Jump to content

Swapping from red diesel to HVO fuel


Bosley Dave

Featured Posts

44 minutes ago, Up-Side-Down said:

I think that's a pretty realistic analysis Ian and I suspect that is the sort of default position CRT keep in the back of their minds in their current negotiations with DEFRA to set the next round of funding for the waterways, beginning 2027. I believe their are currently 3 scenarios based on possible funding outcomes that CRT have tentatively outlined, and a couple of them are not terribly palatable from the boaters point of view.

 

I'm not surprised, it's often been pointed out that the license fee is pretty cheap for what you (ought to) get for it...

 

My view is that it will increase by quite a lot, and that to avoid forcing poorer boaters off the canals (and extracting more money from richer ones) it will have to be much more heavily graduated than it is now, very likely by boat size (especially wideboats) and/or boat value/age and/or location. It should be possible to come up with a scheme that increases the average license fee by at least 50% -- possibly as much as 100% -- without hitting the poorest at all, but the corollary will be that those with big new expensive wideboats in prime areas will pay a *lot* more than today, maybe 5x as much or even more when everything is taken into account.

 

I'm sure this will lead to screams of protest, but it's no different to any other market like housing where different people pay vastly different prices depending on what they can afford, what they live in, and where it is... 😉

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Except it's Torque at low revs swinging a big 24"+ prop that gets a boat with a JP2 through.

20Hp from a JP2 is not the same as 20Hp from a Beta 3

It's just that some people can't tell torque from mutter ............

 

(been waiting years to find an excuse to resurrect that one!)

  • Sad 1
  • Horror 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Except it's Torque at low revs swinging a big 24"+ prop that gets a boat with a JP2 through.

20Hp from a JP2 is not the same as 20Hp from a Beta 3

 

Perhaps you'd like to explain to all the *real* marine engineers why they're wrong then -- you know, the ones who actually design and analyse ships and propulsion?

 

Because they all say that things like boat performance/speed and bollard pull are almost entirely dependent on power absorbed by the prop, unless you go to ridiculously small high-speed egg-beaters.

 

Prop size and speed does have a small effect because if affects efficiency, but the differences are usually small (maybe up to 10%) unless the design is *really* awful. There are even some "rules-of-thumb" on the lines of "bollard pull is typically one ton per 100hp". Any of the online tools like Vicprop will also show the same trend, boat speed is pretty much only dependent on engine power with a properly matched prop -- yes a big slow prop is a little bit better, but the difference is small. *Engine* speed matters not a jot, it's propeller rpm (gearbox output) that matters.

 

https://www.marineinsight.com/naval-architecture/bollard-pull-everything-you-wanted-to-know/

https://thenavalarch.com/bollard-pull-calculations-introduction/

 

There are other marine engineering "rules-of-thumb" -- again, based on actual measurements -- for slow boats like on canals, which says that the optimum prop tip speed is about 25m/s, and the optimum pitch/diameter ratio is around 0.6-0.8. A prop which is *too* large and slow actually loses some efficiency because it needs too big a pitch/diameter ratio, so more power is lost into swirling the water around and less into propelling the boat.

 

From memory, for 20hp the optimum is something like an 18" x 12" prop running at 1000rpm, but I wouldn't put money on that without going back and checking...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

Having searched through the various Acts, it seems that cruising waterways (which CART must keep open) include (among others):

 

Ashton, BCN, Calder & Hebble, Caldon, Coventry, Erewash, GU, K&A, Lancaster, L&L, Peak Forest, Macclesfield, Mon&Brec, Oxford, Shroppie, Stourbidge, S&W, Stratford, T&M, W&B...

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/73/schedule/12/2011-04-18

 

Which means that -- unless they've also been reclassified from Remainder to Cruising like the K&A was -- the only obvious "all the other no-hoper canals" closure candidates are the Rochdale and HNC.

 

Does anyone know what the current status of these is?

 

If they're still Remainder, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a strong movement to reclassify them as Cruising (like the K&A), especially if they were threatened with closure -- particularly given the tens of millions that were spent restoring and reopening them...

 

Either way, the apocalyptic "the network's going to close" prediction seems unlikely, a number of Acts of Parliament would be needed to close Cruising waterways -- which is unlikely to happen...

 

These discussions about closure are all a bit academic, the "law" can't force CRT to keep a canal open if it doesn't also provide the funding to keep it open, a bit like listed buildings just fading away. However, even without a formal closure, just letting a canal decay to the state where nobody wants to use it is a "not closure closure".

 

The Rochdale is always quoted as top of the list (probably by boaters who have never visited it and just see the "North" as some far off land) but the Rochdale is owned by the Rochdale Canal Company and only leased to CRT, and the councils who funded the restoration specified that it must be kept open for some period of time (I think). I do confess to having a vested interest in the Rochdale staying open as its my favourite canal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok You tell me what would happen to a 70ft loaded working NB with a Beta 20 and a matched prop compared to a 70ft loaded working NB with a JP2 and a matched prop both working upstream against the flow.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Ok You tell me what would happen to a 70ft loaded working NB with a Beta 20 and a matched prop compared to a 70ft loaded working NB with a JP2 and a matched prop both working upstream against the flow.

 

 

The Beta 20 would possibly overheat and probably have a short lifetime, running flat out at 3600rpm.

 

But a Beta 43 running at around 2000rpm and putting out 20hp would be just as capable as a JP2, assuming both have matched props and gearboxes.

 

In fact you could choose the gearbox ratio so they both ended up with identical props at identical rpm and the performance would be *exactly* the same, because the prop has no idea what's at the other side of the gearbox 🙂

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

The fact remains that CART are effectively prevented from closing most of the canals .........

...........if they don't do this they'll find themselves open to legal action, possibly from an organisation of canal users -- I'm sure nowadays that funding to bring such an action could easily be raised by crowdfunding, and legally speaking CART wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

 

This isn't a case of CART being able to do what they want, they have a legal duty to keep these canals open and usable. .....

All very well in theory, but I recall a  report of a local authority being taken to court for failure to do something which it had a statutory obligation to do (it was more than a decade ago, and may have been road repairs). The court acknowledged the legal obligation, but took into account the fact that the government did not provide sufficient funding for the local authority to do all the things that parliament had obliged it to do, conceded that, given limited resources,  precedence had to be given to the most essential work,  and refused to compel the council to do the work that the statute obliged it to do.

Edited by Ronaldo47
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, IanD said:

There are even some "rules-of-thumb" on the lines of "bollard pull is typically one ton per 100hp"

 

Are you sure that is correct (and not reversed ?) that would suggest that for a 200,000 tonne ship it would require a tug with 20,000,000 hp.

 

 

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

These discussions about closure are all a bit academic, the "law" can't force CRT to keep a canal open if it doesn't also provide the funding to keep it open, a bit like listed buildings just fading away. However, even without a formal closure, just letting a canal decay to the state where nobody wants to use it is a "not closure closure".

 

The Rochdale is always quoted as top of the list (probably by boaters who have never visited it and just see the "North" as some far off land) but the Rochdale is owned by the Rochdale Canal Company and only leased to CRT, and the councils who funded the restoration specified that it must be kept open for some period of time (I think). I do confess to having a vested interest in the Rochdale staying open as its my favourite canal.

 

The law says that CART have a legal duty to keep the cruising canals open and usable; if they breach this duty they can be brought to court and an order enforced on them to do this. If CART and/or the government don't then come up with the money to do this, what happens -- do CART go bust? And if so, does the government have to take responsibility for the canals, under the same laws?

 

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Are you sure that is correct (and not reversed ?) that would suggest that for a 200,000 tonne ship it would require a tug with 20,000,000 hp.

 

I was always taught the 'quick guideline' is 100 tones per hp.

 

You're confusing propulsion power and ship deadweight with bollard pull.

 

If you want to propel a ship through the water, 100 tons per hp is *very* small -- the big container ships are about 200,000 tons and have about 100,000hp, which is 2 tons per hp.

 

If you want a tug to pull such a ship around it might have to provide a pulling force ("bollard pull") of 100 tons, which would need a 10000hp engine.

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

All very well in theory, but I recall a  report of a local authority being taken to court for failure to do something which it had a statutory obligation to do (it was more than a decade ago, and may have been road repairs). The court acknowledged the legal obligation, but took into account the fact that the government did not provide sufficient funding for the local authority to do all the things that parliament had obliged it to do, conceded that precedence had to be given to the most essential work,  and refused to compel the council to do the work that the statute obliged it to do.

 

That's an issue for the courts to decide; since the government wrote the laws that say CART have to keep those canals open, and the government set up CART (and partly fund them), it's in the end going to be the government's problem if the court finds that CART has illegally breached its duty.

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does "can't get blood out of a stone" not trump anything the law can do?.  There have been a few newbies on this forum threatening to buy a new 70 x 14 widebeam and when warned against this say the published dimension say it will fit and they have legal experience and so will sue CRT to make it fit.

 

Another analogy might be the folk who employ a cheap incompetent builder who does a bad job and then use legal action to force the builder to come back and do a better job (that is beyond their abilities).

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I was under the impression that the bollard pull is to simulate pulling a ship from dead in the water, and is simulated by hooking the tug to a bollard via a load cell and the reading taken.

Correct, but that's nothing directly to do with the size of the ship it's trying to pull.

 

If you want 100t of pull you need a 10000hp tug. If you want 500t of pull you need a 50000hp tug.

3 minutes ago, dmr said:

Does "can't get blood out of a stone" not trump anything the law can do?.  There have been a few newbies on this forum threatening to buy a new 70 x 14 widebeam and when warned against this say the published dimension say it will fit and they have legal experience and so will sue CRT to make it fit.

 

Another analogy might be the folk who employ a cheap incompetent builder who does a bad job and then use legal action to force the builder to come back and do a better job (that is beyond their abilities).

 

The law doesn't care whether you can *afford* to do something you're legally obliged to do. And in this case "the stone" is the government which set up CART in the first place, together with the legal obligations on it.

 

In the end, it'll be the governments problem -- and of course they have *very* deep pockets... 😉

 

(actually almost infinitely deep, they can just print more money)

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Ok You tell me what would happen to a 70ft loaded working NB with a Beta 20 and a matched prop compared to a 70ft loaded working NB with a JP2 and a matched prop both working upstream against the flow.

 

 

Whilst I have observed a 70ft coal boat charging up the Thames with apparent little effort I think it has more to do with prop size than engine torque or HPBHP (or HP as the marketeers have it) uses both torque and RPM in the calculation and the fact remains that despite a diesel's relatively flat torque curve the torque and thus the prop spinning ability is falling long before maximum BHP is achieved. If you look at the curves derived from a full dynamometer test across a number of modern engines you find that typically the maximum torque occurs at a bit over half maximum revs. This seems to accord with Ian's figures. Trying to decide how much power (HP) a boat needs to do a specific speed really needs a new HP calculation to be done at that speed, you can't just take the maximum stated HP as the be all and end all for comparisons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

The law doesn't care whether you can *afford* to do something you're legally obliged to do. And in this case "the stone" is the government which set up CART in the first place, together with the legal obligations on it.

 

In the end, it'll be the governments problem -- and of course they have *very* deep pockets... 😉

 

(actually almost infinitely deep, they can just print more money)

I think a more likely  scenario would be that the law would be changed to remove the obligation. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Whilst I have observed a 70ft coal boat charging up the Thames with apparent little effort I think it has more to do with prop size than engine torque or HPBHP (or HP as the marketeers have it) uses both torque and RPM in the calculation and the fact remains that despite a diesel's relatively flat torque curve the torque and thus the prop spinning ability is falling long before maximum BHP is achieved. If you look at the curves derived from a full dynamometer test across a number of modern engines you find that typically the maximum torque occurs at a bit over half maximum revs. This seems to accord with Ian's figures. Trying to decide how much power (HP) a boat needs to do a specific speed really needs a new HP calculation to be done at that speed, you can't just take the maximum stated HP as the be all and end all for comparisons.

 

It all depends how the prop size is chosen, because prop torque rises *way* faster with rpm than engine torque drops, see attached Beta 43 plot (which shows power). At WOT (Wide Open Throttle) the prop rpm will increase until the two curves intersect, which should be at maximum engine rpm/power. If the boat is overpropped the blue curve moves to the left and the engine won't reach maximum rpm/power. If the boat is underpropped the blue curve moves to the right and the engine reaches maximum rpm at lower than full power i.e. the throttle has to be closed a bit to prevent over-revving. At all lower rpm the engine is capable of generating more power than the prop can absorb, so you run at lower throttle openings (yes I know a diesel doesn't have a throttle...).

 

All the stuff about diesels (or electric motors) being great for boats because they have a lot of torque at low rpm is misunderstanding how propellers and engines work together -- at low rpm the torque needed to turn a prop is tiny...

 

In theory there's nothing stopping you running a modern engine at full power/rpm for hours but it isn't really advisable, both from a wear/lifetime point of view, possibly overheating if the skin tank is too small, and definitely from the noise/vibration point of view -- from these curves the Beta 43 will run at about 2150rpm while generating 20hp, and should be able to do this all day.

 

And if it had a gearbox chosen to give the same prop speed as a JP2 and the same size prop, the boat won't be able to tell the difference charging up the Thames -- until there's an emergency when you can slam the Beta 43 throttle wide open and double the power, the JP2 is already running flat out...

diesel_efficiency.png

24 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

I think a more likely  scenario would be that the law would be changed to remove the obligation. 

 

As I said, that depends on whether changing the law against strong protests (and probably resistance in the House of Lords) -- and finding time to do it in a packed Parliamentary schedule -- is more or less painful than coughing up what is effectively pocket change to the Government... 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

The Beta 20 would possibly overheat and probably have a short lifetime, running flat out at 3600rpm.

 

But a Beta 43 running at around 2000rpm and putting out 20hp would be just as capable as a JP2, assuming both have matched props and gearboxes.

 

In fact you could choose the gearbox ratio so they both ended up with identical props at identical rpm and the performance would be *exactly* the same, because the prop has no idea what's at the other side of the gearbox 🙂

But that is like comparing apples with pears both engines were chosen for their max HP at whatever revs so saying a Beta 43 can do it is not comparing like for like so is complete bollauex

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Loddon said:

But that is like comparing apples with pears both engines were chosen for their max HP at whatever revs so saying a Beta 43 can do it is not comparing like for like so is complete bollauex

 

<sigh> A 60' narrowboat which might have had a 20hp traditional engine fitted might typically have a 40hp-50hp modern diesel fitted, for the practical reasons I gave -- nobody would recommend fitting a Beta 20, for example. HP into the prop is all that matters, a gearbox can give you whatever prop size/rpm you want (e.g. use a 3:1 instead of a 2:1 to get a bigger slower prop). James Watt told us that it doesn't matter whether the power comes from a horse, or a diesel, or a treadmill powered by lots of hamsters -- all that matters is the (horse) power.

 

If the boat *needs* 20hp at the prop to push it up the Thames/Trent/Ribble link for several hours, either solution (20hp trad or 40+hp modern) is perfectly valid and in common use today. It's why people say "a 20hp trad engine is much better than a modern engine of the same power" -- yes it is, you need a modern engine of about double the power to be as "bombproof". Which is why that's exactly what is usually fitted...

 

Of course the trad engine will still cost twice as much and occupy twice as much space as the "double power" modern engine, which many people would say is not in its favour even if it does sound nicer... 😉

 

 

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IanD said:

And in this case "the stone" is the government which set up CART in the first place, together with the legal obligations on it.

 

The fall back is that should C&RT fail to achieve its plans and/or KPI's the Government will appoint a new Charity (or an existing Charity with 'silmilar aims') to replace them.

 

It is all written up in the transition documents when the Governement handed control to the private sector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The fall back is that should C&RT fail to achieve its plans and/or KPI's the Government will appoint a new Charity (or an existing Charity with 'silmilar aims') to replace them.

 

It is all written up in the transition documents when the Governement handed control to the private sector.

 

But if the government replace CART with another charity or body responsible for running and maintaining the canals, they legally become "The Waterways Board" as mentioned in the Transport Act (just like CART were), with the same legal obligation to keep Cruising Waterways open for use, as set down in an Act of Parliament.

 

No amount of renaming or replacing CART will remove this duty, unless it is changed by another Act of Parliament -- which would very likely spark off protests (which the government might try and ignore) and resistance in the House of Lords (which they can't ignore).

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Correct, but that's nothing directly to do with the size of the ship it's trying to pull.

 

If you want 100t of pull you need a 10000hp tug. If you want 500t of pull you need a 50000hp tug.

 

The law doesn't care whether you can *afford* to do something you're legally obliged to do. And in this case "the stone" is the government which set up CART in the first place, together with the legal obligations on it.

 

In the end, it'll be the governments problem -- and of course they have *very* deep pockets... 😉

 

(actually almost infinitely deep, they can just print more money)

 

When the court passes judgement on CRT for criminal lack of maintanance then CRT will plead poverty (and a very bad parent) and offer to pay off the £20,000,000 maintainance backlog at 20p per week.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

When the court passes judgement on CRT for criminal lack of maintanance then CRT will plead poverty (and a very bad parent) and offer to pay off the £20,000,000 maintainance backlog at 20p per week.

 

Except responsibility will then pass to the parent (the government) for failing to provide enough money (from all sources) to allow CART (their child) to meet their obligations -- the government set up the laws/duties, the government set up CART and its funding and is legally responsible for it, in the end it's their responsibility to find a way that CART can discharge this duty.

 

Putting a layer of spurious charity-based isolation in between doesn't mean the government can evade its responsibility, thought I've no doubt that they'll try -- otherwise every company in the land contractually responsible for delivering *anything* would do exactly the same, set up a shell company to take the flak and then claim "it wasn't me, guv..." 😞

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Are you sure that is correct (and not reversed ?) that would suggest that for a 200,000 tonne ship it would require a tug with 20,000,000 hp.

 

 

The tug will be pulling or pushing the ship, not lifting it!

  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 1
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.