel but with less maintenance and cost. I hope that my comparison between canal cruisers and narrowboats encourages more people to enjoy this great hobby.
I'm glad that this thread is still very much active and attracting interest.
-
On Saturday, May 10, 2014 at 16:52, Boatless in Bristol said:
s my first post and question(s) apart from introducing myself in the relevant thread. I've been reading various threads on here and so thought I'd seek your views and experience on the following matter. I know there have been comments/ threads on the relative merits of GRP or steel - my post is merely to ask what you'd do in my shoes. I'm not expecting you to make my mind up for me - only I can do that but any comments and a viewpoint I hadn't thought of will hopefully help me come to a decision.
My quandary is whether to buy a GRP cruiser or a steel narrowboat.
Some facts for you.
My maximum budget is £15,000.
I don't want to buy a boat longer than 30 feet long due to costs of moorings, licence etc.
I wish to keep it on the Kennet and Avon and have started the process of seeking a mooring.
I want a diesel engine - I don't want the hassle of obtaining petrol. I would also prefer shaft drive to a z drive. Not sure why and if anyone wishes to extol the virtues of a z drive, please feel free. I know that limits my choice re. GRP cruisers but they are out there.
I realise for that amount a narrowboat would be fairly old and very probably would require some amount of work doing to it even if it's only blacking and replacing anodes to begin with. It would also possibly mean buying a narrowboat of 30 feet long or smaller which isn't a problem to me. Of course any GRP cruiser I may consider would also be of an age and could need work - I accept that.
I also know I can buy a GRP cruiser in fairly decent condition (judging by pics. on the internet I grant you) for £7,000 tops which leaves me with plenty to spare budget wise. The size I've been looking at is 22 feet to 25 feet - the marques being Freeman, Dawncraft etc.
Having spoken to someone recently, they told me a GRP cruiser should be lifted out every winter, one reason being to prevent any damage by ice. I've also read they need to "dry out". Is it really necessary/prudent to lift them out every single winter ? To any GRP owners here, do you lift yours out every winter ? I ask because I quite fancied the thought of spending time cruising on those cold, frosty but sunny days we get in winter. This would of course mean needing a boatyard that has facitlies ashore. Are there that many along the K and A
Which is best, a grp narrow beam cruiser or a steel narrowboat? Well, I have owned boats for 20 years, both steel and grp. I have built them, cruised extensively in them and lived on them and I will give you some facts based on real, first-hand experience.
Steel narrow boats do have some advantages over grp, particularly if you intend to live aboard, because they are often better insulated and so easier to keep warm in the winter. However, the insulation is very thin, usually about an inch of polyurethane foam or a similar thickness of polystyrene, and nothing at all below 'floor' level. Grp cruisers often have little or no insulation, but being in general smaller than narrow boats, there is much less to heat, so they warm up quickly and for spring, summer and autumn use are easy and inexpensive to heat.
The owners of steel narrowboats will often say that grp cruisers are not tough enough on the canals when negotiating locks and tunnels, but I have never suffered more than a scratch in all my years of cruising in grp boats. Remember that grp cruisers are smaller and lighter than narrow boats: They are more responsive to steer, they stop faster and have much greater acceleration than lumbering 15 tonne steel narrowboats. This superior manoeuvrability means that staying out of trouble is easy.
Grp cruisers also often benefit from a 'V' profile hull, which is not only easier (and cheaper) to push through the water, but this also helps with directional stability when steering. It is also possible to moor closer to shallow bank sides than you can with 'slab' sided narrow boats.
Grp cruisers are cheaper to buy: They waste no internal space on a forward 'well deck', this space being fully occupied by a huge double bed that any narrowboat would be jealous of. Our bed is more than 6 feet wide and infinitely more comfortable than any narrowboat 'double' bed that I have ever come across. In addition, the larger grp cruisers have centre cockpits and aft cabins, so there is no wasted space at the stern as there is with narrowboats. For this reason, in order to have the volume of internal space that you might find in a given size of grp cruiser, you would need to buy a considerably larger narrowboat. Just look inside a 30ft example of both if you doubt what I say.
Remember too, that a shorter boat is cheaper to licence and cheaper to moor and can often fit into that last available gap in a prime canalside location. Also, grp boats do not need to be hauled out and 'blacked' every 2-3 years, giving a huge maintenance saving as well. I should also dispell the myth that grp boats should winter ashore; this is just not true. They are absolutely strong enough to survive severe winters afloat and their hulls certanly don't need to 'dry out'.
With every year that passes, the steel hulls of narrowboats are thinning due to oxidation (rust), eventually resulting in the need for patching or complete overplating; a very expensive operation. This problem is compounded by the fact that the bottom plates of narrowboats are rarely blacked, the excuse often given for which is that there is insufficient oxygen 2ft down to allow rusting. There is slightly less oxygen at that depth, but there is more than enough to allow oxidation, otherwise fish couldn't survive!
The other serious problem with steel craft is that of electrolytic and cathodic erosion; the sometimes severe pitting that can dangerously compromise the integrity of metal hulls; steel, iron and even worse aluminium. Grp hulls suffer no such problems, although a small, inexpensive shaft anode will be need to protect their propeller which is likely to be made of bronze.
Osmosis is a minor condition that can occasionally affect grp hulls, but it is just a surface bubbling of the outer gel coat, does not make a boat leak, is not structural and has never caused any vessel to sink... unlike the rusting of steel hulls!Grp cruisers also seem much roomier than steel narrow boats. This is partly because cruisers tend to have much larger windows, giving much better views from the saloon. Also, with centre cockpit cruisers, you aren't walking through one cabin to get to the next, so it doesn't feel like you are living in a corridor.
Centre cockpit cruisers also offer a lot more protection from inclement weather, especially with the windscreen and cockpit tent in place.
Having said all that, there are some absolute 'musts' when chosing your new boat:
If you intend to cruise any distance, you really must have a diesel inboard engine: Only diesel fuel is readily available at the canal side and you may have to walk miles to find a roadside petrol station if you have an outboard motor. Also, it would be dangerous to carry large amounts of petrol on board.
Diesel engines are extremely fuel efficient: My 25hp Vetus diesel uses 0.6l per hour at canal cruising speeds in my 30ft cruiser, that's just 3 litres of fuel in a 5 hour cruising day and about a month's cruising from my built-in tank.
As I write in 2017, diesel at the canal side can be obtained for about half the price of petrol from a petrol station. If the diesel you buy is to be used for propulsion then there will be an additional bit of 'road duty' to pay. This Website usefully compares canalside diesel prices: http://diesel.fibrefactory.co.uk/
You should also insist on a shaft drive rather than a 'z' drive: There is much less to go wrong and repairing/reconditioning a 'z' drive can be hugely expensive. 'Z' drives protrude from the stern of cruisers and are therefore vulnerable to collision. Their aluminium alloy construction can also suffer serious corrosion over time.
Whether you chose steel or grp, you MUST have a weed hatch above the propeller, as you will occasionally pick up rope or plastic that will halt your progress, and without one you are stuck; unless you can swim!
To extend your cruising season you will need a heater and those that burn diesel are cheapest to operate. Also, if you intend to spend more than a few days on board, then you will want hot water from a calorifier and a proper shower or even better a 'wet room'. You will also need a gas cooker and if possible a refrigerator, all of which a well appointed grp cruiser could offer.You might have to pay around £20k for a really nice and well equipped 30ft grp narrow beam cruiser, but a steel narrowboat with as much useful internal space may be 40ft long and will cost you a great deal more to buy, maintain, licence, moor and operate.
If you fancy a grp cruiser then go for it: I've done over 400 miles in mine this year alone and at no point have I wished that I was in a steel narowboat.-
1
-
Composting Lavatoirs
in Boat Equipment
Posted
Rasputin,
I have never found a coastal pump-out station anywhere I have sailed in the UK.
I should think that over 99% of toilets in coastal yachts are pumped out directly into the sea and the tiny number of people with holding tanks simply go off shore to pump out because there is no alternative.
I think that using a composting toilet to remove the raw faeces from the sea is a major improvement which is one reason why I am a keen advocate.
I clearly don't need to convince you that urine is just about sterile and of no danger to the coastal environment or the environment in general.