Proposed new accessible electric narrowboat.

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

Which consume far more (expensive!) electricity than a heat pump -- OK for frost protection, not so good for heating when you're onboard, 4kW typically costs about £1 an hour.

 

But once you are 'up to temperature' you do not use anything like 4kW.

Set the thermostat & our oil filled radiators spend more time 'off' than on. I'd hazard a guess that they actually average more like 1kW or ~£0.27 per hour.

 

My marina electric is pretty much 'free' now. We bought some boat stands (to support the boat if we come out) the cost was £800. I have rented them out (via the marina) for £200 per Winter, the Marina give me £200 of leccy on my card which lasts all year - including leaving the engine room heaters on all Winter.

[peterboat]

50 minutes ago, IanD said:

Even with a widebeam (5kWp of panels will give about 17kWh/day average in summer) I doubt that solar alone will keep up with several long days of cruising in a row as well as domestic power use -- I believe you rarely do this but other people do.

 

On a narrowboat (2kWp of panels?) there's no chance even in summer unless you go everywhere at "tickover" speed using about 1kW (0.5kWh/mile) which is what some optimistic electric boat promoters seem to assume -- for most people about 3kW (1kWh/mile at 3mph) when cruising along is much more realistic, as posted above. Even then, unless you do short days and/or moor up for a day in between them, solar won't keep up with propulsion and domestic demand except on really sunny days.

 

To give a speed/power benchmark for electric drive against a typical narrowboat diesel (Beta 43 with 2:1 gearbox and 18"x12" prop) 1kW would be about 900rpm ("tickover" past moored boats), 3kW would be about 1300rpm ("normal" cruising speed).

 

The issue with heat pumps is where the power to run them comes from. Obviously if you're plugged in to shoreline in a marina this is a great solution, but if you're cruising around and need heat (in winter) or cooling (in summer) the additional electrical load (kW/day) will be quite high because they have to run for a lot of hours per day. If this doesn't come from solar (unlikely while cruising or in winter) then it has to come from an onboard generator -- and then you might as well burn the fuel in a diesel boiler, if anything this is more efficient than (generator+heat pump) especially for air-source.

Well you know we cruise and spend time where we got to otherwise its pointless to us as we like to walk the dogs. Also nowadays 5 hours tops is enough for daily cruising, its not a race it's a lifestyle. The generator in its final hour tops up batteries and does dishwasher or washing machine, also airfryer and induction hob as well as the hot water, it works 

[IanD]

24 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Well you know we cruise and spend time where we got to otherwise its pointless to us as we like to walk the dogs. Also nowadays 5 hours tops is enough for daily cruising, its not a race it's a lifestyle. The generator in its final hour tops up batteries and does dishwasher or washing machine, also airfryer and induction hob as well as the hot water, it works 

Like I said, you don't cruise long days or more than one in a row, so solar works for you -- in the summer, on a wideboat. And even so you need to run the genny sometimes even in summer, and presumably a lot more in winter when there's sod-all solar.

 

The OP is still trying/hoping to rely on solar on a narrowboat; it's not going to work unless he stays plugged-in or only travels slowly and/or for short days in summer, there's no realistic way to avoid having an onboard generator.

Edited December 28, 2023 by IanD

[peterboat]

59 minutes ago, IanD said:

Like I said, you don't cruise long days or more than one in a row, so solar works for you -- in the summer, on a wideboat. And even so you need to run the genny sometimes even in summer, and presumably a lot more in winter when there's sod-all solar.

 

The OP is still trying/hoping to rely on solar on a narrowboat; it's not going to work unless he stays plugged-in or only travels slowly and/or for short days in summer, there's no realistic way to avoid having an onboard generator.

I said the same to him at the beginning, I have considered fitting bigger solar panels on the main roof to increase capacity but do wonder if its worth the cost? Solar is cheap though in the long run and my controller can handle 5 kw 72 volts 

[Matt Wardman]

I think a conversation around the basic mechanisms of humidity and temperature control used for narrowboats and houses would be useful.

 

A traditional narrowboat - like a traditional house - is ventilated (when doors etc are closed)by holes which have been cut in the walls, and gaps around doors and air leakage around penetrations. In winter, or at other times, we may stuff the holes with cloths or similar if we want to create a fug.

 

In NBs it is "fixed vents" (ie holes) mandated by the CRT (10000sqmm is according to me approximately the same as a 110mm - 4.5" - hole). In houses it is traditionally chimneys and air bricks both sides to ensure a cross-flow air current under the floor, which disperses moisture and tries to make the internal climate the same as the outside climate by coming up through the floor. Add in gaps around doors and windows and pipe penetrations etc.

 

AFAICS the Boat Safety Scheme does not define how much ventilation in terms of airflow but in terms of the size of the hole required in your boat, but does define resilience to eg CO by suggesting 2 air changes per hour (ach). Plus the requirements for "low/high" ventilation (which makes some sense around eg accumulation of CO2 in the bottom of the boat interior).

 

In their more recent form for houses, holes have become "trickle vents" installed in window frames, plus all the other forms of leakage. In this sense buildings and boats 'breathe' as air and moisture move in and out.

 

For houses the more recent trend is to keep air changes to a lowish minimum, and require ventilation to meet certain standards, around ideas such as extract ventilation (ie background), purge ventilation to remove smells, pollutants etc rapid - all to create a safe / comfortable environment.

 

Building Regs define houses as "less airtight" or "more airtight". The former is approximately "traditional", the latter is moving towards 'passive', which means putting an airtight membrane around the entire house inside the walls, and controlling the airflows rather than allowing leaks. When a new house is built, an air leakage test is a requirement, which means closing all the windows, and using a "blower door" to see how much air escapes at 50 Pascals pressure. *

 

Doing 'passive' well requires meticulous attention to detail, and you don't find out how well you did it until the end.

 

To boil that down and relate it to this thread, if we used "fixed vents" then there is a continual stream of air that we have paid to warm up escaping.

 

When mechanical ventilation is applied that means that heat energy escaping in airflows can be recovered to heat incoming air as we can extract through a heat exchanger, with an efficiency of 80%+, rather than a continual loss of heat *with* the escaping air.

 

That is a potential quite large energy saving, but it depends on questions around when is heating used, will we accept a different philosophy for creating a comfortable living space (and is it possible on an NB), and the form of heating used. I'll have a crack at some numbers later. How much of a marginal gain it is, and what else that would require of us are imo useful questions when thinking about LENBs (Low Energy Narrow Boats).

 

I think there are some possible lessons to learn here, especially from techniques used to reduce energy bills in older houses when renovating - but as ever it's only some of the stuff that can be transferred, perhaps with modification.

 

(*) https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Air_permeability_testing

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by Matt Wardman

[IanD]

40 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I said the same to him at the beginning, I have considered fitting bigger solar panels on the main roof to increase capacity but do wonder if its worth the cost? Solar is cheap though in the long run and my controller can handle 5 kw 72 volts 

Solar is cheap and if you've got room you might as well fit more, it'll decrease the amount of time you need to run the genny and push "solar-only" further into the spring/autumn. Still won't let you rely on solar only all year round though, even with 7kWp of panels... 😞

20 minutes ago, Matt Wardman said:

 

[snip]

 

I think there are some possible lessons to learn here, especially from techniques used to reduce energy bills in older houses when renovating - but as ever it's only some of the stuff that can be transferred, perhaps with modification.

 

(*) https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Air_permeability_testing

 

 

And there's the rub -- a narrowboat is *very* different to a house in so many ways, and a lot of the things that work for low-energy houses (and EVs...) simply can't be applied to narrowboats.

 

You can make as many marginal savings and improvements as possible (and fit the maximum possible area of solar panels) but a narrowboat will still not have enough energy supply during the winter months (maybe spring/autumn too) to avoid having to either plug in or burn fuel, the gap between solar yield and required energy budget (including heating and propulsion) is simply too big.

 

Even with a wideboat like @peterboat where you can maybe get up to 3x the solar panel area on the roof will struggle to be plug-in/fuel-free year round, though the times non-solar power will be needed will be a lot fewer than a narrowboat.

 

And if you can't get rid of the onboard generator -- which would save a huge amount of cost and space, but isn't feasible -- then all the (expensive?) improvements are doing is reducing fuel use a bit (but not getting rid of it), which seems a lot of effort (and cost) for little reward.

 

The "holy grail" would be to get rid of the genny and fuel-burning, but I'm afraid you're just not going to be able to do this on a narrowboat... 😞

Edited December 28, 2023 by IanD

[Tony Brooks]

37 minutes ago, Matt Wardman said:

When mechanical ventilation is applied that means that heat energy escaping in airflows can be recovered to heat incoming air as we can extract through a heat exchanger, with an efficiency of 80%+, rather than a continual loss of heat *with* the escaping air.

 

Having just done a light Google for the size of a suitable heat recovery unit and ducting, let alone the price and providing the electricity for the fans, It confirmed my view that unless it is a new build it would be difficult to install because all space is at such a premium. Also, the heat recovery % quoted are rather less than 80%. I suspect greater efficiency requires larger units.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

The OP is still trying/hoping to rely on solar on a narrowboat; it's not going to work unless he stays plugged-in or only travels slowly and/or for short days in summer, there's no realistic way to avoid having an onboard generator.

I think the OP is being delusional especially with a 45ft boat and it’s all a paper exercise for him. I doubt he’s even contacted any shell builders/fitters to get timescale/doable/prices.

 I doubt many would bother getting back as they’ll not want to get involved with all the Eco heat saving ideas(and that’s all they are) The hassle is just not worth it to them. They build to what works and what they know.

[Up-Side-Down]

2 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

I think the OP is being delusional especially with a 45ft boat and it’s all a paper exercise for him. I doubt he’s even contacted any shell builders/fitters to get timescale/doable/prices.

 I doubt many would bother getting back as they’ll not want to get involved with all the Eco heat saving ideas(and that’s all they are) The hassle is just not worth it to them. They build to what works and what they know.

But taking the bigger picture, just look at all the valuable discussion and knowledge that has been culled from around the subject. CWDF at its very best. 

[IanD]

55 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Having just done a light Google for the size of a suitable heat recovery unit and ducting, let alone the price and providing the electricity for the fans, It confirmed my view that unless it is a new build it would be difficult to install because all space is at such a premium. Also, the heat recovery % quoted are rather less than 80%. I suspect greater efficiency requires larger units.

The other point is that I suspect that in a gas-free boat (like mine) with relatively little free air ventilation, the heat loss through this is small compared to that through the (relatively poorly insulated) roof/cabin/floor/windows, so as a percentage there's not much energy to be saved this way. This is a very different situation to a Passivhaus with far better insulation and much bigger internal volume, where MHR makes sense.

 

54 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

I think the OP is being delusional especially with a 45ft boat and it’s all a paper exercise for him. I doubt he’s even contacted any shell builders/fitters to get timescale/doable/prices.

 I doubt many would bother getting back as they’ll not want to get involved with all the Eco heat saving ideas(and that’s all they are) The hassle is just not worth it to them. They build to what works and what they know.

Some builders/fitters are perfectly happy to try out new ideas so long as they think they're practical to build/fit and the customer pays for the extra time and materials involved -- which won't be cheap, especially if the materials or suppliers are unusual. DAMHIK... 😞

 

If they're honest then they'll also tell the customer if they think something is crazy or impractical to build or just plain won't work... 😉

Edited December 28, 2023 by IanD

[Matt Wardman]

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

The other point is that I suspect that in a gas-free boat (like mine) with relatively little free air ventilation, the heat loss through this is small compared to that through the (relatively poorly insulated) roof/cabin/floor/windows, so as a percentage there's not much energy to be saved this way. This is a very different situation to a Passivhaus with far better insulation and much bigger internal volume, where MHR makes sense.

I'm chipping away at getting to a hopefully useful model for some of those numbers in a week or so's time (without defining the duration of "or so".)

 

Do you have approximate numbers for how many air changes per hour your ventilation generates, and the environment you create eg in terms of relative humidity and how much it varies?

 

(I think one can get at an approximate estimate of the former by comparing actual "fixed ventilation" to the theoretical CRT requirement, and the latter if you have a min/max thermometer / hygrometer.)

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by Matt Wardman

[magnetman]

I feel a part of the original posting which has been overlooked is that the Boat is going to be 'accessible'.

 

 

Obviously taking it literally all Boats need to be accessible otherwise you would never be able to get into it but presumably this means some sort of arrangement to deal with wheelchairs or other mobility aids.

 

This could prove to be a considerably more complicated issue to resolve than the efficiency of drive or heating systems for a number of different reasons not least because of the size of door needed.

 

One would need to calculate how many times entry and exit is required and also factor in unexpected exit requirements.

 

 

I do often thing that the rather basic detail of getting in and out of Boats is often overlooked in favour of other things when in reality one of the most common things anyone ever does with a Boat is to get in and out of it.

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, Matt Wardman said:

I'm chipping away at getting to a hopefully useful model for some of those numbers in a week or so's time (without defining the duration of "or so".)

 

Do you have approximate numbers for how many air changes per hour your ventilation generates, and the environment you create eg in terms of relative humidity and how much it varies?

 

(I think one can get at an approximate estimate of the former by comparing actual "fixed ventilation" to the theoretical CRT requirement, and the latter if you have a min/max thermometer / hygrometer.)

 

 

Sorry, don't have any ventilation numbers. Humidity seems to track outside fairly closely whether the boat is occupied or not. The only energy/power figures I have for heating are that during the worst of the (just sub-zero) November cold spell I estimate it was using about 1kW on average to keep the inside above 4.5C (frost protection), so would need something like 4kW to keep the inside at 20C in the coldest possible UK winter temperatures -- obviously this would be less (around 2kW?) in more normal conditions at temperatures a few degrees above  zero.

[agg221]

On 23/12/2023 at 12:33, IanD said:

Thermal storage can help, a well insulated calorifier (mine has double the normal insulation thickness) does this to some extent. A much bigger thermal store like some have on wideboats would help more, but fitting them in on a narrowboat is difficult.

 

But neither this nor a marginal improvement in insulation (e.g. ludicrously expensive aerogel blanket vs. sprayfoam) is going to fix the fundamental problem with trying to avoid "burning stuff" on an electric narrowboat, which is energy demand exceeding renewable energy supply... 😞

 

Whilst I agree with your conclusion that the fundamental problem on an electric narrowboat is 'energy demand exceeding renewable energy supply' (I would add, with any currently available technology), there are certain aspects where I feel your choice of words reveals preconceptions that may be worth reconsidering. Specifically the term 'ludicrously expensive' is highly subjective and 'marginal gains' can be challenged (marginal gains generally refers to 1%, whereas aerogel blanket offers a 30% improvement over PIR). The same terms could be applied to the construction of a hybrid electric boat with a Schilling rudder when compared to a standard flat bladed rudder and a conventional diesel propulsion system. Everyone makes their own choices as to how to spend their money.

 

One of the things about canal boats is that, being negligibly regulated, they do make excellent test-beds. Sometimes the test fails, sometimes it is a huge success and is emulated. Mostly these are privately funded, which limits the scale of the aspiration. Some have a level of public funding from time to time (such as the hydrogen powered demonstrator) which allows something more radical to be trialled. One of the very early hybrid boats (Waterscape) was funded by BW...

 

What I think generally does work is incremental gains (not necessarily marginal gains) where the whole objective may not be achieved but steps are taken towards it. A fuel-free boat is not feasible, but how much can you reduce energy requirements? If I could be bothered I would run the U-value calculations based on a conventional steel shell (4mm) at 15m long for the cabin, with 25mm of PIR insulation with relatively large windows vs. a GRP cabin with 10off 8" double-glazed portholes and 75mm of aerogel insulation, which is about the maximum I could probably get in, with 10mm of plywood. I would assume this applies to all surfaces and I would assume the  use of a heat recovery system in each case. I would set it for a 15degC internal average temperature (which would in practice vary along the boat) and an external temperature of -5degC which would be averaging the minimum possible air temperature and the relatively stable minimum water temperature, assuming ratios of area for each. This would allow the calculation of energy input requirement in kW to maintain the temperature (subtracting 0.15kW for the occupant). The purpose would be to determine the difference between the two scenarios so see how much of an energy saving could be achieved, which could be converted into litres of diesel for a handy comparator.

 

But instead I will continue trying to write this really difficult job application form!

 

Alec

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by agg221

[magnetman]

Horses could be useful here in a number of different ways.

 

Its quite clever converting grass to motive power and getting a byproduct one can use to make the vegetables grow better. Lurcher for the rabbits.

 

 

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I feel a part of the original posting which has been overlooked is that the Boat is going to be 'accessible'.

 

Obviously taking it literally all Boats need to be accessible otherwise you would never be able to get into it but presumably this means some sort of arrangement to deal with wheelchairs or other mobility aids.

 

This could prove to be a considerably more complicated issue to resolve than the efficiency of drive or heating systems for a number of different reasons not least because of the size of door needed.

 

One would need to calculate how many times entry and exit is required and also factor in unexpected exit requirements.

 

I do often thing that the rather basic detail of getting in and out of Boats is often overlooked in favour of other things when in reality one of the most common things anyone ever does with a Boat is to get in and out of it.

 

 

Big internal doors with no narrow pinch points anywhere to allow full wheelchair access are also going to make internal layout "challenging" (meaning: flaming difficult!) in a narrowboat. What minimum width gaps are needed to allow this?

[magnetman]

One could crane in throught the cabin top and use a lift of some sort.

 

No doors or windows. Excellent for heat retention.

 

Padded sides.

 

 

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, agg221 said:

 

Whilst I agree with your conclusion that the fundamental problem on an electric narrowboat is 'energy demand exceeding renewable energy supply' (I would add, with any currently available technology), there are certain aspects where I feel your choice of words reveals preconceptions that may be worth reconsidering. Specifically the term 'ludicrously expensive' is highly subjective and 'marginal gains' can be challenged (marginal gains generally refers to 1%, whereas aerogel blanket offers a 30% improvement over PIR). The same terms could be applied to the construction of a hybrid electric boat with a Schilling rudder when compared to a standard flat bladed rudder and a conventional diesel propulsion system. Everyone makes their own choices as to how to spend their money.

 

One of the things about canal boats is that, being negligibly regulated, they do make excellent test-beds. Sometimes the test fails, sometimes it is a huge success and is emulated. Mostly these are privately funded, which limits the scale of the aspiration. Some have a level of public funding from time to time (such as the hydrogen powered demonstrator) which allows something more radical to be trialled. One of the very early hybrid boats (Waterscape) was funded by BW...

 

What I think generally does work is incremental gains (not necessarily marginal gains) where the whole objective may not be achieved but steps are taken towards it. A fuel-free boat is not feasible, but how much can you reduce energy requirements? If I could be bothered I would run the U-value calculations based on a conventional steel shell (4mm) at 15m long for the cabin, with 25mm of PIR insulation with relatively large windows vs. a GRP cabin with 10off 8" double-glazed portholes and 75mm of aerogel insulation, which is about the maximum I could probably get in, with 10mm of plywood. I would assume the  use of a heat recovery system in each case, and assume this applies to all surfaces. I would set it for a 15degC internal average temperature (which would in practice vary along the boat) and an external temperature of -5degC which would be averaging the minimum possible air temperature against the water temperature, assuming ratios of area for each. This would allow the calculation of energy input requirement in kW to maintain the temperature (subtracting 0.15kW for the occupant). The purpose would be to determine the difference between the two scenarios so see how much of an energy saving could be achieved, which could be converted into litres of diesel for a handy comparator.

 

But instead I will continue trying to write this really difficult job application form!

 

Alec

 

As I said, there are undoubtedly small gains to be made in several areas. But unless these are big enough to completely get rid of the need for generator and fuel burning and/or shoreline power and allow solar-only power, the gains are marginal at best.

 

It's a similar position to EV/PHEV -- the big cost/complexity/CO2 benefit is getting rid of the engine/generator (EV). It would be great to be able to do this on narrowboats and go truly electric, but it's simply never going to happen without network-wide charging points -- which there is no credible plan for... 😞

Edited December 28, 2023 by IanD

[agg221]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

As I said, there are undoubtedly small gains to be made in several areas. But unless these are big enough to get rid of the need for generator and fuel burning and/or shoreline power and allow solar-only power, the gains are marginal at best.

 

It's a similar position to EV/PHEV -- the big cost/complexity/CO2 benefit is getting rid of the engine/generator (EV). It would be great to be able to do this on narrowboats and go truly electric, but it's simply never going to happen without network-wide charging points -- which there is no credible plan for... 😞

I anticipate that the gains would be greater than 1% and therefore not marginal, but unless I or someone else can be bothered to run the calculation I can't tell you exactly what they will be.

 

However, the greater point is about the value of incremental gains if you cannot achieve full outcomes. For example, I could equally argue there is no point building a hybrid electric boat as you still need the generator, so might as well stick with direct diesel propulsion...

 

Alec

[Matt Wardman]

22 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I feel a part of the original posting which has been overlooked is that the Boat is going to be 'accessible'.

 

 

Obviously taking it literally all Boats need to be accessible otherwise you would never be able to get into it but presumably this means some sort of arrangement to deal with wheelchairs or other mobility aids.

 

This could prove to be a considerably more complicated issue to resolve than the efficiency of drive or heating systems for a number of different reasons not least because of the size of door needed.

 

One would need to calculate how many times entry and exit is required and also factor in unexpected exit requirements.

 

 

I do often thing that the rather basic detail of getting in and out of Boats is often overlooked in favour of other things when in reality one of the most common things anyone ever does with a Boat is to get in and out of it.

 

 

 

 

As I read it the OP was meaning "usable by us as we get older", rather than 'accessible' in the sense defined by the Equality Act.

 

I  think that there quite hard limits for accessibility in a narrowboat for a wheelchair user depending on the precise type of mobility impairment that that person experiences, though remember that wheelchair users are under 10% of disabled people.

 

I make it ~1.8% wheelchair users and ~20% of the population with a disability by Government definition. For example, everybody with Diabetes Type I is counted as disabled, as the condition is likely to have a long-term impact on health and wellbeing, but short -> medium consequences do not usually have a major impact if the condition is managed well.

 

Things like working locks under the English lock-yourself-through model are very difficult, unlike Scotland where "you don't go through on your own, McGubbin" is in place (aiui).

Edited December 28, 2023 by Matt Wardman

[magnetman]

An 'accessible' Boat seems a bit like an 'affordable' home.

 

I don't see why anyone would want to have an inaccessible Boat or an unaffordable home in the first place.

 

 

These things need clarifying.

 

One of the main problems with canals is there are bridges. Without bridges one could use helium baloons to reduce hull drag by slightly lifting the Boat out of the water.

 

Catamarans could work better without bridges.

 

A campaign to knock down and modernise all those irritating old bridges could be worth doing as a way to decarbonise narrow Boating.

 

 

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, agg221 said:

I anticipate that the gains would be greater than 1% and therefore not marginal, but unless I or someone else can be bothered to run the calculation I can't tell you exactly what they will be.

 

However, the greater point is about the value of incremental gains if you cannot achieve full outcomes. For example, I could equally argue there is no point building a hybrid electric boat as you still need the generator, so might as well stick with direct diesel propulsion...

 

Alec

You could well argue that, *if* the reason for building a hybrid electric boat was to save fuel/money -- which as I've said many times it isn't, because it would take longer than most boater's lifetimes to recover the higher build cost (especially with generator), and many years before the CO2 payback from fuel saving made up for the inbuilt CO2 burden of batteries etc.

 

Gains of a few percent *are* marginal, to make any significant difference you need gains of tens of percent -- and much bigger still (80%?) to get rid of the generator/fuel-burning. There doesn't seem any way to do this using technologies I'm aware of today that can be applied to narrowboats, or even any that are on the horizon in the future. Because believe me, I've looked... 😉

Edited December 28, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

Dwarf narrow Boat owners could consider the dual hull catamarn design because they need a lot less interior headroom.

 

If the hulls were efficiently designed and the accomodation platform placed above the efficiency could be amazing. One could have a motor in each hull and a dedicated bank of batteries.

 

Oh to be a dwarf !

[Matt Wardman]

13 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Dwarf narrow Boat owners could consider the dual hull catamarn design because they need a lot less interior headroom.

 

If the hulls were efficiently designed and the accomodation platform placed above the efficiency could be amazing. One could have a motor in each hull and a dedicated bank of batteries.

 

Oh to be a dwarf !

It's an interesting thought with respect to implicit assumptions.

Do wheelchair users, or women (average height in UK 5'5" = 1.624m), or ethnicities who have a shorter stature, need a 1.9->2m ceiling height in narrowboats?

Why do we British Men think we are entitled to it, and it has to be everywhere?

 

🤠  🤠 🤠 🤠

Edited December 28, 2023 by Matt Wardman

[magnetman]

For particularly small people there could be half-width narrow Boats which presumably would be allowed to pay 50 percent for their licence fee because they could fit 4 of them into a 14ft wide lock.