Replacement of Engine Compartment

[Gybe Ho]

On 14/10/2024 at 12:35, Tony Brooks said:

Where did the OP state that in his original question, the only descriptive word used was EXTENSIVE and, say you seem to fail to understand, extensive refers to area, not depth.

 

Even if the surveyor could poke a screwdriver through the bulkhead that would only require the rusted part removing and renewing, not, I quote from the OP "the whole back end".

 

 

There was no reference to the surveyor poking a screw driver through advanced corrosion. However the surveyor has inspected the internal swim/bulkhead corrosion and decided it is so advanced that a major structural repair is needed.

 

You and other posters have missed an important clue in the single photo available. In a rush to condemn the scope of the survey and/or the surveyor, no one seems to have considered why the vertical scrape was made to the swim side. My interpretation is that the surveyor was alarmed by the scope of the corrosion at the aft bulkhead and swim side plate junction seen internally. Perhaps he noticed the bulkhead plate was detaching from the swim plate and concluded point depths were unnecessary given that major restorative surgery was needed.

 

I suggest the surveyor decided the priority was to assess the scope of corrosion related detachment of the aft bulkhead at the swim sideplate weld. Once outside he scraped up the swim side at the location of the aft bulkhead weld and used his surveying hammer to sound out the length of the weld detachment.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

On 15/10/2024 at 09:09, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

Maybe it had a pre sale survey done by the seller, a lot of sellers think this is the way to go to get a quick sale and some brokers are encouraging it.

the OP says they (themselves) had the survey done

26 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

 

There was no reference to the surveyor poking a screw driver through advanced corrosion. However the surveyor has inspected the internal swim/bulkhead corrosion and decided it is so advanced that a major structural repair is needed.

 

You and other posters have missed an important clue in the single photo available. In a rush to condemn the scope of the survey and/or the surveyor, no one seems to have considered why the vertical scrape was made to the swim side. My interpretation is that the surveyor was alarmed by the scope of the corrosion at the aft bulkhead and swim side plate junction seen internally. Perhaps he noticed the bulkhead plate was detaching from the swim plate and concluded point depths were unnecessary given that major restorative surgery was needed.

 

I suggest the surveyor decided the priority was to assess the scope of corrosion related detachment of the aft bulkhead at the swim sideplate weld. Once outside he scraped up the swim side at the location of the aft bulkhead weld and used his surveying hammer to sound out the length of the weld detachment.

I commented on the scrape earlier,

thought it was a deliberate marking out for what needs to be chopped,

what confuses some of us is why would a surveyor begin work before the hull is jet washed?

[Gybe Ho]

5 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

the OP says they (themselves) had the survey done

I commented on the scrape earlier,

thought it was a deliberate marking out for what needs to be chopped,

what confuses some of us is why would a surveyor begin work before the hull is jet washed?

 

It is possible that the buyer commissioned a limited survey with an instruction, "there seems to be a big rust problem in the corner of the engine bay, please inspect that and if the likely repair will exceeds £5k abort the survey and send me a 1 page assessment".

 

Oh yes you did comment on the possible marking out of the swim removal, an entirely plausible explanation. The op said the whole swim would be removed and I thought that a bit excessive because it would entail removal of internal combustible material 3 to 4 ft into the cabin. Reconstruction of that much of cabin would render 25 year old boat a near giveaway project boat.

 

I hope the Op has moved on and is looking for another boat. This surveyed boat needs a new owner who can effect a simpler repair with help from trade fiends and/or diy skills. That would require a higher tolerance of onging risk while still getting enjoyment from the boat.

[Tony Brooks]

36 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

 

There was no reference to the surveyor poking a screw driver through advanced corrosion. However the surveyor has inspected the internal swim/bulkhead corrosion and decided it is so advanced that a major structural repair is needed.

 

You and other posters have missed an important clue in the single photo available. In a rush to condemn the scope of the survey and/or the surveyor, no one seems to have considered why the vertical scrape was made to the swim side. My interpretation is that the surveyor was alarmed by the scope of the corrosion at the aft bulkhead and swim side plate junction seen internally. Perhaps he noticed the bulkhead plate was detaching from the swim plate and concluded point depths were unnecessary given that major restorative surgery was needed.

 

I suggest the surveyor decided the priority was to assess the scope of corrosion related detachment of the aft bulkhead at the swim sideplate weld. Once outside he scraped up the swim side at the location of the aft bulkhead weld and used his surveying hammer to sound out the length of the weld detachment.

 

Absolutely no one condemned the surveyor, several of us just asked for clarification.

 

Once again no, in your rush to condemn others you seem to have failed to notice that post of us were asking for clarification because of the lack of information in the OPs post. the photo provided in no way provided clarification.

 

Because the OP stated that the work advised was NOT that which would normally be expected (the back end rebuild in 10mm steel) discussion took place to try to decide exactly what the problem was and what work had been recommended. The talk of rebuilding in 10mm steel seems a strong indication that perhaps it was just the baseplate that needed replacing.

 

Then, without any further clarification, you jumped in with the talk of "the pointy bit" which is not specific and not very clear because there are two components to the pointy bit (three actually as there are wo sides that form a point). One, the baseplate where one would expect 10mm steel to be used - that is points at the stern end, and the side plates where one would not expect 10mm steel to be used. Until exactly what the OP was told no one, even you, can actually answer his question to any greater degree of certainty to that which he already had an answer - a future surveyor would be unlikely to spot competent replanting, but probably would spot over plating.

 

Based on the information we had been given, you seemed to go off into the realms of fantasy with dire warning about the boat twisting, detail costings, detailing the methods the yard should employ. Either you are some kind of clairvoyant or you were making assumptions many of us were unwilling to make until we got the clarification. I would suggest that makes you a reckless danger, in fact I suspect you scared the OP away.

3 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

Oh yes you did comment on the possible marking out of the swim removal, an entirely plausible explanation. The op said the whole swim would be removed

 

No, they did not, they only agreed with you that 2the pointy bit" was in question. you both seem you have conveniently forgetting about the possible badly corroded bulkhead. Bulkheads are not made from 10mm steel and are not art of "the pointy bit".

 

Just to remind you, the OP's words were "the whole back end", not just the swim.

[Gybe Ho]

Just now, Tony Brooks said:

Then, without any further clarification, you jumped in with the talk of "the pointy bit" which is not specific and not very clear because there are two components to the pointy bit (three actually as there are wo sides that form a point).

 

 

I said "the pointy bit that the propellor comes out of".  The Op understood but one erroneous plate thickness number has completely disorientated you.

 

My reference to the pointy bit provided the clarity much needed in the thread.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

10 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

No, they did not, they only agreed with you that 2the pointy bit" was in question.

no, because the scrape marks cross the uxter plate too,

we can clearly see the mark made going up the swim and across the Uxter plate,

whether the scrap is meant to indicate the ‘tail end’ (?) of the base plate needs to come off too who knows,

21 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

I hope the Op has moved on and is looking for another boat. This surveyed boat needs a new owner who can effect a simpler repair with help from trade fiends and/or diy skills. 

yes, 

perhaps a good boat IF repairs can be done cost effectively,

ie the new owner has time and the skills to do it themselves,

 

 

[Tony Brooks]

7 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

no, because the scrape marks cross the uxter plate too,

we can clearly see the mark made going up the swim and across the Uxter plate,

whether the scrap is meant to indicate the ‘tail end’ (?) of the base plate needs to come off too who knows,

 

The last phrase says it all, no one knows that that scrape indicates, but it is not near the bulkhead that was mentioned, and the OP never gave any more information. If we accept the scrape is an indication of where it would have to be cut, then that is still just a guess and assumption unless the OP gives more information - which is what I have been asking for all along. If it is just the part behind the scrape, then I would suggest that may bring the detail costings and methods advice in to question, together with the talk of putting a screwdriver through the bulkhead.

Edited October 16, 2024 by Tony Brooks

[ditchcrawler]

I wonder what advice Mr Ho gave the OP off forum? Maybe that is why the OP has not been back 

Edited October 16, 2024 by ditchcrawler

[Peugeot 106]

This is what happens when the OP gives confusing or insufficient information and doesn’t elaborate.  We all jump in, take it far too seriously and end up insulting one another. The OP hasn’t posted since Sunday!

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

 

14 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

The last phrase says it all, no one knows that that scrape indicates, but it is not near the bulkhead that was mentioned, and the OP never gave any more information. If we accept the scrape is an indication of where it would have to be cut, then that is still just a guess and assumption unless the OP gives more information - which is what I have been asking for all along. If it is just the part behind the scrape, then I would suggest that may bring the detail costings and methods advice in to question, together with the talk of putting a screwdriver through the bulkhead.

 

of course it’s a guess,

its all guesses and conjecture,

and certainly not worth getting one’s knickers in a twist about knickers

Just now, Peugeot 106 said:

This is what happens when the OP gives confusing or insufficient information and doesn’t elaborate.  We all jump in, take it far too seriously and end up insulting one another. The OP hasn’t posted since Sunday!

😃 exactly,

 

mind, there’s a bit of interest trying to work out a puzzle,

…and hopefully some have at least learnt the names of some of the bits at the pointy end

[Peugeot 106]

3 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

 

 

of course it’s a guess,

its all guesses and conjecture,

and certainly not worth getting one’s knickers in a twist about knickers

😃 exactly,

 

mind, there’s a bit of interest trying to work out a puzzle,

…and hopefully some have at least learnt the names of some of the bits at the pointy end

And it is a very rainy day as long and as people can handle the insults it all adds to life’s tapestry!

 

[Tony Brooks]

3 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

 

 

of course it’s a guess,

its all guesses and conjecture,

and certainly not worth getting one’s knickers in a twist about knickers

😃 exactly,

 

mind, there’s a bit of interest trying to work out a puzzle,

…and hopefully some have at least learnt the names of some of the bits at the pointy end

 

If a certain poster had entered the discussion rather than giving an almost definitive diagnosis of what the OP meant, I would agree, it is the absolute certainty of his posts in this topic that I think needs calling out.

[Gybe Ho]

1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

you both seem you have conveniently forgetting about the possible badly corroded bulkhead. Bulkheads are not made from 10mm steel and are not art of "the pointy bit".

 

 

Read my detailed schedule of works. I make specific reference to the bulkhead restoration being part of the job. This work is scheduled once the engine is out and the swim has been cut off. At his point the degree of corrosion in the bulkhead can be examined close up and agreement reached the surveyor how much of the bulkhead should be cut off to get it back to sound material.

 

Removal of swim to 6” beyond aft bulkhead	800
Interim survey to confirm scope of corrosion	200
Cut out corroded sections of aft bulkhead	300
Rebuild whole swim	4500
Rebuild aft bulkhead and weld to new swim	700

 

I am encouraged to note that you are finally comprehending the scope of the structural repair. 

57 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I wonder what advice Mr Ho gave the OP off forum? Maybe that is why the OP has not been back 

 

I understand it is not possible to private message a new user account, regardless the Admins are welcome to make public comment on whether there were any private message exchanges.

 

I went to school with an Ian Thomas but have not spoken to him for 40+ years. That would have been at the 6th Form farewell party hosted in the Bumpers disco Castle Arcade Cardiff as featured in a BBC Gavin & Stacy episode 35 years later.

1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Absolutely no one condemned the surveyor, several of us just asked for clarification.

 

 

  

On 14/10/2024 at 08:36, MtB said:

 

Something looks wrong here. Either the surveyor is a total numpty or there has been a fundamental failure of communication. 

 

  

On 14/10/2024 at 09:56, Stroudwater1 said:

 

I agree with this. Our boats survey was similarly bad, with much overplating suggested. In the end and recommended by the surveyor in the first instance the boat was grit blasted .This  revealed just pitting that required pit welding and no overplating at all. 
 

  

On 14/10/2024 at 10:43, Stroudwater1 said:

 

As  several posters have pointed out its not possible to fully assess whats going on without more detailed cleaning and re evaluating. Surveyors often catastophise in part to protect themselves from litigation etc.

 

 

There were other comments on the absence of survey plate thickness depths on the hull.

Edited October 16, 2024 by Gybe Ho

[Tony Brooks]

30 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

I am encouraged to note that you are finally comprehending the scope of the structural repair. 

 

I never gave an opinion as to the scope because there was, and never was, enough firm information to form an opinion. If you did not talk to the OP off forum than you have been guessing rather than asking for clarification.

 

30 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

Removal of swim to 6” beyond aft bulkhead

800

 

Which way is beyond? If you mean in front (towards the bow) of the bulkhead why not say so, and if so then that scrape mark is not relevant. If you meant aft of the rear bulkhead, why not say that, and from the look of the photo the scrape mark is still too far back. To me, it still looks as if you have only been guessing, just like the rest of us, but in your case you posted in a very authoritative manner that indicated absolute certainty.

 

35 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

There were other comments commenting on the absence of survey plate thickness depths on the hull

 

That is because survey marks for thickness would give a better idea about what the OP had been told. Without them, any authoritative answer is really not based on firm information, in otherwords just a guess.

[Gybe Ho]

8 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I never gave an opinion as to the scope because there was, and never was, enough firm information to form an opinion. If you did not talk to the OP off forum than you have been guessing rather than asking for clarification.

 

 

Engine out, cut off the swim! That's enough detail to warn the Op he is buying a boat with a serious and expensive problem.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Which way is beyond? If you mean in front (towards the bow) of the bulkhead why not say so,

 

 

Forward of, (towards the bow). I was not bidding for the work, I was just responding to a challenge to substantiate my 5 minute guesstimate cost of £13k posted earlier. No one has disputed the elements of the works schedule, not bad for an idiot and fantasist who knows nothing about boats don't you think?

 

15 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

and if so then that scrape mark is not relevant. If you meant aft of the rear bulkhead, why not say that, and from the look of the photo the scrape mark is still too far back.

 

 

I said earlier I think the scrape mark is entirely consistent with a surveyor marking a line for hammer tap soundings to establish the degree of bulkhead/side swim weld detachment. If the hull was still wet maybe he did not want slimly green stuff to splat back onto his face or make his hammer dirty. Perhaps the surveyor had a video call with the Op at the end of the survey and quickly marked the hull to give the Op context.

 

No one seems interested what would trigger extensive corrosion in this corner of the engine compartment. Could it have been a stray current from wires running through the bulkhead, did a LA battery loose its electrolyte or did an owner store some dissimilar metallic material in that corner of the engine bay? 

[dmr]

4 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

 

 

No one seems interested what would trigger extensive corrosion in this corner of the engine compartment. Could it have been a stray current from wires running through the bulkhead, did a LA battery loose its electrolyte or did an owner store some dissimilar metallic material in that corner of the engine bay? 

 

Based on my extensive real world experience, it is usually oxygen and water that cause steel to corrode 😀

[MrsM]

But, as has been discussed, the fact that the hull had not been jet-washed still calls into question exactly what the surveyor was asked to do. I do wish the OP would return and fill in some of the blanks in this scenario. 

[dmr]

Just now, MrsM said:

But, as has been discussed, the fact that the hull had not been jet-washed still calls into question exactly what the surveyor was asked to do. I do wish the OP would return and fill in some of the blanks in this scenario. 

 

If I was the OP I would steer well clear of this thread 😀

[alias]

 

Not all off those in the trade are fiends. A few months ago I was given to understand that a piece of urgent work might come in at £2k by one yard. Imagine how happy I was when billed for the work at just over £500.

[MtB]

30 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

If I was the OP I would steer well clear of this thread 😀

 

I was thinking the same. He's prolly taken TruckCab's advice and fecked orf to Facebook to ask.

 

Especially as Trucky now appears to spend all of his time here not on Facebook! 

 

 

[blackrose]

1 hour ago, Gybe Ho said:

Engine out, cut off the swim! That's enough detail to warn the Op he is buying a boat with a serious and expensive problem.

 

Pure speculation based on nothing but ill-informed guesswork. We're all just as ill-informed as you of course, the difference is that most sensible people would wait for more information before stating that they know what they're talking about.

 

1 hour ago, Gybe Ho said:

I think the scrape mark is entirely consistent with a surveyor marking a line for hammer tap soundings to establish the degree of bulkhead/side swim weld detachment. 

 

The surveyor knew all of that without the boat even being pressure washed, no hammer marks visible and without any hull thickness readings being taken.

 

I'm learning a lot from you and this incredible surveyor! 🤣

1 hour ago, Gybe Ho said:

not bad for an idiot and fantasist who knows nothing about boats don't you think?

 

Not bad at all, in fact it's exactly what one would expect from such a person! 🤣

Edited October 16, 2024 by blackrose

[Gybe Ho]

14 hours ago, blackrose said:

 

Pure speculation based on nothing but ill-informed guesswork. We're all just as ill-informed as you of course, the difference is that most sensible people would wait for more information before stating that they know what they're talking about.

 

 

In the thread's opening post the Op: tells us the recommended course of action includes removing the engine and the Op: confirms later the swim will be removed. If you plan to participate further in this thread try to read posts thoroughly.

 

14 hours ago, blackrose said:

The surveyor knew all of that without the boat even being pressure washed, no hammer marks visible and without any hull thickness readings being taken.

 

 

This was a huge faux pas. Correct use of a hammer for sounding hull does not leave dents or marks. The surveyor would have rapidly tapped with a light hammer listening for change of tone where the internal corrosion had separated bulkhead from swim side plate and then followed the scrape mark up to gunnel height.

 

This forum continues to disappoint, I am surprised that someone who has been a forum member for 19 years, has such a gap in knowledge of boatyard practice.

Edited October 17, 2024 by Gybe Ho

[MtB]

58 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

 

This forum continues to disappoint

 

Excellent news. You'll be leaving soon then? (Hopefully.)

 

 

[Tam & Di]

9 hours ago, Gybe Ho said:

The surveyor would have rapidly tapped with a light hammer listening for change of tone where the internal corrosion had separated bulkhead from swim side plate and then followed the scrape mark up to gunnel height.

That's an interesting conjecture - what do you base it on?

[Tony Brooks]

9 hours ago, Gybe Ho said:

This was a huge faux pas. Correct use of a hammer for sounding hull does not leave dents of marks. The surveyor would have rapidly tapped with a light hammer listening for change of tone where the internal corrosion had separated bulkhead from swim side plate and then followed the scrape mark up to gunnel height.

 

Interesting, so the scrape mark was where the surveyor was following the soundings where the swim plate had separated from the bulkhead. Luckily, even a brand new non-practical boater would soon see that it is extremely unlikely that there is a bulkhead where the scrape mark is.