Bargebuilder

I imagined, obviously incorrectly, that the minute droplets of water caught on the filter surface would, with time, get larger and fall off, but remain on the 'dirty' side, but you are saying that once large enough, they push through the filter to the 'clean' side. That certainly would explain the recommended flow direction.

Hi Tony, thanks for the reply. I agree with you, that the fuel should flow as you describe. The CAV filter body I am looking at has two inlets and two outlets identified by arrows and the inlets open directly above the filter element. I have a filter element that is punched with holes at the top and has baffled, directional slots at the base. The filtered fuel having passed through the element top to bottom into the water bowl at the bottom, passes up the tube in the centre of the element and on towards the engine. That is the way the arrows intend it to work. I would prefer to plumb it the way you recommend in your first paragraph for the reasons you mention, but this seems not to be what the manufacturer suggests. Can you think of a reason why the fuel flow cannot be reversed so that it is introduced down the centre tube and into the water bowl first?

This is a very old thread, but can anyone think of a reason why a CAV filter/water separator couldn't be plumbed in in reverse, so that incoming fuel first enters the water bowl, passes up through the filter element and out through its top on its way to the engine? The arrows on the filter head indicate the reverse, but maybe drops of water and bits of muck would be better held in the water bowl before the fuel passes through the paper element; any thoughts?

If it's on the market, it's very well hidden. I think it's a Frobisher class. It looks like it has a steel hull with possibly a grp top, but that's a guess based on appearance. If it has a grp hull then it might be a find, but it doesn't look like it.

Just found it here: https://waterfreedom.co.uk/ Under: Frequently asked questions, Water, Can I drink the water? With the filter they suggest using, after a few weeks of use, you'd have to wait a very long time for enough water to fill a kettle.

The Nene river water in many places is beautifully clear, enabling one to see perhaps 3 feet down where fishes go about their business. Of all the waterways I've cruised, nowhere have I seen a greater concentration of Kingfishers or Herons. It's a river I'd highly recommend, apart from the lack of moorings and facilities. If desperate, I might be persuaded to drink filtered Nene water, but my level of desperation would have to be very much greater to drink filtered canal water.

One difference is, that I understand that sea toilets are allowed to pump out directly into that river!

I once added a ceramic water filter to the supply to our galley cold water tap and although for a number of days the flow rate reduction was bearable, it didn't take many weeks for it to reduce to a frustrating level. I should add that it was filtering clean, mains, tap water that had simply been stored in a regularly cleaned plastic tank and yet it still clogged unacceptably quickly. Being ceramic, the filtering element could be scrubbed clean which did help, but it did not return to its 'as new' flow rate and its performance degraded quite quickly. My concern is, that the suppliers of water filters make claims that the product struggles to deliver in real life situations.

A good compromise, is to have one rigid tank with a good access hatch for scrubbing clean, to supply a kitchen tap for drinking and cooking and then as much volume of flexible bladder tankage, squeezed into more awkward spaces for washing up and showering etc. Even in our 30ft cruiser we had a total water capacity of half a tonne, mostly under the 'V' berth in the bow cabin. The OPs proposed purchase is much bigger so he should easily be able to carry enough water for two weeks supply, even for two if they are frugal.

Actually, once fully cured, bitumen is advertised as being harmless to plant and aquatic life, so presumably is about as good in terms of antifouling properties as bare grp.

Nothing works like TBT used to, not that I'm suggesting going back to poisoning the environment. That's why we deliberately don't antifoul, preferring the more ecologically sensitive strategy of scrubbing off once each year. Why would you feel the need to antifoul a fresh water GRP vessel when you wouldn't do so to a steel narrowboat?

My 25 years of experience with GRP boats, both fresh and salt water, I have never used antifouling paint and have never seen a Zebra Mussel. The internet tells me that they can be a problem in some UK waters, but nowhere have I been able to find mention of catastrophic gelcoat damage or water wicking along GRP fibres as a result of their presence. Keeping the, usually 'v' profile hull of a grp cruiser clean is usually matter of a stiff, long handled brush, sometimes using something buoyant to supply the upward thrust necessary to remove river slime and light growth. This would also remove young mussels should they be a local problem. Barnacles are a problem on sea boats, but not on fresh water vessels, however, it's much easier to scrub off cruisers on tidal waters of course. I'm certainly not saying that Zebra Mussels are not a problem in some places, but their presence is not a reason to avoid GRP hulls.

Perhaps, but if in good condition its rarity increases what potential buyers will be willing to spend. A well laid-up GRP boat of that vintage could well be structurally in very good condition. A steel hull however may be very thin and may well have already been over-plated, an issue that the owner of a grp boat will never face, along with the regular dry-docking, preparation and blacking costs. What condition could a steel narrowboat be expected to be in which carried an asking price of £23,000, as that's the choice that the OP faces?

It sounds like you are hoping to go where most narrow-boaters fear to venture. The keeper at Sharpness lock told us and perhaps it's true, that more people scale Everest in a single year than narrowboats have ever done the trip down the tidal Severn; well, it's a good story!

She looks great and has huge potential. I hope the viewing goes well.

Absolutely right and another huge advantage of GRP cruisers over most narrowboats is their seaworthiness, particularly for those with a longing for adventure. They tend to have a higher freeboard (the height between the waterline and the side deck) and bows that easily cut through and part any waves. They are also lighter, so instead of 'submarining' straight through waves and filling ones well deck, GRP cruisers tend to ride over waves, making them much safer and more comfortable for short estuary or even coastal passages. We took our 30 footer down the tidal Severn from Sharpness to Portishead in what was forecast to be a force 2, but just before the first bridge the sky darkened, the rain started and a squall passed through, with much higher winds and accompanying waves. I won't say it was comfortable for a while, but at no stage did we feel unsafe as we bounced through the chop, even though we hadn't employed the services of a river pilot. I was however thankful that we were not in a steel narrowboat at the time. Crossing 'The Wash' is next on our list of adventures.

I'm here if you have any more questions. Be pleased to hear more details and maybe a photo if all goes well. Fingers crossed for you.

Yes the channels are free, we have Freesat at home, my reference was to the price of the equipment to pick up the signal, specifically the slightly more tasteful dome type and the satellite box to go with it; isn't that expensive?