RCD and RCA

[jddevel]

So as a follow up to my instigating the need for a RCD/RCA I will expand on what has since happened. In order not to enter the world of uncertainty of either selling the boat privately or trying to find a broker who would act for me without the certificate I indeed bit the bullet and requested the necessary from a surveyor. They had to be registered with HPI - a Government instigated, all be it I believe private, entity. Whilst directly dealing with HPI requesting a list of suitable surveyors I was given a name covering my area and was told they`d be in touch. Cost £4500. A couple of weeks passed-no contact. So I went to Google.and found a surveyor listed with HPI. Quote £4000. The implication being that HPI get £500 for their "efforts"!!!. Anyway a survey was duly carried out. Well as a sailaway I did expect a reaction however to my surprise the only thing I will hold my hands up to was regarding the fact that the wiring loom purchased from Loomtec was incorrectly fitted by ME. By incorrectly fitted I mean where wire ends entered a terminal THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD A "CRIMP" type fitting applied so that the screws thereby correctly contacted all strands. The remainder of the issues were either incorrect due to the hull builder or the "qualified" trades people I employed. Year six of my ownership left me little,I felt, redress to those "experts". EXAMPLES of requirements were :- Raising the weed hatch chamber by 30mm as it was to close to the waterline. Arranging for the engine room vent to be at least 475 mm off the waterline. Reducing the bow well deck drain vents to an area between 1000 sq mm and 2800 sq mm. Installation of bow thruster fuse adjacent to bow thruster batteries. Fit suitable fuse to the solar panel circuit within 175mm of the batteries. Earth bonding between engine and hull. Fit a double pole 30Am RCD or RCBO between the incoming shoreline supply and the isolating transformer. Labelling procedure how the shoreline should be connected and disconnected. The real amusing ones were fit a suitable designated anchor point in the bow. A means of man over board return single handed. When pointed out that it already had welded plates attached to the stern for this purpose it was pointed out that they were to far from hand holds to enable climbing aboard. So I could either have more plates welded  ( for example on the rudder!!!!!) or provide a boarding ladder- this is what I opted for. Two fixings on the bow and and a rope ladder with defined specifications as indicated by the surveyor. This is only a short list of the points I have had to sort which hopefully will be completed by the necessary trades people this coming week. 

  I will emphasis that whilst a sailaway it was really only the general fit out ( cupboards,kitchen and beds etc) that I carried out with apart from the final connection to light switches etc (see above) were carried out either by the hull builder or supposedly qualified staff via the marina I purchased the sailaway from. All the brokers I approached regarding selling stated the need for a RCD/RCA. It was also stated by the surveyor that even if the craft had a RCD if ADDITIONAL works had been carried out afterwards i.e. installation of solar, a wood burner or changes to the electrics then a further survey would need to be in place when selling. In summary ITS A BLOODY CAN OF WORMS!!!!

P.S. I`ve had two BSS surveys -one on launching and one on its expiry.

[Tonka]

3 minutes ago, jddevel said:

So as a follow up to my instigating the need for a RCD/RCA I will expand on what has since happened. In order not to enter the world of uncertainty of either selling the boat privately or trying to find a broker who would act for me without the certificate I indeed bit the bullet and requested the necessary from a surveyor. They had to be registered with HPI - a Government instigated, all be it I believe private, entity. Whilst directly dealing with HPI requesting a list of suitable surveyors I was given a name covering my area and was told they`d be in touch. Cost £4500. A couple of weeks passed-no contact. So I went to Google.and found a surveyor listed with HPI. Quote £4000. The implication being that HPI get £500 for their "efforts"!!!. Anyway a survey was duly carried out. Well as a sailaway I did expect a reaction however to my surprise the only thing I will hold my hands up to was regarding the fact that the wiring loom purchased from Loomtec was incorrectly fitted by ME. By incorrectly fitted I mean where wire ends entered a terminal THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD A "CRIMP" type fitting applied so that the screws thereby correctly contacted all strands. The remainder of the issues were either incorrect due to the hull builder or the "qualified" trades people I employed. Year six of my ownership left me little,I felt, redress to those "experts". EXAMPLES of requirements were :- Raising the weed hatch chamber by 30mm as it was to close to the waterline. Arranging for the engine room vent to be at least 475 mm off the waterline. Reducing the bow well deck drain vents to an area between 1000 sq mm and 2800 sq mm. Installation of bow thruster fuse adjacent to bow thruster batteries. Fit suitable fuse to the solar panel circuit within 175mm of the batteries. Earth bonding between engine and hull. Fit a double pole 30Am RCD or RCBO between the incoming shoreline supply and the isolating transformer. Labelling procedure how the shoreline should be connected and disconnected. The real amusing ones were fit a suitable designated anchor point in the bow. A means of man over board return single handed. When pointed out that it already had welded plates attached to the stern for this purpose it was pointed out that they were to far from hand holds to enable climbing aboard. So I could either have more plates welded  ( for example on the rudder!!!!!) or provide a boarding ladder- this is what I opted for. Two fixings on the bow and and a rope ladder with defined specifications as indicated by the surveyor. This is only a short list of the points I have had to sort which hopefully will be completed by the necessary trades people this coming week. 

  I will emphasis that whilst a sailaway it was really only the general fit out ( cupboards,kitchen and beds etc) that I carried out with apart from the final connection to light switches etc (see above) were carried out either by the hull builder or supposedly qualified staff via the marina I purchased the sailaway from. All the brokers I approached regarding selling stated the need for a RCD/RCA. It was also stated by the surveyor that even if the craft had a RCD if ADDITIONAL works had been carried out afterwards i.e. installation of solar, a wood burner or changes to the electrics then a further survey would need to be in place when selling. In summary ITS A BLOODY CAN OF WORMS!!!!

P.S. I`ve had two BSS surveys -one on launching and one on its expiry.

Interestingly, I think @Alan de Enfield & @IanD mocked me only recently on this forum when I mentioned that a independent anchor point should be fitted to boats 

[Tony Brooks]

@jddevel many thanks for that, perhaps it will now stop people pouring scorn when a few of us try to warn about the complexities and requirements flowing from the RCD/RCR. You have pretty much confirmed my understanding of the situation, not that it is enforced in any meaningful way for inland boats.

10 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Interestingly, I think @Alan de Enfield & @IanD mocked me only recently on this forum when I mentioned that a independent anchor point should be fitted to boats 

 

I have long held that attaching the anchor to a welded on dolly or T stud is very bad practice because they have been known to fail. I would be happier with a bolt through T stud with a large, thick load spreading plate under the metalwork it is fitted to.

[Bee]

Well done for biting the bullet. You're right about it being a can of worms - in fact it's also a Pandora's box, once you open it all the troubles in the world come flying out. 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, jddevel said:

It was also stated by the surveyor that even if the craft had a RCD if ADDITIONAL works had been carried out afterwards i.e. installation of solar, a wood burner or changes to the electrics then a further survey would need to be in place when selling. In summary ITS A BLOODY CAN OF WORMS!!!!

P.S. I`ve had two BSS surveys -one on launching and one on its expiry.

 

Many many thanks for that, it may now make the 'naysayers' stop talking their out dated crap about the RCD / RCD.

 

As I have previously explained - Yes, only an RCD/RCR registered surveyor can undertake a PCA 

 

What sort of costs have you incurred to do the work to bring it up to compliance ?

 

A real life acutal narrowboaters experience.

The RCD / RCR is a proper living requirement - even for canal boats !

 

 

54 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Interestingly, I think @Alan de Enfield & @IanD mocked me only recently on this forum when I mentioned that a independent anchor point should be fitted to boats 

 

I think you may have me wrongly commited for a crime I did not do.
I have long been an supporter for having a proper anchor point, and have even given methods of achieving it - with backing plates, eye bolts etc etc.

Edited July 13 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Many many thanks for that, it may now make the 'naysayers' stop talking the out dated crap about the RCD / RCD.

 

As I have previously explained - Yes, only an RCD/RCR registered surveyor can undertake a PCA 

 

A real life acutal narrowboaters experience.

The RCD / RCR is a proper living requirement - even for canal boats !

 

 

 

I think you may have me wrongly commited for a crime I did not do.
I have long been an supporter for having a proper anchor point, and have even given methods of achieving it - with backing plates, eye bolts etc etc.

And I never said it wasn't a good idea, just that AFAIK there's never been a case of one being pulled off while anchoring (long chain/rope) as opposed to strapping a boat to a stop or snatching off (when it has happened) because you simply don't get a short sharp shock load that's big enough.

 

And unless the doomsayers provide an example, this means a T-stud is perfectly adequate for deploying an anchor in an emergency on a boat on the rivers, which is what always gets asked... :,)

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

And I never said it wasn't a good idea, just that AFAIK there's never been a case of one being pulled off while anchoring (long chain/rope) as opposed to strapping a boat to a stop or snatching off (when it has happened) because you simply don't get a short sharp shock load that's big enough.

 

And unless the doomsayers provide an example, this means a T-stud is perfectly adequate for deploying an anchor in an emergency on a boat on the rivers, which is what always gets asked... :,)

 

 

So, just because something has never (knowingly) happened means that you don't need to comply with the regulations ?

[IanD]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

So, just because something has never (knowingly) happened means that you don't need to comply with the regulations ?

What regulations? Where does it say that a T-stud is not good enough?

 

You say an extra anchor point needed just in case anchoring pulls it off. I've explained why it won't, and you've been unable to quote any case where it happened.

 

If you can't, you're doom-mongering, worrying people about a theoretical possibility that has never happened.

[Alan de Enfield]

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

If you can't, you're doom-mongering, worrying people about a theoretical possibility that has never happened.

 

You are avoiding the point at hand

 

Without a 'solid' anchor point your boat is'nt RCD/RCR compliant and, seemingly, cannot be sold by a broker.

 

Requirement :

3.9 Anchoring, mooring and towing
All watercraft, taking into account their design category and their characteristics, shall be fitted with one or more strong points or other means capable of safely accepting anchoring, mooring and towing loads.

 

Do you have the empirical test evidence that a welded T-stud will take the shock load applied to it by halting a Narrowboat in an emergency ?

 

Evidence required ...................................

 

The PCA surveyor (whom I guess has a little more experince than yourself) has decided that a welded T-stud is not sufficiently strong as to meet the regulations.

 

On my Cat, I actually had a failure where the anchor winch was ripped off its mountings as the tide took the boat after the anchor had set and the slack taken up.

Quite frightening to see the 300 feet of chain dissapearing over the bow until it reached the bitter end (fortunately attached)

Edited July 13 by Alan de Enfield

[nicknorman]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

You are avoiding the point at hand

 

Without a 'solid' anchor point your boat is'nt RCD/RCR compliant and, seemingly, cannot be sold by a broker.

 

Requirement :

3.9 Anchoring, mooring and towing
All watercraft, taking into account their design category and their characteristics, shall be fitted with one or more strong points or other means capable of safely accepting anchoring, mooring and towing loads.

 

Do you have the empirical test evidence that a welded T-stud will take the shock load applied to it by halting a Narrowboat in an emergency ?

 

Evidence required ...................................

 

On my Cat, I actually had a failure where the anchor winch was ripped off its mountings as the tide took the boat after the anchor had set and the slack taken up.

Quite frightening to see the 300 feet of chain dissapearing over the bow until it reached the bitter end (fortunately attached)

That 3.9 requirement seems pretty vague as there is no hint of what sort of forces the attachment has to be able to withstand, and of course it goes on to say “taking into account the design category…”. So I would say it pretty much becomes a matter of opinion. We have a pretty chunky T stud, and bearing in mind it’s use as an emergency anchor attachment is likely to occur between zero and a couple of times in the lifetime of the boat, I have every confidence that it is entirely up to the job.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

That 3.9 requirement seems pretty vague as there is no hint of what sort of forces the attachment has to be able to withstand, and of course it goes on to say “taking into account the design category…”. So I would say it pretty much becomes a matter of opinion. We have a pretty chunky T stud, and bearing in mind it’s use as an emergency anchor attachment is likely to occur between zero and a couple of times in the lifetime of the boat, I have every confidence that it is entirely up to the job.

 

 

 

That is of course your perogative. A surveyor may take a different view.

 

I do not intend to dig deep into the RCD/RCR requirements, but, if this is like most of the RCD/RCR 'essential requirements' there will be reams of specifications and detailed requirements behind the 'headline'

 

Think about all of the detailed requirements behind the elctrical 'essential requirements'

 

5.3 Electrical system
Electrical systems shall be designed and installed so as to ensure proper operation of the watercraft under normal conditions of use and shall be such as to minimise risk of fire and electric shock.
All electrical circuits, except engine starting circuits supplied from batteries, shall remain safe when exposed to overload.

 

Cable ends to be terminated.

Minimum pull out forces for the terminals

Minimum number of stands in a wire

Maximun number of cables on a battery terminal

Temperature ratings

& 'a thousand' more little details.

 

 

 

[Paul C]

17 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

The PCA surveyor (whom I guess has a little more experince than yourself) has decided that a welded T-stud is not sufficiently strong as to meet the regulations.

 

 

The PCA surveyor has looked at 1 boat (the OP's) and deemed that the T-stud on that boat isn't strong enough. It doesn't mean that other T studs on other boats aren't strong enough.

[MrsM]

I completely get the importance of the RCD. My reading of the OP is that every boat that has had a log burner installed (not from new) or where solar panels have been put on the roof should have the work inspected and certified by a suitably qualified surveyor? I wonder if anyone has done this?

[Tony Brooks]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

And unless the doomsayers provide an example, this means a T-stud is perfectly adequate for deploying an anchor in an emergency on a boat on the rivers, which is what always gets asked... :,)

 

This is a single example and as such can't be relied upon as definitive proof of the dangers or anchoring on a T stud.

 

We were moored on the EA public mooring north of  Bell Weir to EA provided bollards. In the wee small hours, there was a terrific noise that made me think an aircraft was crashing, but almost immediately the boat bounced and rocked really violently. It seems a serial offender had form in driving flat out down the river at night in a high-powered cruiser.

 

Once outside I found the T stud on the back had been pulled off the boat, other bats had a line snapped. Upon inspection, I could see the weld had been suffering from cracking for a long time by the rust lines within the weld, so given more time there is every chance a far less strong force would have pulled the remaining weld apart. One would hope that the cant in the anchor chain and give in the line would cushion the anchoring forces, but this instance was enough to make me alter the anchor fixing, which was in fact a loop of 3/8" steel bar welded to the hull.

Edited July 13 by Tony Brooks

[Peugeot 106]

I think you should also consider the possibility of requiring a tow for example because of engine failure on tidal crossings eg Ribble Link. The tow line may be the wrong length and snatch which could put far more strain on the tee bar than anchoring ever would. I have been towed by my tee bar and if it did pull off I could thread a tow line (or chain) through the bow scuppers assuming that no one was hurt when the tee bar parted. I think that thinking about what will work as a backup is worth considering by any boat if there is a danger that the tee bar may pull off

 

[Alan de Enfield]

15 minutes ago, Peugeot 106 said:

I could thread a tow line (or chain) through the bow scuppers

 

If the scuppers are simply drain holes in the steel, I'd suggest that a length of rope chafing away on (say) a 6mm edge would not last very long.

 

A length of chain thru' the scuppers would resolve it - (if you happed to have, preprepared, a suitable length with shackles on the end to attach your  preprepared tow rope eye splices.

[Peugeot 106]

17 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

If the scuppers are simply drain holes in the steel, I'd suggest that a length of rope chafing away on (say) a 6mm edge would not last very long.

 

A length of chain thru' the scuppers would resolve it - (if you happed to have, preprepared, a suitable length with shackles on the end to attach your  preprepared tow rope eye splices.

I do have a chain - the anchor chain and shackles which could be pushed into service. It could be just threaded through and shackled back on itself. Tow ropes aren’t always prepared with splices it could just be line off another Narrowboat. Probably a mooring rope. I’m assuming I wouldn’t have double trouble and need to use the anchor at the same time. At least I have a plan which I’m sure would work

 

someone will be on next telling us that if you take a line off another boat they can claim salvage

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Peugeot 106 said:

At least I have a plan which I’m sure would work

 

 

 

👍✔️

[Tractor]

T Stud, usually made of cast, then welded to a mild steel. Unless care is taken to weld this combination, the join will be subject to corrosion and failure.

[David Mack]

3 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

The PCA surveyor has looked at 1 boat (the OP's) and deemed that the T-stud on that boat isn't strong enough. It doesn't mean that other T studs on other boats aren't strong enough.

Or that another equally qualified and competent PCA surveyor might not come to a different view about the OP's T stud.

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

If the scuppers are simply drain holes in the steel, I'd suggest that a length of rope chafing away on (say) a 6mm edge would not last very long.

And I would suggest that if chain was used a plain unreinforced 6mm steel edge might not last very long.

3 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

Once outside I found the T stud on the back had been pulled off the boat, other bats had a line snapped. Upon inspection, I could see the weld had been suffering from cracking for a long time by the rust lines within the weld, so given more time there is every chance a far less strong force would have pulled the remaining weld apart.

"Between 30 and 35 people were on the pier waiting for Star Clipper and other river services. As the vessel made the approach, her mate, standing at the port passenger entrance, passed the eye of a polypropylene berthing rope over a pier bollard and secured it loosely onto one of the vessel’s bollards. The captain manoeuvred Star Clipper to align with the pier and vessel passenger gates. When the vessel was about 1.5m from the pier, the rope was secured and slight ahead power maintained to bring her alongside.

Just prior to coming alongside, Star Clipper’s mooring bollard was torn from the deck and was catapulted over the 1.1m pier safety fence. It struck one of the waiting passengers, causing fatal injuries."

 

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/547c70bce5274a42900000cb/Star_Clipper.pdf

 

Edited July 13 by David Mack

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

Or that another equally qualified and competent PCA surveyor might not come to a different view about the OP's T stud.

 

Maybe.......but then it depends on their approach to how thorough to be. At the end of the day, we're dealing with a fairly simple metal fixing on a steel hull which can be easily visually inspected and assessed for ultimate strength. Thus suitability for the intended job, and pass/fail of that item on the PCA, is not contentious. Since the requirement isn't quantitative, I understand where you're coming from.

 

An analogy might be towbar fixings or artic 5th wheel kingpins etc. The manufacturer engineers these and specifies all the pertinent physical aspects (material, size, fixtures, inspection/maintenance schedule) to it gives clarity on what might be a 'grey' area into a black/white issue.

[Tonka]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

And I never said it wasn't a good idea, just that AFAIK there's never been a case of one being pulled off while anchoring (long chain/rope) as opposed to strapping a boat to a stop or snatching off (when it has happened) because you simply don't get a short sharp shock load that's big enough.

 

And unless the doomsayers provide an example, this means a T-stud is perfectly adequate for deploying an anchor in an emergency on a boat on the rivers, which is what always gets asked... :,)

So you have paid £300 k for a boat with a dodgy RCD Certificate.  

What else on the boat is non compliant? 

One wonders

[David Mack]

4 minutes ago, Tonka said:

What else on the boat is non compliant? 

One wonders

Given that the BMF document references hundreds of ISO standards, all of which have to be bought at a significant cost, and which would take months of reading and study to fully comprehend, I am not at all surprised at the suggestion that in a cottage industry like narrow boat building, some of the standards may not have been fully met. And likewise the approved PCA surveyor can't possibly be conversant with every detail across all the different disciplines involved - all he can do is try to identify the most significant non compliances.

[Paul C]

9 minutes ago, Tonka said:

So you have paid £300 k for a boat with a dodgy RCD Certificate.  

What else on the boat is non compliant? 

One wonders

I suspect on a graph of cost vs compliance, an asymptote is reached rather than an axis.

[ditchcrawler]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

What regulations? Where does it say that a T-stud is not good enough?

 

You say an extra anchor point needed just in case anchoring pulls it off. I've explained why it won't, and you've been unable to quote any case where it happened.

 

If you can't, you're doom-mongering, worrying people about a theoretical possibility that has never happened.

I have read cases of the T studs paring company with the deck just like swan necks fall off. Not all welders are that good at welding a larger lump of steel rather than plate.