Jump to content

Water tank empty too soon


moiuk

Featured Posts

17 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But, when you measured it, it came out to have a volume of 1 cubic metre, so, 1000 litres.

 

It seems a very strange error for Collingwood to have made, give them a call and see what they say.

I tried to call them today, but they are shutdown for 2 weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cheshire cat said:

Dare we question the accuracy of the flow meter?

Definitely worth questioning, but has given the same reading twice and we are running out of water in  3/4 days which would be around 300 litres.

19 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Are these "butts" fully sealed

no. They have good fitting lid, but i would not describe them as fully sealed. Unlikely to get flying junk or spiders in them, but not sealed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Richardcn said:

If the tank dimensions are correct but only 345 litres go in then is it possible that the tank has baffles fitted and that either the other sections are unvented (and thus airlocked) or the interconnections between the 3? sections were missed out at build? 345 litres is darned close to a third of what it should be!

It is very difficult to get an accurate measure of the dimensions as it is sealed into the bow deck.  However, the bow thruster tube does seem to take up half of the bow space.  If it is 2 m x 35cm x 55cm then that woukd be about the 380litre size tank and be about right.  There is certainly not enough space for the 2m x 1m x 50cm that is needed for the specified 1,000 litre tank.

 

 

One remote possibility is that the original tank was removed to install the bow thruster?  And a smaller tank fit into its place... but the logistics of removing that size of tank after production  would seem to be a big job, and the bow deck doesn't show Ny signs of being modified.

Edited by moiuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, moiuk said:

One remote possibility is that tbe original the original tank was removed to install the bow thruster?  And a smaller tank fit into its place...

So then the cure would be to remove the girly tube and extend the tank?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

Are you sure the tank is full? Water overflowing the filler hole will not be an indication of full if there is an issue with the vent line as discussed earlier. 

I'm pretty sure it is full, yes.  It was overflowin, and then I ran a load of water off through the taps and could see the water level going down via the filler point.  If its not actually full, then the water level is at the top and going down at a steady rate whe used. 

34 minutes ago, Richardcn said:

External water tanks which will be subjected to warming to unhealthy levels in summer (let alone the bugs that might enter if not completely sealed) seem like a risky choice to me.

You are right of course.  I have seem other widebeams in London have them at the front which gave me the idea, but the more I think about it the less keen I am to be drinking it.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is it possible that collingwood installed 2/3 tanks, and my main tank is the only one connected? Would this be normal?

 

It seems that with the bow thruster and tubes in place there was never enough room for a 1,000 l tank.  Where do other widebeams with bow thrusters put a 1,000 l tank ?

Edited by moiuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has the accuracy of the meter been checked by filling a 5litre container several times?

I had a tank that would  overflow before it was full I needed to fill the last bit very slowly if I wanted it to be absolutely full.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, moiuk said:

Definitely worth questioning, but has given the same reading twice and we are running out of water in  3/4 days which would be around 300 litres.

no. They have good fitting lid, but i would not describe them as fully sealed. Unlikely to get flying junk or spiders in them, but not sealed.

In that case the top of the but need to be higher than the main tank filler and vent or the tops will leak when you top the tank up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, moiuk said:

... One remote possibility is that the original tank was removed to install the bow thruster?  And a smaller tank fit into its place... but the logistics of removing that size of tank after production  would seem to be a big job, and the bow deck doesn't show Ny signs of being modified.

Perhaps speak to the previous owner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

In that case the top of the but need to be higher than the main tank filler and vent or the tops will leak when you top the tank up. 

Good point. I have it placed in the bow deck, so that the whole butt is above the filler point. I will manually fill it with a hose and it will flow down into the filler of the main tank.

3 hours ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Perhaps this is why the last owner sold it?

haha. We get on well with the previous owners, and it is more likely that nobody noticed as the boat lived in a marina for its 6 years of its life so far.  We are the first to use it for unconnected living, and all the related issues are coming out now...

4 hours ago, Cheese said:

Perhaps speak to the previous owner?

yes I will ask this specific question, although they only had the boat for 1 year.  Hopefully they are still in touch with the original owners as that might solve the mystery..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cheshire cat said:

I wonder if any other Collingwood widebeam owners suffer a similar problem. 

It seems likely that we are looking at 1000 litres (unless you go for the bowthruster option) is in play here.

I wondered the same. It would appear logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PhilR said:

I wondered the same. It would appear logical.

I will call them when they are back. I can't see how they can fit a 1,000 l tank when the bow thruster is installed.

 

The spec sheet I have could be a clerical error, but if it is for me, then how many others too ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Cheshire cat said:

Dare we question the accuracy of the flow meter?

I was going to say just this. First thing I thought from the opening post. Accuracy and repeatability are not the same thing. 

 

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/08/2020 at 23:11, moiuk said:

Definitely worth questioning, but has given the same reading twice and we are running out of water in  3/4 days which would be around 300 litres.

no. They have good fitting lid, but i would not describe them as fully sealed. Unlikely to get flying junk or spiders in them, but not sealed.

To be clear you do not have a flowmeter, you have an MCS sensor which works on the pressure head of the water. These are very accurate unless wrongly calibrated. The shape of the tank will have will effect the accuracy though.   I suggest sort out the plumbing and calibrate the sensor.  

 

MCS water calibrate.jpg

Edited by Flyboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

To be clear you do not have a flowmeter, you have an MCS sensor which works on the pressure head of the water. These are very accurate unless wrongly calibrated.  I suggest sort out the plumbing and calibrate the sensor.  

 

MCS water calibrate.jpg

Hi,

 

I do actually have a flowmeter, which is a separate piece of kit from the MCS water gauge. It goes in line with my hose when filling the tank and has a digital display showing the water flow in litres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Flyboy said:

To be clear you do not have a flowmeter, you have an MCS sensor which works on the pressure head of the water. These are very accurate unless wrongly calibrated. The shape of the tank will have will effect the accuracy though.   I suggest sort out the plumbing and calibrate the sensor.  

 

MCS water calibrate.jpg

...makes an Ass out of U and Me :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

So - just to close this topic off with my findings.

 

I have spoken to another Collingwood owner an they have the same issue (supposed to be 1,000l tank, but actually around a third of that).

 

The most probable conclusion is that with the Bow Thruster option fitted they reduce the water tank down to 1/3rd of the spec'd size to make room for it, but don't update the spec sheet.

 

Would have loved this to have been picked up by the surveyor, but alas it was not...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, moiuk said:

So - just to close this topic off with my findings.

 

I have spoken to another Collingwood owner an they have the same issue (supposed to be 1,000l tank, but actually around a third of that).

 

The most probable conclusion is that with the Bow Thruster option fitted they reduce the water tank down to 1/3rd of the spec'd size to make room for it, but don't update the spec sheet.

 

Would have loved this to have been picked up by the surveyor, but alas it was not...

 

As Collingwood are a volume builder then if that is their standard practice I would expect a surveyor who knows canal boats to be aware to it by now and at least warn of the possibility. Very poor expertise in my view but undoubtedly fire proofed by get out clauses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.