History of a 1960s Icebreaker & 1st British Waterways Inspection Boat, built by yarwood.

[Alan de Enfield]

I think it might be worth standing back and reviewing the linked thread :

 

Basically concerete in steel boats is a really bad idea for various reasons, both chemical reactions, mechanical faults, shrinkage as it dries alowing water to percolate between the steel and the concrete, to cracking due to stresses and again allowing water to seep into the cracks.

 

 

 

It is apparently a very bad idea as the concrete lime can cause corrosion in the steel when damp, or when surface cracks open up, or moisture can percolate down the junction betwen the concretes and the steel sides.

 

I am no metalurgist or scientist but the whole subject of corrosion in steel boats is interesting and I have read a number of 'papers' on how steel corrodes/rusts.

 

There are a large number of scienticic papers on the subject as it is a huge problem for the construction industry where steel reinforcing bars are covered in concrete.

 

Extract :

 

Steel corrosion in any environment is an electrochemical process in which iron (Fe) is removed from the steel being corroded and is dissolved into the surrounding solution; it then appears as ferrous ions (Fe+). For steel embedded in concrete, the dissolution takes place in the limited volume of water solution present in the pores of the concrete surrounding the steel.

The ferrous ions dissolved in the concrete pore solutions usually react with hydroxide ions (OH−) and dissolved oxygen molecules (O2) to form one or a combination of several varieties of rust, which is a solid by-product of the corrosion reaction. 

 

 

Steel corrosion may process as a local pitting or a wide area corroding surface, and generally experiences initiation and propagation nonlinear with time. (Romanoff, 1957; Tuutti, 1982; Alamilla et al., 2009; Ricker, 2010). In engineering practice, the corrosion loss of steel is commonly estimated, using an simplified expression (e.g., Ricker, 2010; JSCE, 2013):

 

 

 

There are many useful posts in this thread from people who have been involved in the concrete industry - unfortunately now that all post number have been removed (why ?) you will have to read the whole thread and make up your own mind.

Edited September 10 by Alan de Enfield

[agg221]

4 hours ago, wanderinglotus said:

 

Thank you so much for this really detailed & helpful response @agg221, it's very helpful to know what steps to take if I do go ahead. 

 

I really appreciate you not just telling me that the hull survey will be fine (as it was done with ultrasonic inspection) but fully explaining the why behind it! it's nice to know the actual science behind why they're still accurate readings

 

Am I right in thinking then that, no matter what, the concrete needs to be removed? even if I was to manage to get the floor up & it was still sealed at the sides, no cracks, with water only in that spot (it was by the bathroom so could be localized?). There's no chance of it being ok enough to be dried out & re-sealed in some way? 

 

In regards to going back to the broker to book a survey- would u recommend that I book it with the boat as it is & negotiate a big enough price reduction to account for the worst case scenario or could I ask for the floor to be removed before the survey & then base my price on what it finds?

 

If you would be happy to pass on the details of the surveyors you mentioned that give timescales as well as work to be done that would be super super helpful- as ideally i would like to get the boat up north to work on it properly & the winter stoppages are another concern! 

You are most welcome.

 

For what it's worth, I have a background in materials, predominantly metals, from the research and development side. The organisation I work for is world leading in various technologies, including ultrasonic inspection. I don't claim to be an expert in the relevant technologies/techniques here, but I do have access to some genuine experts and ask many questions. Coincidentally, my father -was- a ferrous metallurgist and I asked him many questions too, even if I can't remember all the answers!

 

With reference to your specific questions, the answers below are open to discussion as there may well be different options for some of them, depending on your objectives and I would expect some comment. They are what I would do if it was mine, other opinions are available:

 

Yes it would be highly advisable to remove all the concrete. I cannot comment on whether it is original or not, but I can say that it is not a good thing to leave it there. It is also perhaps worth considering that the original design life of a boat may have been 25-30yrs so what you are trying to do is to extend a very long way beyond this, meaning that different approaches are needed.

 

Regarding negotiation approach. I would be surprised if any owner was happy to have the floor pulled up without some level of commitment. They are being reasonable, but they wouldn't want the boat to look much worse and hence make it look less saleable. Therefore, I would go one of two routes, and perhaps offer both options if you are happy to go either way:

a) Make an offer subject to survey. I would make an offer which reflects the additional cost of removing the concrete and replacing the rotten wood (which were not known about when the original price was set) and with a mutual agreement that this is based on the steel thickness as per the current survey. If the steel thickness on the base or waterline is found to be notably below this to the point where remedial action is needed then I would seek agreement that the price will be reduced to reflect that remedial action which you will then have undertaken after purchase.

b) Contact some boatyards and obtain a price for complete re-bottoming and for complete overplating of the base and along the waterline. Boatyards I would consider talking to about this are Industry at Stretton on the Shroppie, Brinklow Boat Services and Five Towns (Roger Fuller), although I am sure there are others available. I would also ask about lead-time. Armed with this figure, I would make an offer which reflects the worst case scenario, not subject to survey.

 

In option a, nobody is taking any risk but there is a delay and there are circumstances where you could legitimately walk away if even more issues come to light. In option b, the seller gets a definite sale and you may win if it does not turn out to be as bad as it could be (which is reasonably likely). Either may appeal under different circumstances and I have known both approaches to work out well for both buyer and seller, ie it is fair and transparent. In both cases you will need to know what the repair cost could be so you might as well start ringing round and asking the question.

 

I will drop you surveyor details by PM.

 

Alec

On 07/09/2024 at 10:26, Stroudwater1 said:

Makes for a lovely photo. Good to see someone skilled at the tiller TBF 👍 

 

I guess in part being tender helps to make rocking the boat easier ? 

Yes, it does make rocking the boat easier. For an idea of the hull shape on Coventry see below (photo is Francis Stapleton's, posted for the purposes of comparison with Oates).

 

The person at the tiller is my younger daughter and she is pretty skilled, both at steering, poling when stuck (this is the BCN after all), clearing the prop down the weed hatch and, as has been mentioned on another thread, painting the underside! The person directing her in how Coventry handles in reverse is as has been mentioned above Francis Stapleton who owns the boat. The person on the bow is Mike Anson, chair of the BCNS.

 

Alec

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 10 by agg221

[wanderinglotus]

55 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

I think we will have to agree to differ.  I very much doubt there are large numbers of boats from the 1960s or earlier that have poured concrete added over their steel bottoms.  This is only something one tends to encounter as a bodged way of trying to fix a problem, namely a bottom that was already too thin, or, worse, already stating to hole through.

Put it another way - why otherwise would you lay concrete into the bottom of a narrow boat?  At best it is going to make future assessment of the condition of the hull harder, and indeed also make harder any remedial work needed.

I would be intrigued to know the names of the boats that you believe are known too have this feature.  Are you prepared to disclose which they are, please?

 

Except, I'm not disagreeing with you? All I've asked for is to hear from people with the opposite opinion & experience, so I can make an informed decision for myself.

Not saying either is right or wrong, simply trying to gather info  

 

Is that ok? Or am I meant to just form my opinion from you & only you? 

 

It's really unhelpful & unwelcoming as someone new to all of this to have people put words in my mouth & act like I'm advocating for it when I'm simply asking? It's not exactly like I can go to a library & find this info out, it's largely done through word of mouth, so I don't think it's really fair to be judging someone whos simply sharing what they've been told & hasn't found enough info to form an opinion despite searching. It's very off-putting & really not a way to welcome newcomers if this is a tradition you want to stay around. 

 

I can't be 100% sure, but from the photos I've received today, it would seem that the concrete is poured in steel sections, which may mean that they are removable as this was how a few other BW inspection boats were made

 

& No I won't be sharing their info in respect of their privacy. 

 

[Francis Herne]

3 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

Put it another way - why otherwise would you lay concrete into the bottom of a narrow boat?

According to the thread Alan linked, there's at least one current boatbuilder doing this as standard!

 

Seems mad to me, but boatbuilders past and present often seem to have overlooked maintainability... or perhaps it's in their interest to create future work for themselves? 🙃

 

I'd also be curious to know which other boats (supposedly) have such ballast but it does seem a bit interrogatory.

 

-----

 

FWIW, I bought my current boat from brokerage at Braunston in the last few years.

While everything they actually told me was the truth, there were some issues they neglected to tell me about, found either at survey or soon after I'd bought the boat. At least one of those I know they were aware of because I met the guy who bodged it for them.

The moral would be to inspect everything carefully, get your own survey from your own choice of surveyor, and not take the seller's or broker's word for anything.

 

I would also check the bill of sale and any other paperwork for any howling errors, and ask for anything important in person rather than posted lest it disappear into the vortex for months.

Edited September 10 by Francis Herne

[Alan de Enfield]

21 minutes ago, Francis Herne said:

According to the thread Alan linked, there's at least one current boatbuilder doing this as standard

 

I'd also be curious to know which other boats (supposedly) have such ballast but it does seem a bit interrogatory.

 

 

I believe it is that "Oakams" company (who apparenly have several legal claims going against them at the moment" - the one who did that raffle "win a boat for a £5

 

 

 

 

 

 

21 minutes ago, Francis Herne said:

and not take the seller's or broker's word for anything.

 

 

Neither seller or broker are legally required to make you aware of any faults - but - if asked specific questions (eg - does the hull leak ?, Are there any oil leaks from the engine or gear box ? etc etc) they must answer it honestly, even if it is "we don't know"

 

This tends to be why at the bottom of the brokers advert it generally says :

 

 

Naburn Leisure

The Company normally acts as Broker for the Vendor who unless otherwise stated is not selling in the course of Business. Whilst every care has been taken in the preparation of these particulars, the correctness is not guaranteed and they are intended as a guide only and do not constitute a part of any contract. A prospective buyer is strongly advised to check these particulars and where appropriate at his/her own expense to employ a Qualified Marine Surveyor to carry out a survey and/or have an engine/sea trial conducted, which if conducted by us will not imply any liability on our part. The vessel is offered subject to prior sale, price change or withdrawl without notice. This specification it's content and all photographs are copyright of Naburn Leisure Ltd.

 

 

Whilton Marina

Neither we nor any third parties provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy, timeliness, performance, completeness or suitability of the information and materials found or offered on this website for any particular purpose. You acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies or errors and we expressly exclude liability for any such inaccuracies or errors to the fullest extent permitted by law.

 

Boatshed

The particulars detailed herein are intended to give a fair description of the vessel but their accuracy cannot be guaranteed, these particulars are not a part of any contract or offer and are supplied on the understanding that all negotiations shall be through Boatshed Brokerages, who are acting as brokers for the vendor. The vendor is not selling in the course of a business unless otherwise stated. The prospective purchaser is strongly recommended to check the particulars and where appropriate, at his own expense, to employ qualified agents to carry out surveys, structural and/or mechanical & electrical.

 

 

And very typically they say we know nothing about the boat so don't ask - the details in the advert were provided by the seller ..........................

 

 

ABNB

PLEASE NOTE: This is sales information and not a survey report; providing content details only. The specification in these pages is based on ABNB's visit to the boat and on information given by the owner. This is to help you decide whether to investigate the boat further, be it by surveyor or otherwise. The information here is given in good faith but no description, statement, promise of work to be done, or suggestion for future use, constitutes an offer. If the craft leaves the UK, any necessary VAT paid status may not be available.

 

Aquavista

Please note: this is not a survey report and all pre-owned boats are sold without warranty.

The information provided is based on a superficial inspection carried out by us and information provided by the vendor. No guarantee is given or implied regarding the specification, but descriptions are given in good faith as could be ascertained at the time of inspection. Aquavista takes no responsibility for the accuracy of this information and recommend the use of a marine surveyor to establish the condition of the vessel.

 

Edited September 10 by Alan de Enfield

[David Mack]

4 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

Put it another way - why otherwise would you lay concrete into the bottom of a narrow boat?  At best it is going to make future assessment of the condition of the hull harder, and indeed also make harder any remedial work needed.

Because it fits the space exactly, so takes up minimum volume, and won't move if this boat was intended to be rocked like an ice breaker.

I doubt that condition assessment over 60 years later was a consideration back in 1960!

 

[agg221]

On 08/09/2024 at 00:46, Francis Herne said:

While we're doing icebreaking boat photos, here are sisters Oates and Ross, Coventry and Tardebigge:

Another picture of Oates and Ross. Ross is still set up as an iceboat, but missing its rudder (it was broken and has not been repaired). Oates would have looked like this when working but was converted in 1974.

 

These two boats were probably built in the 1840s, definitely before 1858, with Oates being a few years older. The third sister is Baltic which is between them in age. Note that despite being similar there are differences in shape of the bow.

 

Alec

[alan_fincher]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

Because it fits the space exactly, so takes up minimum volume, and won't move if this boat was intended to be rocked like an ice breaker.

I doubt that condition assessment over 60 years later was a consideration back in 1960!

 

I'm not saying it is impossible, as stranger things have happened, but I remain highly dubious that this boat built circa 1960 was ever intended to have been used for icebreaking.

If it was, and if there is genuine evidence to support that, please can it be shared here - I'd love to see it!

[agg221]

11 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

I'm not saying it is impossible, as stranger things have happened, but I remain highly dubious that this boat built circa 1960 was ever intended to have been used for icebreaking.

If it was, and if there is genuine evidence to support that, please can it be shared here - I'd love to see it!

I strongly suspect that the critical evidence either way will be found in:

 

9 hours ago, Francis Herne said:

The CRT archive appears to have the original drawings and correspondence.

They're generally very helpful and will scan/email copies on request.

 

Principal Engineer's correspondence and reports concerning the new inspection boat Vigilante, ship number 933

1960-1982

https://collections.canalrivertrust.org.uk/bw167.26.5.3.16.4

 

Alec

Edited September 10 by agg221

[wanderinglotus]

22 hours ago, Francis Herne said:

According to the thread Alan linked, there's at least one current boatbuilder doing this as standard!

 

Seems mad to me, but boatbuilders past and present often seem to have overlooked maintainability... or perhaps it's in their interest to create future work for themselves? 🙃

 

I'd also be curious to know which other boats (supposedly) have such ballast but it does seem a bit interrogatory.

 

-----

 

FWIW, I bought my current boat from brokerage at Braunston in the last few years.

While everything they actually told me was the truth, there were some issues they neglected to tell me about, found either at survey or soon after I'd bought the boat. At least one of those I know they were aware of because I met the guy who bodged it for them.

The moral would be to inspect everything carefully, get your own survey from your own choice of surveyor, and not take the seller's or broker's word for anything.

 

I would also check the bill of sale and any other paperwork for any howling errors, and ask for anything important in person rather than posted lest it disappear into the vortex for months.

 

Thank u for the heads up about Braunston- have been keeping my wits about me, despite them making it clear that they're concerned about the concrete & want it sorted for properly, as I would with anyone primarily out to make money but it's good to know that I'm not being overcautious! I will definitely be using my own surveyor that's not affiliated with them

[ditchcrawler]

21 hours ago, David Mack said:

Because it fits the space exactly, so takes up minimum volume, and won't move if this boat was intended to be rocked like an ice breaker.

I doubt that condition assessment over 60 years later was a consideration back in 1960!

 

As I posted the other week I met a chap who bought a boat with poured concrete in all but one bay. He was removing it and had done one bay when I saw him, that bit of hull was better than the painted bit with no concrete, Problem is you just don't know  

[wanderinglotus]

20 hours ago, agg221 said:

Another picture of Oates and Ross. Ross is still set up as an iceboat, but missing its rudder (it was broken and has not been repaired). Oates would have looked like this when working but was converted in 1974.

 

These two boats were probably built in the 1840s, definitely before 1858, with Oates being a few years older. The third sister is Baltic which is between them in age. Note that despite being similar there are differences in shape of the bow.

 

Alec

Very interesting to see how much the bow shape ranges- thanks for sharing

[Alan de Enfield]

Doing a bit of research it seems that it is not uncommon on 'the continent' BUT - and its a BIG BUT - they use a special 'marine grade' of concrete which is a very low Alkali mix which does not cause the same effect on steel. THIS COMBINED with the fact that the whole inside of the hull is coated in a very thick layer of grease which stops the concrete actually making contact with the steel, means that it a specialist operation and not just a cement lorry turning up an  piping 15 tons of 'builders concrete' into the bottom of your boat

[wanderinglotus]

19 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

I'm not saying it is impossible, as stranger things have happened, but I remain highly dubious that this boat built circa 1960 was ever intended to have been used for icebreaking.

If it was, and if there is genuine evidence to support that, please can it be shared here - I'd love to see it!

 

As I've stated multiple times, the proof is with the documents that the broker has & in the CRT files that Alec has linked. I don't have access to those documents & probably won't for at least a few days, so would appreciate if we can stop going round & round about it. If you want to know sooner, feel free to check the archive. 

On 10/09/2024 at 17:49, Alan de Enfield said:

I think it might be worth standing back and reviewing the linked thread :

 

Basically concerete in steel boats is a really bad idea for various reasons, both chemical reactions, mechanical faults, shrinkage as it dries alowing water to percolate between the steel and the concrete, to cracking due to stresses and again allowing water to seep into the cracks.

 

 

 

It is apparently a very bad idea as the concrete lime can cause corrosion in the steel when damp, or when surface cracks open up, or moisture can percolate down the junction betwen the concretes and the steel sides.

 

I am no metalurgist or scientist but the whole subject of corrosion in steel boats is interesting and I have read a number of 'papers' on how steel corrodes/rusts.

 

There are a large number of scienticic papers on the subject as it is a huge problem for the construction industry where steel reinforcing bars are covered in concrete.

 

Extract :

 

Steel corrosion in any environment is an electrochemical process in which iron (Fe) is removed from the steel being corroded and is dissolved into the surrounding solution; it then appears as ferrous ions (Fe+). For steel embedded in concrete, the dissolution takes place in the limited volume of water solution present in the pores of the concrete surrounding the steel.

The ferrous ions dissolved in the concrete pore solutions usually react with hydroxide ions (OH−) and dissolved oxygen molecules (O2) to form one or a combination of several varieties of rust, which is a solid by-product of the corrosion reaction. 

 

 

Steel corrosion may process as a local pitting or a wide area corroding surface, and generally experiences initiation and propagation nonlinear with time. (Romanoff, 1957; Tuutti, 1982; Alamilla et al., 2009; Ricker, 2010). In engineering practice, the corrosion loss of steel is commonly estimated, using an simplified expression (e.g., Ricker, 2010; JSCE, 2013):

 

 

 

There are many useful posts in this thread from people who have been involved in the concrete industry - unfortunately now that all post number have been removed (why ?) you will have to read the whole thread and make up your own mind.

Thank you for sharing- very helpful to hear from people involved in the industry! 

[Francis Herne]

30 minutes ago, wanderinglotus said:

 

Thank u for the heads up about Braunston- have been keeping my wits about me, despite them making it clear that they're concerned about the concrete & want it sorted for properly, as I would with anyone primarily out to make money but it's good to know that I'm not being overcautious! I will definitely be using my own surveyor that's not affiliated with them

To be clear I'm sure the same would be true for any other broker -- as Alan rightly explains they've got no obligation to tell you more than you directly ask about. I would buy from them again.

Just important to keep in mind that their job is to get the best price for the seller, so being friendly doesn't necessarily extend to being helpful in all respects.

[wanderinglotus]

On 10/09/2024 at 18:36, agg221 said:

You are most welcome.

 

For what it's worth, I have a background in materials, predominantly metals, from the research and development side. The organisation I work for is world leading in various technologies, including ultrasonic inspection. I don't claim to be an expert in the relevant technologies/techniques here, but I do have access to some genuine experts and ask many questions. Coincidentally, my father -was- a ferrous metallurgist and I asked him many questions too, even if I can't remember all the answers!

 

With reference to your specific questions, the answers below are open to discussion as there may well be different options for some of them, depending on your objectives and I would expect some comment. They are what I would do if it was mine, other opinions are available:

 

Yes it would be highly advisable to remove all the concrete. I cannot comment on whether it is original or not, but I can say that it is not a good thing to leave it there. It is also perhaps worth considering that the original design life of a boat may have been 25-30yrs so what you are trying to do is to extend a very long way beyond this, meaning that different approaches are needed.

 

Regarding negotiation approach. I would be surprised if any owner was happy to have the floor pulled up without some level of commitment. They are being reasonable, but they wouldn't want the boat to look much worse and hence make it look less saleable. Therefore, I would go one of two routes, and perhaps offer both options if you are happy to go either way:

a) Make an offer subject to survey. I would make an offer which reflects the additional cost of removing the concrete and replacing the rotten wood (which were not known about when the original price was set) and with a mutual agreement that this is based on the steel thickness as per the current survey. If the steel thickness on the base or waterline is found to be notably below this to the point where remedial action is needed then I would seek agreement that the price will be reduced to reflect that remedial action which you will then have undertaken after purchase.

b) Contact some boatyards and obtain a price for complete re-bottoming and for complete overplating of the base and along the waterline. Boatyards I would consider talking to about this are Industry at Stretton on the Shroppie, Brinklow Boat Services and Five Towns (Roger Fuller), although I am sure there are others available. I would also ask about lead-time. Armed with this figure, I would make an offer which reflects the worst case scenario, not subject to survey.

 

In option a, nobody is taking any risk but there is a delay and there are circumstances where you could legitimately walk away if even more issues come to light. In option b, the seller gets a definite sale and you may win if it does not turn out to be as bad as it could be (which is reasonably likely). Either may appeal under different circumstances and I have known both approaches to work out well for both buyer and seller, ie it is fair and transparent. In both cases you will need to know what the repair cost could be so you might as well start ringing round and asking the question.

 

I will drop you surveyor details by PM.

 

Alec

Yes, it does make rocking the boat easier. For an idea of the hull shape on Coventry see below (photo is Francis Stapleton's, posted for the purposes of comparison with Oates).

 

The person at the tiller is my younger daughter and she is pretty skilled, both at steering, poling when stuck (this is the BCN after all), clearing the prop down the weed hatch and, as has been mentioned on another thread, painting the underside! The person directing her in how Coventry handles in reverse is as has been mentioned above Francis Stapleton who owns the boat. The person on the bow is Mike Anson, chair of the BCNS.

 

Alec

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can certainly tell that you have a really good technical understanding of this stuff & that you're an avid question asker! (As am I, think the thing I used to get in trouble for the most as a kid was asking 'but why')😂 I hope my curiousity leads me to as much understanding as you have one day!

 

 

Thank you for writing out the two options with the pros & cons- it's made things a lot clearer, which my ADHD brain really appreciates! My current plan is to ring round boatyards & get a quote for both removing the concrete & rebottoming & see where that brings the two figures to. If I reckon I can get away offering the rebottoming figure then I will- but have a feeling it will get rejected, as they will also know that the concrete has been done in the most protective way possible (in steel casing & covered in bitumen) & that the water has only come in recently so very unlikely to have done major hull damage, but it's certainly worth a try & if not I'll have a back up offer

 

thanks again for all the help & knowledge sharing

 

46 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

As I posted the other week I met a chap who bought a boat with poured concrete in all but one bay. He was removing it and had done one bay when I saw him, that bit of hull was better than the painted bit with no concrete, Problem is you just don't know  

 

Not saying I'm gonna keep it- but the concrete does certainly seem to have protected the hull well up until this point! As far as I know, it's never had overplating & the thinnest points are only 2mm thinner than what it was built with (most only being 1mm)... which is really not bad for a 60 year life! 

42 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Doing a bit of research it seems that it is not uncommon on 'the continent' BUT - and its a BIG BUT - they use a special 'marine grade' of concrete which is a very low Alkali mix which does not cause the same effect on steel. THIS COMBINED with the fact that the whole inside of the hull is coated in a very thick layer of grease which stops the concrete actually making contact with the steel, means that it a specialist operation and not just a cement lorry turning up an  piping 15 tons of 'builders concrete' into the bottom of your boat

 

Very interesting to know thank you- I was wondering how they get around this in giant sea vessels! 

 

The bits of the floor that I've seen have been covered in a thick layer of black grease & the rate of corrosion has been very low for 60 years which is leading me to wonder whether BW were following the procedures used in sea vessels? 

 

Would anyone have any idea of whether BW used the marine grade? or any way for me to figure it out? 

 

(Even if it turns out to be the case- I'm still gonna remove the wet concrete- but may be helpful if I discover dry sections further down) 

[Pluto]

As I wrote on the other concrete thread, the L&LC short boats built at Northwich in the 1930s and 40s had a concrete wash painted on the parts of the hull made inaccessible by the bow cabin. I have seen one where the brush marks were still visible.

 

On ice breaker hull shape, there were two types of boat. The horse-drawn ones were designed to have their boat pulled out of the water, the ice being broken by rocking the boat such that the sides broke the ice. The triangular L&LC design was, in effect a very large and heavy lump of timber which, because of the sides, could float. This was partially pulled out onto the ice, which was broken by rocking the boat and the weight of the kelson. When steamers were introduced, they broke the ice using a steel plate which covered the bow at water line. They could push a horse-drawn type ice boat in front of the bow for thick ice. Modern, is 1960s, ice breakers would probably be of this type.

[wanderinglotus]

45 minutes ago, Pluto said:

As I wrote on the other concrete thread, the L&LC short boats built at Northwich in the 1930s and 40s had a concrete wash painted on the parts of the hull made inaccessible by the bow cabin. I have seen one where the brush marks were still visible.

 

On ice breaker hull shape, there were two types of boat. The horse-drawn ones were designed to have their boat pulled out of the water, the ice being broken by rocking the boat such that the sides broke the ice. The triangular L&LC design was, in effect a very large and heavy lump of timber which, because of the sides, could float. This was partially pulled out onto the ice, which was broken by rocking the boat and the weight of the kelson. When steamers were introduced, they broke the ice using a steel plate which covered the bow at water line. They could push a horse-drawn type ice boat in front of the bow for thick ice. Modern, is 1960s, ice breakers would probably be of this type.

Absolutely fascinating info to find out- thank you so much!

Could I ask if you know any of the names of those boats or how the concrete held up in them? 

[Tonka]

18 hours ago, wanderinglotus said:

 

I can certainly tell that you have a really good technical understanding of this stuff & that you're an avid question asker! (As am I, think the thing I used to get in trouble for the most as a kid was asking 'but why')😂 I hope my curiousity leads me to as much understanding as you have one day!

 

 

Thank you for writing out the two options with the pros & cons- it's made things a lot clearer, which my ADHD brain really appreciates! My current plan is to ring round boatyards & get a quote for both removing the concrete & rebottoming & see where that brings the two figures to. If I reckon I can get away offering the rebottoming figure then I will- but have a feeling it will get rejected, as they will also know that the concrete has been done in the most protective way possible (in steel casing & covered in bitumen) & that the water has only come in recently so very unlikely to have done major hull damage, but it's certainly worth a try & if not I'll have a back up offer

 

thanks again for all the help & knowledge sharing

 

 

Not saying I'm gonna keep it- but the concrete does certainly seem to have protected the hull well up until this point! As far as I know, it's never had overplating & the thinnest points are only 2mm thinner than what it was built with (most only being 1mm)... which is really not bad for a 60 year life! 

 

Very interesting to know thank you- I was wondering how they get around this in giant sea vessels! 

 

The bits of the floor that I've seen have been covered in a thick layer of black grease & the rate of corrosion has been very low for 60 years which is leading me to wonder whether BW were following the procedures used in sea vessels? 

 

Would anyone have any idea of whether BW used the marine grade? or any way for me to figure it out? 

 

(Even if it turns out to be the case- I'm still gonna remove the wet concrete- but may be helpful if I discover dry sections further down) 

 

[Pluto]

35 minutes ago, wanderinglotus said:

Absolutely fascinating info to find out- thank you so much!

Could I ask if you know any of the names of those boats or how the concrete held up in them? 

It is some years ago that I noticed the concrete wash, and many of the surviving short boats have been further renovated and/or moved abroad since then. There is a list of surviving boats, but it would be difficult to get to see the inside of the bows on most of them. These two photos show the bows of Kennet and Wye during refurbishment. The cement wash sections were removed, but they were at the most vulnerable part of the bow, worn thin by abrasion when loaded.

Steel boats.docx

[wanderinglotus]

5 hours ago, Tonka said:

 

 

Thank you for linking that- was planning on using their boatyard to remove the concrete if possible but will be definitely avoiding that now & being much more cautious about what they've told me ! 

 

I will say that how they've been with me so far- certainly in terms of customer service, is the complete opposite from alot of the bad experiences in that thread, maybe they've improved & gotten better staff in the past 10 years? Or maybe they just want my money? if anyone has more recent experiences I'd be interested to hear them! 

 

I will say, theyve seemed pretty insistent on the phone that the concrete is only in that one area, despite having not pulled up boards on the other end of the boat, which seems like a red flag! So ill make sure to be vigilant

5 hours ago, Pluto said:

It is some years ago that I noticed the concrete wash, and many of the surviving short boats have been further renovated and/or moved abroad since then. There is a list of surviving boats, but it would be difficult to get to see the inside of the bows on most of them. These two photos show the bows of Kennet and Wye during refurbishment. The cement wash sections were removed, but they were at the most vulnerable part of the bow, worn thin by abrasion when loaded.

Steel boats.docx 17.57 kB · 1 download

Really cool seeing all the different internal aspects of the bow like that- what an art form! thank you for sharing

[Pluto]

Nice to know the photos are appreciated!

[Stroudwater1]

12 hours ago, wanderinglotus said:

 

Thank you for linking that- was planning on using their boatyard to remove the concrete if possible but will be definitely avoiding that now & being much more cautious about what they've told me ! 

 

I will say that how they've been with me so far- certainly in terms of customer service, is the complete opposite from alot of the bad experiences in that thread, maybe they've improved & gotten better staff in the past 10 years? Or maybe they just want my money? if anyone has more recent experiences I'd be interested to hear them! 

 

I will say, theyve seemed pretty insistent on the phone that the concrete is only in that one area, despite having not pulled up boards on the other end of the boat, which seems like a red flag! So ill make sure to be vigilant

Really cool seeing all the different internal aspects of the bow like that- what an art form! thank you for sharing

I doubt that Braunston would have the facilities for removing concrete these days personnel wise. There are people around who could do that but it’s unlikely to be cheap, you probably would be best with the boatyards that Alec has mentioned.

 

Our experience of buying from Braunston was actually very good three years ago. The personnel have changed since then though. They seem pleasant enough still. They do sell a number of boats.
 

There hasn’t been grumble on here about many brokers recently. Theres much grumbling here generally so that could be a yardstick? 

 

 

 

 

[Francis Herne]

I was unimpressed by the gas engineer working on their behalf. He did about half of what was agreed to be done on mine; on the neighbouring boat the owners came back to find a strong smell of gas and a new, leaking, pipe joint in the electrical cabinet. It's the only non-trivial work I had done there for obvious reasons.

 

Lee and Dale at Candle Bridge Fabrication who lease a shed on the yard are excellent and go the extra mile. So are Tim and Jonathan Hewitt at UCC by the bottom lock.

Edited September 13 by Francis Herne

[ditchcrawler]

5 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

I doubt that Braunston would have the facilities for removing concrete these days personnel wise. There are people around who could do that but it’s unlikely to be cheap, you probably would be best with the boatyards that Alec has mentioned.

 

Our experience of buying from Braunston was actually very good three years ago. The personnel have changed since then though. They seem pleasant enough still. They do sell a number of boats.
 

There hasn’t been grumble on here about many brokers recently. Theres much grumbling here generally so that could be a yardstick? 

 

 

 

 

The guy I saw removing it with an electric kango type hammer was taking hours to just remove one section