Solid Fuel Stoves

[Derek R.]

In case you hadn't noticed - it's over here.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Derek R.

[Speedwheel]

I was at the meeting.

 

In answer to your question yes! There is no dispensation for historic boats. I ws reading through the copy of the draft I have and think historic installations fail on every point. So anyone wanting to restore a boat and fit a stove or anyone wanting to change a stove in an existing boat could have problems.

 

Not just historic boats - anyone with a back cabin.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Satellite

[Derek R.]

I was at the meeting.

 

In answer to your question yes! There is no dispensation for historic boats. I ws reading through the copy of the draft I have and think historic installations fail on every point. So anyone wanting to restore a boat and fit a stove or anyone wanting to change a stove in an existing boat could have problems.

 

Not just historic boats - anyone with a back cabin.

 

Thanks Mark,

 

It might be of some note, and I quote from the pdf of the draft BS 8511:-

 

"As a code of practice, this British Standard takes the form of guidance and recommendations. It should not be quoted as if it were a specification and particular care should be taken to ensure that claims of compliance are not misleading."

 

The full pdf is

here but if you wish to comment, and propose any changes to the draft, you will need to access the version which allows you to do so on this one.

It takes you to the BSI draft review system site and requires registration. Painless and free, an email will shortly after give you a password to access the draft. It's the same content as the pdf, but comment and proposal text boxes are there to fill in. Once submitted, each individual submission is emailed back to you for a record of your comment and proposal.

 

If you do not do it, BSI will consider you have no objection to the new standard.

 

Despite the quoted line from the standard above in italics, it will inevitably be used by insurance companies and waterways authorities to be the bench mark by which all regulations will be set. Without compliance to regulations set by the authorities, licences may be witheld. Did someone whisper/shout "Blackmail"? I'm sure I heard it.

 

Those who live their lives by the regulation book, will consider such regulations are a benefit to all in that they reduce the numbers of accidents that may take place, and that life, and the world is a safer place to be. I will not make comment on that as it would be little more than one persons opinion, but regulations are frequently drawn up by persons who have little or NO experience in the field they are regulating, perhaps even NO interest.

 

My late Father once said to me while still a small boy:- "Sometimes you need elbows to get to the table. But you can be sure - there's nothing for the dumb!"

 

Speak up boys and girls.

[Derek R.]

In case anyone has not seen the report, and it's a sobering document, a 2.4MB pdf on the fatal fire on board Lindy Lou is here.

 

I doubt the unfortunate surviving owner of Lindy Lou will read this, but if it is drawn to his attention may I offer an apology for opening up something painful, and at the same time offer belated condolences.

 

It might also be noted, that existing regulations, nor any future regulations will stop every instance of catastrophe, they may even make no difference at all, but in the process, will create many difficulties and impossible requirements that are forced upon those whose desire is the retention of an historic vessel in use - one way or another - as it has been in use for perhaps a hundred years or more. In some instances such regulation by stranglehold will cause some to just give up on it.

 

Derek

Edited February 28, 2009 by Derek R.

[Speedwheel]

My worry is that it may make some future installations worst. People who do not want to comply, may undertake work themselves as they will be unable to get a boatyard to do the work for them. This may mean that people who are not competent (by their own admission) will be undertaking work that they should not really be attempting.

[sueb]

My worry is that it may make some future installations worst. People who do not want to comply, may undertake work themselves as they will be unable to get a boatyard to do the work for them. This may mean that people who are not competent (by their own admission) will be undertaking work that they should not really be attempting.

A very good point. It has certainly happened with the BSS, with people having temporary fittings that are removed before the test.

Sue

[casper ghost]

Are these going to be inforced for the BSC, if so it will involve almost every boat having fairly major work to comply. I know that my two stoves, one in the engine room! certainly will not. Who has an insulated flue? or an air gap under the hearth.

[dor]

From what I have seen, just about every solid fuel stove on a narrowboat is not installed within the manufacturers requirements. It would have to be fitted in the middle of the floor with about 10 ft of chimney sticking out of the roof. Equally they will not comply with the proposed suggestions. Whilst the Liny Lou case was a tragic event, how many narrowboats have been burnt out by their stoves? Yes there is a risk, but life is a risk. We need to take responsibility for our own actions, and that includes how we use the stove in our boats, just as we have a responsibility to make sure we don't hang up in a lock or fall off the boat and drown.

 

Solid fuel stoves have been used in narrowboats for a couple of hundred years or more and whilst accidents have happened, yes some even fatal, the vast majority have caused no problems at all. The trouble now is society is having all responsibilty taken away from it which will result in a generation having no perception of risk and a blame culture that will look for someone to sue everytime someone stubs their toe.

 

It seems to me from reports lately that more boaters die by falling off their boats whilst incapably drunk than anything else. Shall we ban alcohol within three miles of a canal?

[denboy]

From what I have seen, just about every solid fuel stove on a narrowboat is not installed within the manufacturers requirements. It would have to be fitted in the middle of the floor with about 10 ft of chimney sticking out of the roof. Equally they will not comply with the proposed suggestions. Whilst the Liny Lou case was a tragic event, how many narrowboats have been burnt out by their stoves? Yes there is a risk, but life is a risk. We need to take responsibility for our own actions, and that includes how we use the stove in our boats, just as we have a responsibility to make sure we don't hang up in a lock or fall off the boat and drown.

 

Solid fuel stoves have been used in narrowboats for a couple of hundred years or more and whilst accidents have happened, yes some even fatal, the vast majority have caused no problems at all. The trouble now is society is having all responsibilty taken away from it which will result in a generation having no perception of risk and a blame culture that will look for someone to sue everytime someone stubs their toe.

 

It seems to me from reports lately that more boaters die by falling off their boats whilst incapably drunk than anything else. Shall we ban alcohol within three miles of a canal?

Agree 100%Ps ive tried to do my bit and thrown my tuppence worth in on the comments

Edited March 5, 2009 by denboy

[alan_fincher]

Whilst the Liny Lou case was a tragic event, how many narrowboats have been burnt out by their stoves? #

 

It seems to me from reports lately that more boaters die by falling off their boats whilst incapably drunk than anything else. Shall we ban alcohol within three miles of a canal?

 

And it's personal take, having read the MAIB report on the Lindy Lou case more than once, that alcohol probably played a greater part in that tragedy than the way the stove had been installed.

 

It's a tragic case, and it's perhaps dangerous to try and surmise more than the report explicitly states, but it is freely acknowledged that both people on board had been drinking heavily both before returning to the boat, and when actually back on it.

 

It doesn't need a vivid imagination that a dangerous situation could develop in such circumstances with even the most expertly installed stove. It's very hard, for example to guard completely against a stove being over-fired or run too hard, or combustible materials placed close to it. I'm not saying that's conclusively what happened on the Lindy Lou, but unfortunately I have a strong feeling that "user error" probably played the greatest part.

 

Alan

[sueb]

From what I have seen, just about every solid fuel stove on a narrowboat is not installed within the manufacturers requirements. It would have to be fitted in the middle of the floor with about 10 ft of chimney sticking out of the roof. Equally they will not comply with the proposed suggestions. Whilst the Liny Lou case was a tragic event, how many narrowboats have been burnt out by their stoves? Yes there is a risk, but life is a risk. We need to take responsibility for our own actions, and that includes how we use the stove in our boats, just as we have a responsibility to make sure we don't hang up in a lock or fall off the boat and drown.

 

Solid fuel stoves have been used in narrowboats for a couple of hundred years or more and whilst accidents have happened, yes some even fatal, the vast majority have caused no problems at all. The trouble now is society is having all responsibilty taken away from it which will result in a generation having no perception of risk and a blame culture that will look for someone to sue everytime someone stubs their toe.

 

It seems to me from reports lately that more boaters die by falling off their boats whilst incapably drunk than anything else. Shall we ban alcohol within three miles of a canal?

As soon as the main cause of canal boat deaths is removed something else becomes the main cause. Hence the blitzs on different things periodically. We may end up with less deaths but it does seem to me that when a void is created it is immediately filled.

Sue

[alan_fincher]

Actually I agree totally with DOR.

 

I doubt the total deaths due to all boat equipment - stoves, cookers, fridges, boilers, water heaters, etc, etc in any way equal canal deaths from people falling in in some form or another, whether alcohol induced or not.

 

There have been a significant number of deaths in my local area in the last few years, and whilst a few have been suicides, most seem to have been tragic accidents, often people slipping into locks whilst returning to boats after dark.

 

You can never protect people from themselves, and I do feel that things have now got out of hand in terms of regulation.

 

One of my "stuck records" on this forum, probably already voiced too often, is that statistics should be collated and published about all incidents, particularly those resulting in death.

 

If I could see a statistic that showed that my LPG fridge is five times more likely to kill me than any other cause, I would then have no hesitation in ditching it. But armed with no information, the best I can say is that one doesn't hear of such things, so presumably they are pretty safe - hardly a way to make an informed choice.

[Neil TNC]

And it's personal take, having read the MAIB report on the Lindy Lou case more than once, that alcohol probably played a greater part in that tragedy than the way the stove had been installed.

 

It's a tragic case, and it's perhaps dangerous to try and surmise more than the report explicitly states, but it is freely acknowledged that both people on board had been drinking heavily both before returning to the boat, and when actually back on it.

 

It doesn't need a vivid imagination that a dangerous situation could develop in such circumstances with even the most expertly installed stove. It's very hard, for example to guard completely against a stove being over-fired or run too hard, or combustible materials placed close to it. I'm not saying that's conclusively what happened on the Lindy Lou, but unfortunately I have a strong feeling that "user error" probably played the greatest part.

 

Alan

 

So we should ban the use of alchohol on boats...at any time?

The tragic reports of deaths on boats recently, just point to the fact that there are now many more people now living on boats, who are perhaps not compleatly au fait with how dangerous stoves can be if not properly installed, maintained and run.

[saltysplash]

So we should ban the use of alchohol on boats...at any time?

The tragic reports of deaths on boats recently, just point to the fact that there are now many more people now living on boats, who are perhaps not compleatly au fait with how dangerous stoves can be if not properly installed, maintained and run.

 

 

So its education that is needed, not more regulation

 

 

People will still be able to kill themselves with ease even with properly installed and maintained stoves.

Edited March 6, 2009 by saltysplash

[Guest steve jenkin]

all this political correctness is driving me potty!! am gonna put a stove pipe on the back of me boat and blast any git that looks official !! can we please have some sort of control back over our lives?

 

oh, one more thing . . . . BLAH BLOODY BLAH !!!!!

 

Educate, not legislate !!

[Derek R.]

Are these going to be inforced for the BSC, if so it will involve almost every boat having fairly major work to comply. I know that my two stoves, one in the engine room! certainly will not. Who has an insulated flue? or an air gap under the hearth.

 

If I can refer the honourable lady or gent to post No.3 in this thread.

 

There's no knowing right now, but I fancy there's going to be some serious contention of any such proposals to go through as they are in draft form, and not from just the historic boat people. As they stand, and if they were made a legal requirement to be complied with, just about every craft afloat with a solid fuel stove would be in breach.

 

As just about everybody has said in some way or another, more regulation of this nature does not supply any kind of certainty in saving lives. It will only create expensive problems, which themselves will most likely be short circuited by any individual - careful or careless. Most of what is in the BSI document is completely impracticable, and unworkable unless you had a wide beam boat that went nowhere.

 

Commonsense is easily taught with pamphlets and brochures showing materials available and how best they can be applied, the benefits should stand out for themselves.

 

Some regulation for greater safety is necessary - take gas installations requiring thermo-coupled fail safe devices, correct grades of tubing, methods of attachment, and lockers to keep any casual leakage from bottles away from bilges, and likely quite a few more. And perhaps in the BS 8511 draft there is some sound sense in NOT using comparatively lightweight decorative tiles stuck on a flammable backing - such as plywood. But apart from that, as Steve Jenkin is jumping about, we are over-regulated in every walk of life already (& with 10% of the Worlds CCTV cameras deployed in Britain and growing), and in an area where historically the numbers of deaths or serious injuries caused by fires emanating from solid fuel installation on boats - precious little of 8511 as is, is either needed, nor practically possible - though doubtless it's giving someone's department a reason for being, and salaries for all within.

 

Today there seems to be a 'safety nanny' behind every blade of grass, time for some strimming.

 

Derek

 

PS

I am reminded of an incident that happened to us one night on Yarmouth.

Before the rebuild, we had a Morso Squirrel in the front cabin, which was fairly open plan with our cross bed at the other end, but forward of the engine 'ole as was. We went to bed, and had been there an hour or so, when I noticed a strange light at the front end. It was like someone had lit a steady orange flare in the front end of the cabin, and I wondered if I'd left a light on. Upon investigation I found I had left the air wheel fully open in the ash-pan door. The light was from the fierce fire belting away behind the glass door - was it ever hot in there! Water came out of the taps scalding hot and plenty of steam with it. But no-where was any excess heat causing any kind of problem around the stove. The Squirrel sat on an ordinary paving slab, and bolted to it. The slab sat on the wooden floor and was kept from moving by corner pieces fixed to the floor. There was no metal, or tiled fire surround, the stove sat about eight inches from the plywood panelling at the side of the boat, and about eighteen inches from the hot water cylinder situated behind it (the stove was set slightly angled to face the centre point of the cabin). NOTHING around that stove was in ANY danger of catching alight. There were no flammable materials within eight inches, and the nearest - the plywood panelling - was warm to the touch, no more. Excellent stove.

 

But it would not have complied with the proposed regulations in BS 8511. There is no need for BS 8511 - advisory - possibly on some points, but not compulsory. Most of those fancy double walled chimneys are fine for houses and wide boats, but are completely unecessary in craft where a sensible approach to fixtures and fitting in and around very hot areas are concerned.

 

The tragedy of Lindy Lou may well have been avoided if flammable - moveable - objects had not been placed so close to the stove, and proper quarry tiles been used on fireproof backing in place of 4mm thick decorative tiles on plywood.

 

It would appear, from the statistics shown in the MAIB report (which are far from concurring), that eight fatalities have occured through boat fires between 2003 and 2007 inclusive (I include the Lindy Lou fire and the elderly man who died from smoke inhalation in hospital after a boat fire in Shardlow). We must set this against the number of people cruising and living on the waterways over that period of time - figures which are not to hand - and whether existing regulations or even simple safe practices were in use, and PREVENTING any tragedy occuring. The latter will be an impossible factor to calculate, as we cannot really state at any point: "I am alive today, because I didn't park my coat by the fire" with absolute certainty. Had we done so of course, someone else would be able to say he would be alive today, if he hadn't . . . "

 

A balance of probabilities. Most of the time we are in a safe situation because we PROBABLY took some action or another, most likely without thinking about it, but we cannot PROVE it. Whereas, if we are killed, there will be a PROVEN reason for the cause of death. Food for the clip-board brigade.

 

But here I am, preaching to the converted!! I just get so wound up about unecessary regulations stopping you doing something you've done all your life without a problem!

[casper ghost]

I just get so wound up about unecessary regulations stopping you doing something you've done all your life without a problem!

 

 

I agree completely! ( gent, by the way)

[Derek R.]

I agree completely! ( gent, by the way)

So you are - I beg your pardon, should have looked more attentively!

 

Derek

[madcat]

Ye gods and monsters,I used to enjoy my boat but Iam started to feel far more threatened by the legislators than any supposed risk to my safety from operating the boat and its equipment.The rising tide of official interferance is removing the pleasure from life.Im seriously thinking of giving up and selling up. Theres plenty usefull for me to do elsewhere and it wont cost as much. A dissolusioned and hissy madcat at the moment.

[Guest]

Ye gods and monsters,I used to enjoy my boat but Iam started to feel far more threatened by the legislators than any supposed risk to my safety from operating the boat and its equipment.The rising tide of official interferance is removing the pleasure from life.Im seriously thinking of giving up and selling up. Theres plenty usefull for me to do elsewhere and it wont cost as much. A dissolusioned and hissy madcat at the moment.

Not just boats, it is creeping into everything. The day is near when you wont be able to do your own home plumbing/repairs (already happened with electrics), fix your own car/motorcycle blah blah. If it was all genuinely for safety reasons, it may be easier to accept, but in reality it is about making money.

[Timleech]

.................... but in reality it is about making money.

 

And keeping people in employment.

 

Tim

[Guest steve jenkin]

is the same old thing again, if we all stick together, stand our ground in some way, make ourselves heard, you dont see the frogs taking crap from officialdom, they retalliate

[Guest]

And keeping people in employment.

 

Tim

I kind of agree, but how many businesses (and jobs) are being driven out of existence by all the unnecessary legislation? I will quote you an example:

I require some very large iron gates shot blasting. Twenty years ago there was a firm locally who would have done this. Now I am unable to find anybody locally who does shot blasting because it appears that most of them have shut shop owing to unrealistic legislation. I also know of people who have turned their back on the electrical game owing to legislation from hell.

I am strongly in favour of safe working conditions (my back was broken in an industrial accident), but we have to achieve a sensible balance. Will the nation be able to afford all of this legislation if we plunge further into financial depression?

 

is the same old thing again, if we all stick together, stand our ground in some way, make ourselves heard, you dont see the frogs taking crap from officialdom, they retalliate

Sorry Steve, but everybody is too engrossed in X factor and Coronation Street to be bothered with such problems.

[Timleech]

And keeping people in employment.

 

Tim

 

 

 

I kind of agree, but how many businesses (and jobs) are being driven out of existence by all the unnecessary legislation? I will quote you an example:

I require some very large iron gates shot blasting. Twenty years ago there was a firm locally who would have done this. Now I am unable to find anybody locally who does shot blasting because it appears that most of them have shut shop owing to unrealistic legislation. I also know of people who have turned their back on the electrical game owing to legislation from hell.

I am strongly in favour of safe working conditions (my back was broken in an industrial accident), but we have to achieve a sensible balance. Will the nation be able to afford all of this legislation if we plunge further into financial depression?

 

I reckon someone, probably civil servants, in high places does some estimates as to the pros and cons for the economy of all this safety and allied legislation on the assumption that actually producing things is of minor importance now. Trouble is their sums will have been messed up by the present economic mess, we can no longer rely on the City, and taxes from overpaid bankers, to keep us afloat.

 

Tim

[Guest]

I reckon someone, probably civil servants, in high places does some estimates as to the pros and cons for the economy of all this safety and allied legislation on the assumption that actually producing things is of minor importance now. Trouble is their sums will have been messed up by the present economic mess, we can no longer rely on the City, and taxes from overpaid bankers, to keep us afloat.

 

Tim

Amen to that.