Electrics, cable, amps

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, Stephen Jeavons said:

Back to my original query: What is meant by "same wiring system"? That was the bit I found ambiguous. How do you read it?

 

7 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Lumped together. In the same place. Following the same path. Co-located. 

I’m sure you and others can think of more synonyms. 

Basically if you have 12V and 230V both travelling under the gunwale then they musn’t be in the same trunking or tied together etc. 

In the same bundle, cable tied together,

[Boater Sam]

I accepted this limitation when doing fit outs, its impossible to comply with the separation in a manner that is going to be accepted by the owner.

I run circuits wherever possible far enough apart and away from gas pipes in obviously different cables, Blue arctic for 240v and colour coded singles and twin flex for 12v circuits. The 240v go up against the outer steel under gunnels in pvc oval tubing, the 12v on the inside of the wall panelling in trunking.

Where they have to cross one another to go over the roof or the mains to sockets in the wall panelling I run both in short lengths of conduit where they cross.

I think that this is as close as I can practically get to the letter of the requirements.

Not had any knock backs.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Stephen Jeavons said:

I'm a bad boy. Non-compliant on 7.7.

Like to hear from any narrowboat owners who think they comply and how.

Ours did.

2 runs of trunking, one for DC one for AC

Simples (and plenty of room under the Gunwales)

 

Any boat (NB or gin palace) built to, and suppled with, RCD documentation MUST comply.

[WotEver]

23 minutes ago, Stephen Jeavons said:

Maybe, ocean-going gin palaces have the space and layout to have separate channels, conduits and spaces to allow DC and AC separation but how many common or garden narrowboats, even built with the requirement in mind, have the space to comply?

Neither sections C or D require much space. D is the simplest - put them into separate trunking or conduit. 

[reg]

On 12/01/2020 at 01:49, AWETHEAYET said:

When I was an apprentice 1976 to 1981 an old electrician told me "think of the future" and fit a socket in every room.

What do you think he would be telling you now?

 

Just the one? 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2019/11/03/house-worth-1350000-enough-plug-sockets-everyone-street-11033568/amp/

[ditchcrawler]

22 minutes ago, Stephen Jeavons said:

I'm a bad boy. Non-compliant on 7.7.

Like to hear from any narrowboat owners who think they comply and how.

My 240 ac runs under the gunwales and the 24 dc volts run along the edge of the ceiling 

[Alan de Enfield]

This sort of stuff - comes in a variety of sizes. Makes additions / amendments very easy.

 

https://www.wickes.co.uk/Wickes-Self-Adhesive-Mini-Trunking---White-16-x-16mm-x-2m/p/712945?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=PLA&scid=scbplp712945&sc_intid=712945&ds_rl=1255408&ds_rl=1255411&ds_rl=1256312&utm_campaign=&msclkid=5958bd65b76d19b4cd94e379c6314b09&utm_term=4578641323806149&utm_content=All Products&gclid=CPqKjYzYgOcCFUKBGwodwOQHpQ&gclsrc=ds

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Stephen Jeavons said:

My DC and AC cables also cross over from one side of the boat to the other cleated and bundled all together. There was only one convenient place to do this hence they are bundled together.

If you are non-compliant (and its a boat built to RCD) then I'd suggest you get the electrician back out to do the job correctly or report him to Trading Standards,

Edited January 13, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[nicknorman]

If you use artic 3 conductor flex as most people do, the outer sheathing of this meets the requirement of 7.7d. It is only an issue if you use separate mains conductors.

[Stephen Jeavons]

29 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

If you are non-compliant (and its a boat built to RCD) then I'd suggest you get the electrician back out to do the job correctly or report him to Trading Standards,

Thanks, I have used this stuff before

 

Boat was built as a sail-away sixteen years ago so definitely not RCD compliant. It has been a self renovation since purchase 3 years ago. Arctic Blue cabling used for mains ring throughout and most DC in plastic split-sleeve.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Any boat (NB or gin palace) built to, and suppled with, RCD documentation MUST comply.

 

MUST comply? Or what happens?

 

"Nothing happens" would be my best guess....

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Stephen Jeavons said:

Boat was built as a sail-away sixteen years ago so definitely not RCD compliant.

Just interested in why you say 'definitely not RCD compliant'.

 

Many (most ?) sailaway boats are built to RCD requirements.

There have been a lot of threads on how to access the ISO specifications, how to build compliantly etc.

 

Again - you are unlikely to be 'caught' but a refit (including engine, electrics, gas and stability modifications) requires a re-certification or as the RCD call it a PCA (Post Construction Assessment) to ensure compliance.

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

MUST comply? Or what happens?

 

"Nothing happens" would be my best guess....

 

 

 

You are fully aware of what happens.

It may rarely happen but if an owner considers his boat is not compliant then trading standards will investigate and take the builder to court for even the smallest things (like not building in a method of re-boarding - a requirement since 2017)

 

You can find examples using Google, or check back on this forum to where I have in the past provided examples.

 

I'm sure you have read the thread where Matty is providing evidence for a boat owner taking the builder to the trading standards over incorrect wiring.

[David Mack]

45 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

If you use artic 3 conductor flex as most people do, the outer sheathing of this meets the requirement of 7.7d. It is only an issue if you use separate mains conductors.

I can see that the double sheathing of the artic flex will satisfy the requirement of 7.7d for the 240V cable, but can you then put single sheathed 12V wires alongside, or do these also need to be double sheathed?

[Stephen Jeavons]

53 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Just interested in why you say 'definitely not RCD compliant'.

 

I have it from the builder Roger Fuller's mouth. He told me the boat was an absolute shell. Just lined, engine and nothing else other than some ballast. No installed electrics whatsoever.

Purchaser had it moored on a private river for 10 years. When I bought it, the only electrics were the water pump and two sockets fed from T&E cable hanging on nails along the inside corridor (which I hastily tore out). We are talking a boat built in 1994 (got my numbers wrong in the earlier post) so that's 26 years ago. That's the year RCD came into being I believe.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Stephen Jeavons

[MtB]

27 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

You are fully aware of what happens.

It may rarely happen but if an owner considers his boat is not compliant then trading standards will investigate and take the builder to court for even the smallest things (like not building in a method of re-boarding - a requirement since 2017)

 

You can find examples using Google, or check back on this forum to where I have in the past provided examples.

 

I'm sure you have read the thread where Matty is providing evidence for a boat owner taking the builder to the trading standards over incorrect wiring.

 

And as you must be also be aware as I've said so on here many times, I had occasion to request Trading Standards to investigate a boat sold with no RCD which should have had one, and they point blank refused, saying they had "bigger fish to fry".

 

"Taking the builder to Trading Standards" means what exactly? 

 

I'd suggest Trading Standards will make all the right noises, short of actually doing anything about it. 

 

 

[matty40s]

10 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

And as you must be also be aware as I've said so on here many times, I had occasion to request Trading Standards to investigate a boat sold with no RCD which should have had one, and they point blank refused, saying they had "bigger fish to fry".

 

"Taking the builder to Trading Standards" means what exactly? 

 

I'd suggest Trading Standards will make all the right noises, short of actually doing anything about it. 

 

 

When multiple owners are involved, with similar issues, and all boats within the 5 years initial period post build, Trading Standards have no choice.

 

[nicknorman]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

I can see that the double sheathing of the artic flex will satisfy the requirement of 7.7d for the 240V cable, but can you then put single sheathed 12V wires alongside, or do these also need to be double sheathed?

As far as I’m aware you can put single insulated 12v alongside.

Edited January 13, 2020 by nicknorman

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, Stephen Jeavons said:

I have it from the builder Roger Fuller's mouth. He told me the boat was an absolute shell. Just lined, engine and nothing else other than some ballast. No installed electrics whatsoever.

I think maybe you are not understanding what a commercial boat builder is required to do at ANY stage of build - it doesn't matter if it is an empty shell or a completed boat.

 

If he built it prior to the RCD implementation then it would obviously not be built to RCD.

 

If he built the shell after the RCD was implemented then he would be required to provide full documentation confirming compliance to that stage of build. As you say the engine was also installed, the builder would be required to certify that the engine met RCD emission and pollution requirements, and that it was installed to the RCD requirements.

For a shell / sailaway this builders statement is called an "Annex lll(a) Declaration of Conformity"

 

In this case the 'date of birth' of the boat would appear to be relevant.

 

From the RCD :

 

A partly completed recreational craft is an incomplete craft consisting of a hull or a hull and fitted components (parts of the craft other than Annex II components). It might be possible that components, as referred to in Annex II of the Directive, are installed on a partly completed recreational craft. These Annex II components are subject to conformity assessment, as explained in the comments to Article 2(1) (c) below. Boat kits consisting of panels and parts to make the boat, including its hull, typically of wood or metal, may also be considered as partly completed recreational craft (see note on kit boats below).
Partly completed recreational craft must fulfil all the relevant essential safety, health, environmental protection requirements of the Directive when made available on the market. It is destined to be completed by another party who will be regarded as the manufacturer and who will need to ensure that completed craft meet the essential requirements.

 

A boat built by a commercial operation and sold to the 'public' was obviously not built for his 'own use' so the RCD regulations apply to the build stage at sale.

The exceptions are for a boat built for 'own use'

 

From the RCD :

 

A member of the general public building his own watercraft (in his garage or garden, for example), from materials bought on the open market is deemed to be “building a watercraft for his own use”. This watercraft lies outside the scope of the Directive and does not require compliance with the essential requirements and thus CE marking. If for whatever reason this situation changes then the provisions detailed above would be seen to apply.

If, for whatever reason, a watercraft built for own use is intended to be placed on the Union market, whether completed or partly completed, within the 5 year period, then conformity assessment by a person or persons fulfilling the role of manufacturer would be required in accordance with the provisions of Article 19(4) of the Directive by post-construction assessment, according Article 23 of the Directive. These persons would take the responsibility for the equivalent conformity of the design, construction and environmental performance of the watercraft, and any modification to it necessary to achieve this equivalent conformity. The assessment of the equivalent conformity with essential requirements of the Directive requires the involvement of a notified body (see comments to Annex V of the Directive).

 

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Just interested in why you say 'definitely not RCD compliant'.

 

Many (most ?) sailaway boats are built to RCD requirements.

But not necessarily fitted out by the owner to the RCD requirements like mine

 

Again - you are unlikely to be 'caught' but a refit (including engine, electrics, gas and stability modifications) requires a re-certification or as the RCD call it a PCA (Post Construction Assessment) to ensure compliance.

Isn't this a relatively new requirement? in the last 3 year

s or so

 

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WotEver]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

As far as I’m aware you can put single insulated 12v alongside.

However, it’s not hard (and a lot neater) to put that bundle of 12V cables inside trunking or conduit (trunking being much easier than conduit, unless it’s the split plastic type). 

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, WotEver said:

However, it’s not hard (and a lot neater) to put that bundle of 12V cables inside trunking or conduit (trunking being much easier than conduit, unless it’s the split plastic type). 

On our boat we have trunking running under the gunnels the length of the cabin on both sides. On one side there is a mix of mains cable (sheathed, arctic type 3 conductor flex) and a bundle of other single insulated wires including the 12v “ring main” and canbus, inputs from light switches to the Empirbus nodes and outputs therefrom to the services. As far as I’m aware this is compliant. I suppose that rather than using wide trunking, Steve could have used two narrower runs of trunking but I’m not sure what extra that would have bought to the party.

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Isn't this a relatively new requirement? in the last 3 year

 

 

Yes, but if the boat was built under RCD rules, then if you are replacing the engine, replacing gas piping etc since 2017 then you would now have to apply for a PCA

 

Year 2002

One example of an NB builder being taken to court :

 

Hughes admitted to failing to use safety glass in the windows of two doors; that the solid fuel stove had not been bolted to the floor and that he had altered the provision for re-boarding without updating his technical documentation.

The court found him guilty on other counts:

. The marine engineer had fitted a propshaft water lubrication intake without a shut-off cock in what Hughes believed was a standard installation to the sterngear manufacturer's specification.

. A grommet had not been fitted to a wire passing through the steel topsides to a light, risking short circuit.

. Gas bottles were not secured.

. The fuel tank maker hadn't labelled the tanks with capacity information.

 

The magistrates accepted that the breaches were at the lower end of the scale, but that the regulations are in place to ensure the safety of boat users - the bench had a serious concern at the lack of a quality check system. Billy Hughes is now a criminal with a fine amounting to £600.

However the outcome was insufficient for the London solicitor to pursue him for the bigger claim for compensation, which Hughes settled out of court with his customer.

The whole business ultimately put Deeside Narrowboats some £30,000 out of pocket and his customer £10,000. And Hughes is buying the boat back as he offered in the first instance.

The expense and the hours lost in court and in arguments over two years is a lot for a start-up firm to cope with in its early years of trading - many would go out of business.

Billy's case is not the first.

Trading standards officers in the surrounding NW area have brought several cases against other narrowboat builders.

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[David Mack]

48 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Yes, but if the boat was built under RCD rules, then if you are replacing the engine, replacing gas piping etc since 2017 then you would now have to apply for a PCA

 

There seems to be little enough interest from Trading Standards in prosecuting newbuild RCD failures. Would they be at all interested in PCA failures? Presumably the issue could only arise after a modified boat had been subsequently sold.

 

Does the 5 year rule apply to subsequent modifications?

 

52 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Year 2002

One example of an NB builder being taken to court :

 

<snip>

 

Billy's case is not the first.

Trading standards officers in the surrounding NW area have brought several cases against other narrowboat builders.

 

You have raised this case before, but I have never seen reports of any other of the cases that have allegedly been prosecuted. Can you provided details of any of the other cases?

[Alan de Enfield]

47 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Does the 5 year rule apply to subsequent modifications?

I am not a boat builder, just a boat buyer / seller so it is only my interpretation.

 

The 5-year rule is only an exemption for self-built boats and states that they cannot be sold within 5 years, or, if they are they become subject to the PCA.

A boat built to the RCD is an 'RCD boat for life' (not 5 years), so if 10 or 20 years later it is re-built, re-engine etc as an RCD boat it is subject to the PCA

 

49 minutes ago, David Mack said:

You have raised this case before, but I have never seen reports of any other of the cases that have allegedly been prosecuted. Can you provided details of any of the other cases?

Yes I have - it is the 1st one that comes up on a Google search - as the article in "Boating Business" states, the NW Trading Standards have taken a number of builders to court. 

Hampshire Trading Standards are the UK leaders in enforcement of the RCD.

 

I am sure that if you want to you can find several other examples. I have proven that cases do go to court.

 

 

Is the all-important Certificate of Conformity issued with a boat (confirming that it complies with the RCD) actually worth the paper it is written on, asks Peter Poland?

https://www.boatingbusiness.com/news101/comment/is_the_rcd_actually_working

 

Have been prosecutions
'There have been prosecutions in the UK, but I don't have any details. Within Hampshire, we generally use other methods such as advising the business on legal compliance, in the first instance, he said. 'Many breaches are the result of ignorance or misinterpretation and are easily sorted out by the business and Trading Standards working together.'

You said you relied on 'tip offs' to learn about potential breaches. Is this so and does it often happen?

'We do receive information from both the public and businesses. Until recently, it was more rumour than useful intelligence,' Mr Riordan told me. 'With the recent downturn in the economy, businesses are fighting for survival and are more prepared to give specific details about those acting illegally.'

How do you see the future? Do you hope for more cooperation from people in the UK re 'tip offs'?

'We are always grateful to anyone who takes the trouble to let us know what is going on in the market place,' he admitted. 'The information is recorded and even if not acted upon immediately, it can help us to build up a picture of a particular market sector and allocate resources accordingly.'

Where do such people pass on this intelligence if they are not based in Hampshire?

'There is a national telephone number 0845 04 05 06 which connects to Consumer Direct (CD),' he said. 'CD will record the information, give advice if required and pass on the details to the appropriate Trading Standards Service.'

Any other comments, hopes, ideas?

 

It is UK law
'Whether or not you agree with the Recreational Craft Directive (RCD) it is UK law and compliance is not optional,' he insisted. 'If you import a boat from outside the EEA, you must factor in the cost of a Post Construction Assessment (PCA) to make it "legal" and actually worth its full value. If you manufacture craft or components, make sure your products are fully compliant and the paperwork is correct before placing them on the market. Any non-compliance could lead to your product being removed from the market. It gives your competitor a free hit!'

Finally, Mr Riordan told me he hopes the changes coming in 2010 will be for the better. He also hopes that we can all continue to work together with businesses to promote a strong marine industry in the UK.'

[Detling]

I would think a more significant issue is if someone gets hurt because of a non compliant build. The insurance company is likely to walk away, leaving you with massive compensation and legal liabilities and the possibilty of prosecution for criminal liability (GBH etc).

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Detling said:

I would think a more significant issue is if someone gets hurt because of a non compliant build. The insurance company is likely to walk away, leaving you with massive compensation and legal liabilities and the possibilty of prosecution for criminal liability (GBH etc).

 

Surely the claim would be against the builder....