Hull Thickness

[JetBoy]

Folks,

 

How important is this...10/6/4...8/6/4...5/4/3???

 

Does it really matter?

 

Any suggestions most welcome as I saw a narrowboat I really liked at 5/4/3

[bottle]

Boats have got thicker as time has moved forward, if the thickness now, is the same or as near as dam it to the original then no problem with the boat.

 

One proviso the insurance company may be a bit 'jumpy' and demand surveys on the thinner ones and probably much explaining about it being original will be required.

[BilgePump]

5/4/3 suggests an old Springer or similar. They may sound thin but if after the years it is still near to the original base/side thicknesses then has to be worth considering. In the 80s they were the Skodas of the narrowboat world but their endurance decades down the line suggests that they were decently made and with ok steel. A thick baseplate from poor steel, in the wrong environment, with little care and stray currents can degrade far quicker than a well cared for thinner hull.

[magictime]

Folks,

 

How important is this...10/6/4...8/6/4...5/4/3???

 

Does it really matter?

 

Any suggestions most welcome as I saw a narrowboat I really liked at 5/4/3

 

All else being equal, thicker steel should have a longer lifespan than thinner steel because it should take that much longer for areas to get so thin that overplating/replating is required to stop the hull springing a leak. But as others have suggested, if a boat built with a 5mm bottom 30 years ago (say) still has a near-as-dammit 5mm bottom today (with little pitting etc.), that suggests good quality steel that could last several more decades with no problems if properly looked after (regular blacking etc.)

 

Our old boat was around 20 years old and had a 4mm original bottom that was down to 3.5mm in some spots when we bought it. On the face of it that's not bad at all - and our surveyor said it could well last another 20 years - but I must admit I always felt a bit twitchy about owning a boat with such thin steel - as if it was just a matter of time before the bill for overplating arrived...

 

And yes, some insurers have issues with thinner-hulled boats. We went with GJW and they didn't have have a problem, though.

[alan_fincher]

Well 5/4/3 means the boat was built with 4mm sides to the hull.

 

That in itself is not a problem, but following extensive discussion on here recently about a boat repaired in 4mm steel, it seems this is the minimum thickness at which some (maybe most?) insurance companies will offer comprehensive cover.

 

Any boat built 5/4/3 was undoubtedly built some time back, (probably 1980s or earlier, possibly into the 1990s?), so it can be guaranteed that some pitting will have taken place, and what started as 4mm is not now 4mm all over.

That would appear to mean any boat of this type is not comprehensively insurable by at least some insurers. So if this matters to you, you need to find out what a prospective insurer would insist on.

 

Alternatively if it is still anything like 4mm it will be fine in practice, so just cover it third party, if you are happy to take that approach.

[roland elsdon]

in the 80s they were the Skodas of the narrowboat World. So faster than a lotus don't rust and go for ever...

[magictime]

Any boat built 5/4/3 was undoubtedly built some time back, (probably 1980s or earlier, possibly into the 1990s?)

 

Our Midway 235 was 4/4/3 and built in the mid-90s, so yes, some boats were certainly being built to this sort of Springer-esque spec at that time.

 

As I say, GJW had no issue insuring that boat in spite of the steel being down to 3.5mm in places, and I might add that they were excellent when we had to make a claim. But obviously it would make sense for the OP to double check of the position re insurance before proceeding with a survey etc.

[Laurie Booth]

All depends if the steel is pre or post atomic bomb.