Jump to content

Swapping from red diesel to HVO fuel


Bosley Dave

Featured Posts

21 hours ago, Up-Side-Down said:

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

 

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

 

 

Jeez, you'll be asking us the difference between a buffalo and a bison next.... 🤣

 

(I remember my dad coming home from work with bothe these jokes when I was about seven!)

 

 

But regarding props, I agree with IanD, the boat propeller cannot tell what power source is turning the shaft at any given RPM so the engine can't possibly matter for a given shaft speed

 

Where blade diameter makes a bigger difference than Ian suggests is in the brakes. i"ve owned a succession on NBs with ever larger blade diameters and my own experience is the smaller the blade, the less effectively it bites the water in astern. This is why stopping with an Axiom blade was supposedly so good - they designed them to be less efficient in ahead to get higher efficiency in astern, which in turn plays well with people who just shelled out £2k on one! 

 

But broadly my second NB with the 15" blade and Beta Greenline used to need me to rev the nuts off it to get it to slow down and stop - most embarrassing. My Kelvin K2 with 26" blade bites the water beautifully and stops the boat in astern at only little above tickover - far more elegant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

Jeez, you'll be asking us the difference between a buffalo and a bison next.... 🤣

 

(I remember my dad coming home from work with bothe these jokes when I was about seven!)

 

 

But regarding props, I agree with IanD, the boat propeller cannot tell what power source is turning the shaft at any given RPM so the engine can't possibly matter for a given shaft speed

 

Where blade diameter makes a bigger difference than Ian suggests is in the brakes. i"ve owned a succession on NBs with ever larger blade diameters and my own experience is the smaller the blade, the less effectively it bites the water in astern. This is why stopping with an Axiom blade was supposedly so good - they designed them to be less efficient in ahead to get higher efficiency in astern, which in turn plays well with people who just shelled out £2k on one! 

 

But broadly my second NB with the 15" blade and Beta Greenline used to need me to rev the nuts off it to get it to slow down and stop - most embarrassing. My Kelvin K2 with 26" blade bites the water beautifully and stops the boat in astern at only little above tickover - far more elegant. 

 

I suspect your findings are more to do with hull and propeller design and sizing (and how much you rev the engine!) than how fast it turns, because "stopping power" is pretty much equivalent to "bollard pull" except the water is flowing the other way.

 

A K2 with a 26" prop will just plain do *everything* better at low revs (44hp, 750rpm max, 160rpm idle, 26" x 20" prop? -- and probably a very nice hull shape) than a Beta (30hp at 3600rpm,15" x 9" prop? -- and probably a much less nice hull shape) -- to get the same bollard pull (about 150lb) as the K2 running at 400rpm you'd need to run the Beta at maybe 2200rpm, even more if the hull and prop were less efficient which is likely. The other problem is that a Beta with a 2:1 gearbox is spinning the prop at 1800rpm at maximum power, well above the 1000rpm normally recommended for best prop design, which will make the stopping performance even worse.

 

Which as you say means revving the nuts off the Beta when you want to stop, as opposed to having the K2 running far slower... 🙂

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 09/08/2022 at 12:52, dmr said:

but the Rochdale is owned by the Rochdale Canal Company and only leased to CRT

No. During the early days of restoration between Sowerby Bridge and Littleborough the canal continued to be owned by the Rochdale Canal Company, who had allowed the restoration to quietly progress as long as it didn't cost them anything.

The Rochdale Canal Company was by then a wholly owned subsidiary of Town Centre Securities, a property developer, which had bought the canal company for its land assets.

When the Millennium Lottery funded end-to-end restoration was being developed it was unacceptable to the lottery funders for £millions to be paid to a private company, but TCS wanted their pound of flesh. In the end a deal was done whereby the canal (but not the canal company's other assets) was transferred to The Waterways Trust, an independent charity set up to support some of BW's activities. At the same time TWT and the Lottery Comission subcontracted the restoration process and subsequent canal operation and management to British Waterways. BW integrated the operation into their other activities, and so to users the Rochdale appeared to be the same as any other BW waterway.

TWT was merged into CRT on its establishment, along with the transfer of BW's assets and functions, so now the canal is in the same ownership as CRT's other waterways.

Both the Rochdale and the Huddersfield are governed by funding agreements with the Millennium Lottery which require the canals to be maintained in navigable use for a minimum specified period - I can't remember how long that is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, David Mack said:

No. During the early days of restoration between Sowerby Bridge and Littleborough the canal continued to be owned by the Rochdale Canal Company, who had allowed the restoration to quietly progress as long as it didn't cost them anything.

The Rochdale Canal Company was by then a wholly owned subsidiary of Town Centre Securities, a property developer, which had bought the canal company for its land assets.

When the Millennium Lottery funded end-to-end restoration was being developed it was unacceptable to the lottery funders for £millions to be paid to a private company, but TCS wanted their pound of flesh. In the end a deal was done whereby the canal (but not the canal company's other assets) was transferred to The Waterways Trust, an independent charity set up to support some of BW's activities. At the same time TWT and the Lottery Comission subcontracted the restoration process and subsequent canal operation and management to British Waterways. BW integrated the operation into their other activities, and so to users the Rochdale appeared to be the same as any other BW waterway.

TWT was merged into CRT on its establishment, along with the transfer of BW's assets and functions, so now the canal is in the same ownership as CRT's other waterways.

Both the Rochdale and the Huddersfield are governed by funding agreements with the Millennium Lottery which require the canals to be maintained in navigable use for a minimum specified period - I can't remember how long that is.

 

 

Might make it difficult for CART to close them as some are predicting, then... 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Until the specified time that is Ian😱 

 

I hadn’t appreciated that. ☹️

I can't remember how long the minimum period of navigability for the Rochdale and HNC is, but if its 25 years we are getting to the end of that period...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I can't remember how long the minimum period of navigability for the Rochdale and HNC is, but if its 25 years we are getting to the end of that period...

😞 😞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

No. During the early days of restoration between Sowerby Bridge and Littleborough the canal continued to be owned by the Rochdale Canal Company, who had allowed the restoration to quietly progress as long as it didn't cost them anything.

The Rochdale Canal Company was by then a wholly owned subsidiary of Town Centre Securities, a property developer, which had bought the canal company for its land assets.

When the Millennium Lottery funded end-to-end restoration was being developed it was unacceptable to the lottery funders for £millions to be paid to a private company, but TCS wanted their pound of flesh. In the end a deal was done whereby the canal (but not the canal company's other assets) was transferred to The Waterways Trust, an independent charity set up to support some of BW's activities. At the same time TWT and the Lottery Comission subcontracted the restoration process and subsequent canal operation and management to British Waterways. BW integrated the operation into their other activities, and so to users the Rochdale appeared to be the same as any other BW waterway.

TWT was merged into CRT on its establishment, along with the transfer of BW's assets and functions, so now the canal is in the same ownership as CRT's other waterways.

Both the Rochdale and the Huddersfield are governed by funding agreements with the Millennium Lottery which require the canals to be maintained in navigable use for a minimum specified period - I can't remember how long that is.

 

 

CRT believe that the Rochdale Canal Company still exists as a separate entity, and owns the canal, and that they only operate it.  Maybe CRT owns the RCC and does not realise it.? 😀 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROCHDALE CANAL TRUST LIMITED

Company number 01985865

 

Registered office address
Corporate Control, Level 14 Civic Centre, West Street, Oldham, OL1 1QJ
Company status
Dissolved
Dissolved on
21 July 2015
Company type
Private company limited by guarantee without share capital
Incorporated on
4 February 1986

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

ROCHDALE CANAL TRUST LIMITED

Company number 01985865

 

Registered office address
Corporate Control, Level 14 Civic Centre, West Street, Oldham, OL1 1QJ
Company status
Dissolved
Dissolved on
21 July 2015
Company type
Private company limited by guarantee without share capital
Incorporated on
4 February 1986

 

 

We are talking about the original Rochdale Canal Company, not the Rochdale Canal Trust, or even the Rochdale Canal Society.  David Mack will know more, but maybe the trust was the thing that had to be replaced in order to secure funding?. I have got a book about all the restoration goings on, I must dig it out and read it again 😀.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Rochdale Canal Trust was an organisation jointly owned and run by the relevant local authorities to carry out the initial restoration from Sowerby Bridge to Littleborough. It handed over most of those duties to BW once the lottery funded restoration process took over, but presumably remained in existence until after CRT had taken over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dmr said:

 

CRT believe that the Rochdale Canal Company still exists as a separate entity, and owns the canal, and that they only operate it.

Where have you heard that?  My understanding is that only the canal was transferred to TWT, but it may have been the RCC was transferred along with the canal, with TCS holding on to the non-canal assets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, David Mack said:

 

Both the Rochdale and the Huddersfield are governed by funding agreements with the Millennium Lottery which require the canals to be maintained in navigable use for a minimum specified period - I can't remember how long that is.

 

Didn't CRT fall foul of that when they tried to close the visitor centre at the tunnel mouth 

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.