"Old Steel" and the tale of two surveys

[DShK]

Hi there! I've recently started actively looking for my first boat. I've fairly obsessively read things and kept an intense eye on apolloduck.

 

One of the first boats I went to see took me a bit off guard however. It looked amazing in the photos, ticked a lot of boxes and had character. The boat was commissioned by a Ruston engineer and was suitably powered by a beautiful old 2YD. It had an unusual large hatch in the bedroom where he had planned to hoist in engines to work on. However, these plans were never to be an it had sat for 25 years.

 

The boat was rough around the edges - in ways that I would have been fine with - I'm a rough around the edges person. However there were some things that did make me think "what are the issues that I CAN'T see?". Lack of a forward bilge access hatch on a 30+ year old boat (and only a recent addition of a stern dam), tea towels used to seal up a hatch, dodgy looking wiring in some places, rusty stern gear, rust starting to leak around windows, heavy corrosion around stove flue, cracked stove glass, engine running when I arrived.

 

However it was the previous survey(s) that ultimately spooked me away from this boat that I could have very much loved. The advert claimed a recent survey said the steel was as good as the day it was built. Upon reading the (insurance) survey, it stated the base plate was measured 10-10.5mm with max 1.5mm of pitting, and sides 5.9-6.2 with max 0.7mm pitting. It made out that generally the pitting was light. I had heard that older steel was generally considered harder wearing, and Norton Canes who built the boat - are well respected. So initially, this seemed okay.

 

Move forward to viewing the boat. The owner had relocated so his neighbour let me on the boat at it's mooring. Helpfully the owner had left paperwork for me to view. In it I found a survey from 2016, which was considerably different to the one I had seen before. While the bottom had minimal corrosion, the sides had "widespread pitting corrosion" between 1-2mm (measured thickness 5.6-6.7mm). Moderate and heavy wastage corrosion around the waterline. The difference between these two surveys, and the advert claim, raised huge red flags.

 

When I mentioned this to the owner, he said all boats had pitting and that the old steel was much better and I shouldn't worry. But he respected that I felt too inexperienced to make a judgement in this case and generally offered me advice. This boat was £72K, so not on the lower end of the market. After seeing more boats in person (I am wary that photos don't always reflect reality) I know I can get a tidy, if much less characterful boat, for the same price. Was I right to be spooked? Is older steel worth putting faith in? In this case it's partly a worry about spending £70k on a boat worth £50k etc. Overall I think it does highlight how you really should take surveys with a pinch of salt.

Edited March 19, 2022 by DShK

[Mad Harold]

I think you are right to be spooked.

Paying £70+K for a boat I think you do need some re- assurance that all is as advertised.

Commission your own survey, then put your trust in the Gods and take a chance.

A decent surveyor will let you follow him around when he is doing it,providing you don't get under his feet.

Ask him a load of questions and opinions.That's what you are paying him for.

[Stilllearning]

Just an opinion here, nothing specific: Hull condition is all down to quality of build ( fabrication etc) and maintenance and every boat will be different. Have fun looking and learning, and when you find the right boat, you will know it.

[Laurie Booth]

Pre Atomic steel is better than post atomic steel.

[Mad Harold]

1 minute ago, Laurie Booth said:

Pre Atomic steel is better than post atomic steel.

???  How so?

[MtB]

£72k for a 'rough around the edges' Norton Canes over 30 years old sounds grossly overpriced to me. You should expect one in great nick for that sort of money.

 

 

[Laurie Booth]

1 minute ago, Mad Harold said:

???  How so?

The earth's magnetic core was damaged along with the iron when the atomic bombs were used.

[Higgs]

Just now, Laurie Booth said:

The earth's magnetic core was damaged along with the iron when the atomic bombs were used.

 

All iron comes from exploding stars, larger than our own sun. If iron can stand that, it's difficult to imagine atomic bombs doing much damage. 

 

 

[Laurie Booth]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

All iron comes from exploding stars, larger than our own sun. If iron can stand that, it's difficult to imagine atomic bombs doing much damage. 

 

 

Well they did, it is the magnetic pulse that does the damage.

[Higgs]

4 minutes ago, Laurie Booth said:

Well they did, it is the magnetic pulse that does the damage.

 

Mmm, yep, never owned a magnetized bit of iron? 😊

 

 

Edited March 19, 2022 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Mmm, yep, never owned a magnetized bit of iron? 😊

 

 

 

Low-background steel is any steel produced prior to the detonation of the first nuclear bombs in the 1940s and 1950s. With the Trinity test and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and then subsequent nuclear weapons testing during the early years of the Cold War, background radiation levels increased across the world. Modern steel is contaminated with radionuclides because its production uses atmospheric air. Low-background steel is so-called because it does not suffer from such nuclear contamination. This steel is used in devices that require the highest sensitivity for detecting radionuclides.

One source of low-background steel is ships constructed before the Trinity test, most famously the scuttled German World War I warships in Scapa Flow. Old freight cars are another source.

Since the cessation of atmospheric nuclear testing, background radiation has decreased to very near natural levels, making special low-background steel no longer necessary for most radiation-sensitive applications, as brand-new steel now has a low enough radioactive signature that it can generally be used in such applications.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Low-background steel is any steel produced prior to the detonation of the first nuclear bombs in the 1940s and 1950s. With the Trinity test and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and then subsequent nuclear weapons testing during the early years of the Cold War, background radiation levels increased across the world. Modern steel is contaminated with radionuclides because its production uses atmospheric air. Low-background steel is so-called because it does not suffer from such nuclear contamination. This steel is used in devices that require the highest sensitivity for detecting radionuclides.

One source of low-background steel is ships constructed before the Trinity test, most famously the scuttled German World War I warships in Scapa Flow. Old freight cars are another source.

Since the cessation of atmospheric nuclear testing, background radiation has decreased to very near natural levels, making special low-background steel no longer necessary for most radiation-sensitive applications, as brand-new steel now has a low enough radioactive signature that it can generally be used in such applications.

 

Lucky for narrowboat builders, they won't have to worry about the detection of radionuclides. 

 

 

[Mike Tee]

On a boat of that sort of age (20 plus years old), only take notice of the measurements and comments by the (hopefully) experienced surveyor. Doesn't matter who built it, how often its been nuked, how complete and detailed the so-called maintenance history is or how pretty the blacking is. By all means look at the detail supplied, but really listen to the surveyor.

Some experts will be along to say 'bought 60 boats and never had a survey etc', but if you are not an expert, hire and listen to a professional.

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, DShK said:

Upon reading the (insurance) survey, it stated the base plate was measured 10-10.5mm with max 1.5mm of pitting, and sides 5.9-6.2 with max 0.7mm pitting.

 

1 hour ago, DShK said:

While the bottom had minimal corrosion, the sides had "widespread pitting corrosion" between 1-2mm (measured thickness 5.6-6.7mm). Moderate and heavy wastage corrosion around the waterline. The difference between these two surveys, and the advert claim, raised huge red flags.

 

Thickness measurements and pitting depths quoted in a survey are based on a more or less random selection of areas to test. So one surveyor's measurements are bound to be different to another's. These two sets of results don't look that different to me, and are more likely to reflect the attitude of the surveyor - some are keen to identify problems and end up describing the boat in negative terms, whereas others are more optimistic.

Having bought my own thickness gauge and tested Belfast's hull I got wildly different readings in close locations, so results are not repeatable.  In the end you just have to go with a gut reaction.

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, DShK said:

I had heard that older steel was generally considered harder wearing, and Norton Canes who built the boat - are well respected. So initially, this seemed okay.

The 'good steel' thing is a myth. All boatbuilders will have used the general purpose mild steels available at the time the boat was built. But Norton Canes built a better product than many - nicely detailed shape, well finished welds etc. But the current condition will owe as much as to how the boat has been looked after over 30+ years.

[MtB]

People have claimed old steel is better than new for resisting corrosion for as long as I can remember. 

 

I first heard about it regarding narrow boats in about 1977 and re cars, prior to that. 

 

 

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, DShK said:

Lack of a forward bilge access hatch on a 30+ year old boat (and only a recent addition of a stern dam), tea towels used to seal up a hatch, dodgy looking wiring in some places, rusty stern gear, rust starting to leak around windows, heavy corrosion around stove flue, cracked stove glass, engine running when I arrived.

 

These all suggest a lack of care and maintenance, which will affect boat value.

Not sure why you want forward bilge access. Many boats don't have any. Most boats are trimmed down at the stern so bilge water runs backwards. And it is at the back of the cabin bilge where you want access to see if water is building up and to pump it out.

[Onewheeler]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Low-background steel is any steel produced prior to the detonation of the first nuclear bombs in the 1940s and 1950s. With the Trinity test and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and then subsequent nuclear weapons testing during the early years of the Cold War, background radiation levels increased across the world. Modern steel is contaminated with radionuclides because its production uses atmospheric air. Low-background steel is so-called because it does not suffer from such nuclear contamination. This steel is used in devices that require the highest sensitivity for detecting radionuclides.

One source of low-background steel is ships constructed before the Trinity test, most famously the scuttled German World War I warships in Scapa Flow. Old freight cars are another source.

Since the cessation of atmospheric nuclear testing, background radiation has decreased to very near natural levels, making special low-background steel no longer necessary for most radiation-sensitive applications, as brand-new steel now has a low enough radioactive signature that it can generally be used in such applications.

Yes, I used to have a couple of tons of it in my lab that had been recovered from Scapa Flow. Underneath we found a very well pressed copy of "Top Busters", which may not be relevant here. 😮

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, Onewheeler said:

Yes, I used to have a couple of tons of it in my lab that had been recovered from Scapa Flow. Underneath we found a very well pressed copy of "Top Busters", which may not be relevant here. 😮

 

Wasn't that the German version of "Bra Twanging Monthly" ?

[smiler]

Does this nuclear radiation affect aluminium?

 

I'm now wondering whether it's safe to use my tinfoil hat for long periods.🙃

[DShK]

3 hours ago, David Mack said:

 

 

Thickness measurements and pitting depths quoted in a survey are based on a more or less random selection of areas to test. So one surveyor's measurements are bound to be different to another's. These two sets of results don't look that different to me, and are more likely to reflect the attitude of the surveyor - some are keen to identify problems and end up describing the boat in negative terms, whereas others are more optimistic.

Having bought my own thickness gauge and tested Belfast's hull I got wildly different readings in close locations, so results are not repeatable.  In the end you just have to go with a gut reaction.

 

The first survey (the better one) I read was for insurance - I can definitely see this being on the side of "it's not about to sink so it's all good". I think it was terms like "heavy wastage" in the second one that concerned me.

 

 

4 hours ago, Mad Harold said:

I think you are right to be spooked.

Paying £70+K for a boat I think you do need some re- assurance that all is as advertised.

Commission your own survey, then put your trust in the Gods and take a chance.

A decent surveyor will let you follow him around when he is doing it,providing you don't get under his feet.

Ask him a load of questions and opinions.That's what you are paying him for.

 

Yeah, overall I just got a bit of a bad feeling, if this isn't lining up, what else could be covered up? Of course I will get my own survey, regardless if you don't have any comeback should the boat have problems missed, I feel like I'm basically paying for someone with a lot more expertise to give me his opinion.

 

4 hours ago, Mike Tee said:

On a boat of that sort of age (20 plus years old), only take notice of the measurements and comments by the (hopefully) experienced surveyor. Doesn't matter who built it, how often its been nuked, how complete and detailed the so-called maintenance history is or how pretty the blacking is. By all means look at the detail supplied, but really listen to the surveyor.

Some experts will be along to say 'bought 60 boats and never had a survey etc', but if you are not an expert, hire and listen to a professional.

 

Yeah, problem with these surveys though - they were quite different in tone so hard to really put faith in either/or. If I commissioned my own, I'd either end up with the bad one always niggling in my mind, or a confirmation that the hull isn't in great shape.

 

 

3 hours ago, David Mack said:

 

These all suggest a lack of care and maintenance, which will affect boat value.

Not sure why you want forward bilge access. Many boats don't have any. Most boats are trimmed down at the stern so bilge water runs backwards. And it is at the back of the cabin bilge where you want access to see if water is building up and to pump it out.

 

Yeah, I guess if the boat was 10k+ cheaper I wouldn't have been so unsure of this boat. Overall it does sound like my gut instinct was right, and the boat was probably, at best, overpriced. Regarding the forward bilge - hmm, this may be my confusion. On the older survey it was recommended one was fit. You could access the bilge below the mid-engine, but I guess I'm not sure if this is part of the cabin bilge or not? Basically I just wanted to make sure the boat wasn't rotting from the inside out.

[Mike Tee]

From looking at the boat, the forward bilge was because the well deck was basically at the same level as the interior of the boat, and could not, like is usual, drain overboard. Not a design I particularly like, which is why I didn't go look at it myself! As it turned out, we found something better for us.

[blackrose]

8 hours ago, David Mack said:

 

These all suggest a lack of care and maintenance, which will affect boat value.

Not sure why you want forward bilge access. Many boats don't have any. Most boats are trimmed down at the stern so bilge water runs backwards. And it is at the back of the cabin bilge where you want access to see if water is building up and to pump it out.

 

I read "forward bilge access" as  just forward of the engine room bulkhead? 

8 hours ago, MtB said:

People have claimed old steel is better than new for resisting corrosion for as long as I can remember. 

 

I first heard about it regarding narrow boats in about 1977 and re cars, prior to that. 

 

 

 

Yes ignore boaters who go on about old steel being better, it's nonsense repeated by people who've just heard it from others. In many cases the quality control associated with modern steel production is better.

[Slow and Steady]

ref cars and old steel I have experience here and sorry but it's true certainly regarding old Volkswagons from the 60's compared to the 70's. The older stuff is like rock and does not warp (shrink/expand) to anywhere near the extant the more modern stuff does. There are quite a few restorers who specialise in old VW vans and some of them will only work on the older ones for this reason. Roll on a few more decades and pattern part body panels - so weak and bendy you wonder if they are made from lead sheet! This probably doesn't apply to stock sheet steel boats are made from, but the quality of steel CHOSEN by some car makers is by no means a constant thing.

 

I used to make some panels from old stock steel shelving after acquiring a heap of it and it was like magic. Without a doubt it corroded much more slowly than more modern steel sheet and this was just shelving, nothing special. There are sooo many different types of steel and steel used to be cheap enough that better quality recipes were used.

 

Check this out - the shiny bright bit and the rusty bit were both cleaned up at the same time and left a couple of days.

The shiny is ex 1940s/50s shelving below the weld, 1968 above, the rusty is 2010 sheet steel.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Slow and Steady

[Captain Pegg]

No one in the world of engineering or metallurgy considers the quality of steel in terms of whether it is prone to rusting or not.

 

What they know is that carbon steel - which accounts for 80% of production and almost 100% of steel narrowboats - is basically 99% iron and has a chemically unstable surface. This is why mill scale forms on the surface during production and rust forms when exposed to normal atmospheric conditions. All carbon steel will rust and while surface condition does have an affect, as does the exact chemical composition (early Bessemer steels have some chemical similarity to wrought iron and do rust less readily than later steels), in terms of the mechanical properties it isn't important. They also know of a substance called paint. Nonetheless I know of applications of uncoated carbon steel in outdoor use. This is possible because normal rusting doesn't happen at a significant rate.

 

If corrosion protection is paramount and coating isn't possible then high alloy steel i.e. stainless is specified.

 

I generally consider anyone who uses the term quality in this context doesn't really know what they are talking about. In specifying steel the term quality generally refers to the grade of steel required, and the grade is predominantly expressed in terms of the yield strength. That is generally a figure way beyond anything it will experience in a boat.

 

Modern steels are finer grained and harder than earlier steels and due to improvements in production methods will be largely free of inclusions and hydrogen bubbles which steels of 50 years vintage are likely to be riddled with. As the owner of a 1968 boat I can confirm the steel rusts well enough and won't be as good a product as a modern steel from anywhere in the world in terms of its engineering capabilities. But in a canal boat it matters not a jot. In my work - which involves assurance of steel components - I would be very wary of 1968 steel in some applications and not just because it's old.

 

Going back to those surveys don't they both measure the bottom at 10mm and the sides at 6mm? The other stuff is noise. Quoting steel thicknesses to tenths of millimetres is also nonsense when the method has little to no repeatability or reliability and you don't have a reference set of thickness from new (because a nominal 10mm plate will not uniformly be 10.0mm throughout if indeed it is even that thick at any one place).

 

As others have said the only thing that matters is independently verifying the condition for yourself.

 

Edited March 19, 2022 by Captain Pegg