Deck drains - height above water

[rusty69]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 Many different types available just an example

 

 

 

 

An  interesting option. I wonder what the surveyors/insurance companies make of it.? I suspect it's not a common solution on a narrowboat. 

[blackrose]

Any bow well deck scupper on a canal boat has to penetrate the hull at deck height at it's lowest point. Most fittings will drain slightly above deck height leaving annoying puddles on the deck.

[WotEver]

4 hours ago, blackrose said:

when you say "old BSS standards" aren't they still current?

The current BSS relaxes a lot of the previous conditions for private boats which were mandatory and are now only advisory. Like weed hatch height and hull fitments. 

Edited August 24, 2017 by WotEver
Autoincorrect

[Alan de Enfield]

3 hours ago, blackrose said:

Any bow well deck scupper on a canal boat has to penetrate the hull at deck height at it's lowest point. Most fittings will drain slightly above deck height leaving annoying puddles on the deck.

Indeed it will, but on current advice of welding up the drain holes, I'd rather have a 'few puddles' than an ever increasing quantity of water from a leaking lockgate pouring into the front deck or waves on the Thames breaking over the bow.

[Neil2]

This particularly interested me as on our boat the drains are maybe only 3-4" above water with the water tank full.  Though with the boat under way the bow wave trough increases the depth quite a lot.  Nonetheless I am considering raising the deck and the door threshold, there's no way Mrs Neil will have a cratch cover. 

[koukouvagia]

I had a similar request from a surveyor years ago when he looked at the drain holes on the back deck of our butty.  It was argued that I might load the butty (unlikely since it has an undercloth conversion) and the drain holes would then be under water.

I'm pleased to say that the surveyor advising on the current rebuild of the back end of Hampton took a more relaxed view and drain holes are in place.

 

[alan_fincher]

18 minutes ago, koukouvagia said:

I had a similar request from a surveyor years ago when he looked at the drain holes on the back deck of our butty.  It was argued that I might load the butty (unlikely since it has an undercloth conversion) and the drain holes would then be under water.

Perhaps he had heard tales of you loading up one of your boats with maybe twenty or so CWDFers, (some not particularly lightweight!) following a banter, and assumed you might try for even more at a future one.

Not quiteas whimsical as it sounds actually.  I can remember being invited with many others aboard the good ship Bones following a banter.  The front well deck was awash as water entering via the now underwater drains, and there was probably less than a 2" step stopping it flowing into the cabin!

[blackrose]

On 24/08/2017 at 16:48, Alan de Enfield said:

Indeed it will, but on current advice of welding up the drain holes, I'd rather have a 'few puddles' than an ever increasing quantity of water from a leaking lockgate pouring into the front deck or waves on the Thames breaking over the bow.

I'm not sure I'd trust those fittings you've recommended for this application as the installation instructions state that they're only designed to "reduce backwash" and should be installed 12" above the waterline (with a seacock), which surely just brings us back to square 1?

http://www.attwoodmarine.com/store/product/Scupper-Valves

http://www.attwoodmarine.com/userfiles/store/product/files/1069/ss-scupper-valves.pdf

Edited August 26, 2017 by blackrose