Surveyor reccomendations - Drilling to measure baseplate

[Jennarasion]

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

What size (length) is the boat ?

 

Springer were (lets be kind) an 'economy' builder and their smaller boats were built with a 3.75mm thick base plate. With anything less than (or even approaching) 4mm todays insurers will not cover you fully comprehensively.

 

What thickness did the survey indicate (accepting that it may be wrong) ?

 

It is worth further investigation as it could be the difference between being able to insure the boat, or not. 

I'd suggest spending as little as possible on the boat until you can ascetain if it is insurable**.

 

** You could insure in 3rd party only which is sufficient to get a licence, but obviously if anything happens to the boat (damage, sinking etc) you will have no cover for the value of the boat.

 

If you are planning to live on the boat and have all your worldly possessions with you it is something you need to carefully consider.

48ft long. The exaxt quote from the survey is "UTM readings were limited, but possible ranging from 4.7mm to 5.4mm thicknesses but were not considered as reliable readings given the internal corrosion. Minor corrosive pitting of up to 1.2mm in isolated areas were found requiring no action at this time and were of little concern." 

I am planning to live online it full time, and I have spent as little as possible due to this exact reason 😂

12 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

You have to bear in mind that you’re asking the surveyor to make an inspection of your boat which results in them carrying a professional liability in relation to what they report.

 

It’s your responsibility to make your boat available for a suitable and sufficient inspection and if the top of the baseplate can’t be inspected then you haven’t done that. The natural response of the surveyor then is to caveat their findings. Any surveyor would likely do that. It’s sensible, suggesting drilling a hole instead is lunacy.

 

What is incorrect is to suggest that the presence of scale (rust?) would corrupt a properly conducted ultrasound scan.

 

Do you know the recorded thicknesses and the nominal plate depths of the baseplate?

It wasn't phrased as a 'caveat', its definitely more of a 'stop sign, do not progress'. 

Im not sure of either plate depths or nominal thickness for the baseplate in particular, for the hull in general its:

5.0mm to 5.2mm nominal thickness with a 3.0mm to 4.0mm cabin 

[Alan de Enfield]

22 minutes ago, Jennarasion said:

The exaxt quote from the survey is "UTM readings were limited, but possible ranging from 4.7mm to 5.4mm thicknesses but were not considered as reliable readings given the internal corrosion. Minor corrosive pitting of up to 1.2mm in isolated areas were found requiring no action at this time and were of little concern." 

 

 

I'd try and find someone who can use the thickness machine correctly, or, has a machine with the suitable characteristics to differentiate between steel and rust/scale.

 

If the 1.2mm pitting is in the area measured at 4.7mm then that would give you (in the insurers eyes) a thickness of 3.5mm and would not be insurable 'fully comprehensively'.

 

Pitting can be resolved by filling the pits with weld - a monotonous job but easy enough for a skillfull welder - not cheap tho.

[Captain Pegg]

34 minutes ago, Jennarasion said:

48ft long. The exaxt quote from the survey is "UTM readings were limited, but possible ranging from 4.7mm to 5.4mm thicknesses but were not considered as reliable readings given the internal corrosion. Minor corrosive pitting of up to 1.2mm in isolated areas were found requiring no action at this time and were of little concern." 

I am planning to live online it full time, and I have spent as little as possible due to this exact reason 😂

It wasn't phrased as a 'caveat', its definitely more of a 'stop sign, do not progress'. 

Im not sure of either plate depths or nominal thickness for the baseplate in particular, for the hull in general its:

5.0mm to 5.2mm nominal thickness with a 3.0mm to 4.0mm cabin 

But you can’t stop because you’ve already bought the boat.

 

Your baseplate is 5mm thick as determined by an appropriate method. (Just noted Alan’s point about the pitting which could be critical).

 

The bit about it being unreliable is unfortunate as it’s almost certainly untrue but you’ve asked a surveyor to pass a professional opinion on something that’s of naturally higher risk than the norm. It’s much easier for us on a forum to make comment because we look it from the balance of probabilities and they appear to be on your side. The surveyor needs a higher degree of certainty and isn’t getting it.
 

I think it simply hinges on whether you can get sufficient insurance to give you peace of mind based on the survey you have.

 

If you can get that insurance, just carry on and you don’t need to do anything.

 

It might though be wise to create an inspection hatch but be prepared for what you see to perhaps be a little alarming. The top surface of baseplates can rust significantly and as someone has already pointed out the thickness of the rust will be 10 times that of the steel from which it was produced.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 25 by Captain Pegg

[Crewcut]

I think I'd be buying a ball pein hammer and getting underneath with it myself and hammer testing as much as you possibly can. Do it and come back here with how it went. Also as already spoken about get under the floor inside in a few places. By the sounds of it you might struggle to get comprehensive insurance with the existing survey and it's likely that another survey would leave you with the same issue. I wouldn't worry unduly though, plenty of people are insured third party and FWIW I (and others) wouldn't have had a survey and would likely have done a hammer test and looked under the floor wherever feasible. Boat ownership is pretty daunting at the start, you will if you're normal worry about things that down the line you'll come to realise there wasn't really anything much to worry about. If you do what you reasonably can, learn how to do things yourself & are prepared to get stuck in and have a go in all likelihood you'll be fine...

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

5 hours ago, Jennarasion said:

This guy seems more of a reliable source than my neighbour 😂 you can see why i needed to fact check 😂

 Phew, I thought you were going to say “that’s the guy I bought the boat off”😅

Edited February 25 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[blackrose]

4 hours ago, Crewcut said:

I think I'd be buying a ball pein hammer and getting underneath with it myself and hammer testing as much as you possibly can. Do it and come back here with how it went. 

 

You're assuming the OP knows what they're doing with a hammer. There's quite a knack to it and average canal boater wouldn't have a clue how to test their hull with a hammer, even those with years of boat ownership experience. But you're expecting a complete newby to do it? The other problem is whether the boat is high enough off the ground to get a proper swing at the baseplate and even if it is, suppose the OP hit a thin patch of steel and put the hammer through. Yes at least they'd have found out, but they'd be in for some costly repairs that they might not be able to afford at this present time. I think it's a bad suggestion all round.

Edited February 25 by blackrose

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, blackrose said:

The other problem is whether the boat is high enough of the ground to get a proper swing at the baseplate

 

If it is, as thought to be, a Springer it will have a shallow V-Hull so its not as bad as lying underneath a totally flat baseplate and trying to get an nice swing.

[blackrose]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

If it is, as thought to be, a Springer it will have a shallow V-Hull so its not as bad as lying underneath a totally flat baseplate and trying to get an nice swing.

 

Yes they might be able to access the higher outer areas with the hammer but possibly not the lowest parts. But a hammer in the hands of someone inexperienced who doesn't know what they're doing is a waste of time in my opinion.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

Yes they might be able to access the higher outer areas with the hammer but possibly not the lowest parts. But a hammer in the hands of someone inexperienced who doesn't know what they're doing is a waste of time in my opinion.

 

 

 

And mine.

[Graham Davis]

I'm surprised a Springer measurers around 5mm on the baseplate!

[ditchcrawler]

3 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

I'm surprised a Springer measurers around 5mm on the baseplate!

¼" ish

[agg221]

If the stories of Springers being built from recycled gasometer plates are true then the steel may well be old enough to contain slag inclusions which would give a false reading with ultrasound but the fact that no particularly thin readings have shown up suggests that this is not the case.

 

Personally I would find a surveyor who is  more experienced in using ultrasound, get the hull surveyed by them, do any necessary or advisable work such as filling pits, then get it blast cleaned and two pack epoxy coated all over. It’s not the cheapest approach but would give the best overall result in extending life and giving peace of mind with the lowest ongoing costs.

 

Alec