Jump to content

Is overplating really that bad?


Dave_P

Featured Posts

6 hours ago, tomsk said:

There is begger all wrong with properly executed localised over-plating.

It's obviously not ideal but so long as it's PROPERLY EXECUTED I cant see a problem.

If you have the financial liquidity and time to cut out the bad bits and re-skin then do so, otherwise it's a bona-fide stopgap.

Please don't spend your life plating over a colander though.

 

The risk is that it's difficult to know if all welds are fully water tight and that the plates are tightly fitted across their surfaces. It's also difficult to achieve the latter on curved surfaces.

I think the whole debate loses sight of the pretty simple output requirement for a hull i.e. it must float.

It would also be interesting to know how commonplace cutting out entire sections and replating a leisure boat that has a full cabin actually is. Does anyone ever actually do this?

JP

Edited by Captain Pegg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

The risk is that it's difficult to know if all welds are fully water tight and that the plates are tightly fitted across their surfaces. It's also difficult to achieve the latter on curved surfaces.

I think the whole debate loses sight of the pretty simple output requirement for a hull i.e. it must float.

It would also be interested to know how commonplace cutting out entire sections and replating a leisure boat with a full cabin actually is. Does anyone ever actually do this?

JP

I think the whole debate loses sight of the fact that the majority of narrow boats are never left unattended in deep water, and that hull failure in a narrow boat sinks the boat slowly in the first instance. In other words, you should notice before it hits the bottom

Those making a fuss seem to have got the risk assessment wrong - the likelyhood of failure isn't that great and the consequence is usually messy rather than catastrophic. How many boats sink due to over plating failure compared to, say, failing to grease the stern gland or put the weedhatch back properly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

I think the whole debate loses sight of the fact that the majority of narrow boats are never left unattended in deep water, and that hull failure in a narrow boat sinks the boat slowly in the first instance. In other words, you should notice before it hits the bottom

Those making a fuss seem to have got the risk assessment wrong - the likelyhood of failure isn't that great and the consequence is usually messy rather than catastrophic. How many boats sink due to over plating failure compared to, say, failing to grease the stern gland or put the weedhatch back properly?

I was about to give you a greenie until I realised I can't.

That's exactly why a lot of stuff in the original article isn't much help to anyone trying to make an informed decision on whether or not to buy an overplated boat or to have their existing boat overplated.

I bought mine on the basis that I should have the means to do significant hull work in say a 10 year horizon. Having seen it out of the water a couple of weeks ago and the having the ability to inspect it with a little more background knowledge than I had when I bought it a couple of years ago I am far from convinced it will need it.

And should it sink in 3' of water it's insured and I will have to bring forward plans to refit the cabin.

JP

Edited by Captain Pegg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

And should it sink in 3' of water it's insured and I will have to bring forward plans to refit the cabin.

I think if you're boat sinks due to the condition of the hull then insurer will reject any claim due to lack of maintenance

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/09/2017 at 19:19, Rose Narrowboats said:

But if a boatyard to carries out a "major modification" to a CE marked boat, the boat must be re-inspected and CE marked or they are breaking the law. It has now been made clear that over plating is  a "major modification."

 

I'm struggling with this. Who is breaking the law? The yard? And what law are they breaking?

Surely the result is a boat which no longer has a valid CE mark. There is no law compelling boats to be CE marked. Only a law preventing them being sold in the first five years of their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bloomsberry said:

I think if you're boat sinks due to the condition of the hull then insurer will reject any claim due to lack of maintenance

 

If the insurer has up an to date survey with no outstanding recommendations and a record of routine blacking can be provided I don't see why.

Of course if the boat is maintained in that way it's unlikely to happen in any case.

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a boat younger than 2002 with no RCD. My insurance company did not ask about RCD or state any conditions about having an RCD. There is a blanket clause that the boat must maintained in 'sound riverworthy condition' or something like that. 

So I think statements about a boat becoming 'illegal' are nothing more than scaremongering hyperbole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Surely the result is a boat which no longer has a valid CE mark. There is no law compelling boats to be CE marked. Only a law preventing them being sold in the first five years of their lives.

There was a recent thread that discussed this -

There was agreement that any boat built by a boat builder on behalf of a client was subject to the RCD (as the boat was sold immediately it was finished), the only way a boat was not legally subject to an RCD was if it was 'home built' by the owner,for the owner.

I pointed out that my 2003 boatyard built boat had neither a HIN nor an RCD and it was unanimously commented on that the builder had broken the law, and that somehow it had 'slipped thru' the net by being allowed to have a BSS, Insurance and SSR number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/09/2017 at 09:20, Alan de Enfield said:

I pointed out that my 2003 boatyard built boat had neither a HIN nor an RCD and it was unanimously commented on that the builder had broken the law, and that somehow it had 'slipped thru' the net by being allowed to have a BSS, Insurance and SSR number

 

So 'facts' are now established here by having a vote?!

Last time I remember that happening in the skool playground when I was 9 years old.

I'd still like to see the law which says a boat MUST have a RCD. I only know of a law which says a boat without an RCD may not be sold within five years.  Nothing to a boat with no RCD is actually 'illegal' (whatever that means).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

I'd still like to see the law which says a boat MUST have a RCD. I only know of a law which says a boat without an RCD may not be sold within five years.  Nothing to a boat with no RCD is actually 'illegal'

On 3 August 2017, the new Recreational Craft Regulations 2017 finally joined the statute book and became law in the UK after much deliberation. This legislation is more generally known as the RCD, or Recreational Craft Directive (2013/53/EU) and this version updates and repeals the earlier 2004 regulations.

The 2017 Recreational Craft Regulations follow the requirements of the RCD, while also setting out the UK market surveillance responsibilities. This essentially relates to what trading standards can and will do to ensure compliance. Their powers to impose penalties on companies found in breach of the regulations are immense and could result in products being taken off the market, fines imposed and even imprisonment in some cases.

 

Link to the act :

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/737/contents/made

 

Scope :

Scope

This section has no associated Explanatory Memorandum

3.—(1) Subject to regulation 4 (exclusions) these Regulations apply to the following products—

(a)recreational craft and partly completed recreational craft;

(b)personal watercraft and partly completed personal watercraft;

(c)components;

(d)propulsion engines which are installed or specifically intended for installation on or in watercraft;

(e)propulsion engines installed on or in watercraft that are subject to a major engine modification;

(f)watercraft that have been subject to major craft conversion.

(2) A watercraft that can also be used for charter or for sports and leisure training is covered by these Regulations when it is placed on the market for recreational purposes.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

On 3 August 2017, the new Recreational Craft Regulations 2017 finally joined the statute book and became law in the UK after much deliberation. This legislation is more generally known as the RCD, or Recreational Craft Directive (2013/53/EU) and this version updates and repeals the earlier 2004 regulations.

The 2017 Recreational Craft Regulations follow the requirements of the RCD, while also setting out the UK market surveillance responsibilities. This essentially relates to what trading standards can and will do to ensure compliance. Their powers to impose penalties on companies found in breach of the regulations are immense and could result in products being taken off the market, fines imposed and even imprisonment in some cases.

Oh that was very helpful. We now know what penalties the Courts will impose on anyone who breaches the new RCD, but still have no idea what the RCD actually requires of a builder. :banghead:

Edited by David Schweizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

If the insurer has up an to date survey with no outstanding recommendations and a record of routine blacking can be provided I don't see why.

Of course if the boat is maintained in that way it's unlikely to happen in any case.

JP

So if the significant hull work in 10 years didn't get picked up in a recent survey then who decided it was necessary ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/09/2017 at 09:35, Alan de Enfield said:

On 3 August 2017, the new Recreational Craft Regulations 2017 finally joined the statute book and became law in the UK after much deliberation. This legislation is more generally known as the RCD, or Recreational Craft Directive (2013/53/EU) and this version updates and repeals the earlier 2004 regulations.

The 2017 Recreational Craft Regulations follow the requirements of the RCD, while also setting out the UK market surveillance responsibilities. This essentially relates to what trading standards can and will do to ensure compliance. Their powers to impose penalties on companies found in breach of the regulations are immense and could result in products being taken off the market, fines imposed and even imprisonment in some cases.

 

Link to the act :

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/737/contents/made

 

Scope :

Scope

This section has no associated Explanatory Memorandum

3.—(1) Subject to regulation 4 (exclusions) these Regulations apply to the following products—

(a)recreational craft and partly completed recreational craft;

(b)personal watercraft and partly completed personal watercraft;

(c)components;

(d)propulsion engines which are installed or specifically intended for installation on or in watercraft;

(e)propulsion engines installed on or in watercraft that are subject to a major engine modification;

(f)watercraft that have been subject to major craft conversion.

(2) A watercraft that can also be used for charter or for sports and leisure training is covered by these Regulations when it is placed on the market for recreational purposes.

 

Looks to me as though you agree with me then. There is no law compelling all boats to have an RCD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Looks to me as though you agree with me then. There is no law compelling all boats to have an RCD.

Yes - I agree with you, there is no requirement for ALL boats to have an RCD.

However, ALL boats except the following must have an RCD :

Exclusions

This section has no associated Explanatory Memorandum

4.—(1) The design and construction requirements set out in Part A of Schedule 1 do not apply to the following watercraft—

(a)watercraft intended solely for racing, including rowing racing boats and training boats, labelled as such by the manufacturer;

(b)canoes and kayaks designed to be propelled solely by human power, gondolas and pedalos;

(c)surfboards designed to be propelled by wind and to be operated by a person or persons standing;

(d)other surfboards;

(e)original historical watercraft and individual replicas thereof designed before 1950 built predominantly with the original materials and labelled as such by the manufacturer;

(f)experimental watercraft, unless they are placed on the market;

(g)watercraft built for own use, provided that such watercraft are not subsequently placed on the EU market for a period of five years beginning with the date on which the watercraft was put into service;

(h)watercraft specifically intended to be crewed and to carry passengers for commercial purposes, except when they fall within regulation 3(2), regardless of the number of passengers;

(i)submersibles;

(j)air cushion vehicles;

(k)hydrofoils;

(l)external combustion steam powered watercraft, fuelled by coal, coke, wood, oil or gas;

(m)amphibious vehicles, that is to say wheeled or track-laying motor vehicles, which are able to operate both on water and on solid land

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

The risk is that it's difficult to know if all welds are fully water tight and that the plates are tightly fitted across their surfaces. It's also difficult to achieve the latter on curved surfaces.

I am surprised that anyone having their boat overplated doesn't get the welds tested using non destructive methods such as magnetic particle inspection.

http://worcesterndt.com/magnetic-particle-inspection.html?gclid=CjwKEAjwl_PNBRDcnobn1dvCk1ESJADimmVFv8xBVW3crOhnCyY_mgkqnr8hU-Vn12FYo-UT8bxgphoCO6bw_wcB

In my working life every weld on chilled water pipework and custom made bulk fuel tanks was tested this way, following an air pressure test, to give the client peace of mind, as it is a relatively quick and cheap way of verifying the quality of the welds.

Edited by cuthound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

And if one of those boats are sold, does that make the boat 'illegal'?

I am sure that you can read the act just as well as I, have a look at Section 73 which lists the acts which comprise an offence, if an offence has been committed then the penalties are :

Any person who is guilty of an offence under regulation 73 (offences) is liable on summary conviction—

(a)in England and Wales—

(i)to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months;

(ii)to a fine; or

(iii)to both.

(b)in Scotland and Northern Ireland—

(i)to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months; or

(ii)to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale; or

(iii)to both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Rose Narrowboats said:

 

Don't beat yourself up about it - I've seen boats that were built in the 1970s with epoxy coating from new, and believe it or not they have been in worse condition than supposedly otherwise identical spec. boats.

Personally I don't think two-pack is the panacea many people would have us believe. If you are in the position of commissioning a new build, then I think the way to go is to specify a high quality steel in the first place than use boggo EN43 plate and then spend a fortune on snake oil trying to stop it going back to nature.

That's probably because the epoxy paints available in the 1970s were a far cry from what is available these days. I've seen boats painted with epoxy coatings that were in perfect condition when the boat came out the water 10 years later. I'm not sure how you're defining panacea but personally I think two-pack paints if properly applied are a LOT better than the traditional alternatives. Of course the correct grade of steel should be specified for a new build, but that won't stop it corroding along the waterline so why not apply a properly specified coating too? Two pack epoxy paints are used in industry on commercial projects and I'm afraid the fact you're calling it "snake oil" shows that you don't really understand the subject.

Edited by blackrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Referring to several earlier posts, I suspect that the issue of Steel quality my be more relevant than age. The hull of of our old boat was built in 1981 by a well respected builder, Braunston Canal Services. The builder told me that he always specified the highest grade of steel available, and tried to avoid too many welded joints, particularly on the base plate.

When the boat had it's last Hull inspection in 2016, there was still minimal corrosion with a few pits where the boat had been moored against a steel post in the past. These were skillfully filled by Roger Farrington and passed by the inspector. So after 35 years with standard blacking evey two years it was still in very good condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, David Schweizer said:

Referring to several earlier posts, I suspect that the issue of Steel quality my be more relevant than age. The hull of of our old boat was built in 1981 by a well respected builder, Braunston Canal Services. The builder told me that he always specified the highest grade of steel available, and tried to avoid too many welded joints, particularly on the base plate.

When the boat had it's last Hull inspection in 2016, there was still minimal corrosion with a few pits where the boat had been moored against a steel post in the past. These were skillfully filled by Roger Farrington and passed by the inspector. So after 35 years with standard blacking evey two years it was still in very good condition.

Our boat was built in 1983 , has been blacked whilst in our ownership every two years and has some pitting to baseplate and sides. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/09/2017 at 10:13, Alan de Enfield said:

I am sure that you can read the act just as well as I, have a look at Section 73 which lists the acts which comprise an offence, if an offence has been committed then the penalties are :

Any person who is guilty of an offence under regulation 73 (offences) is liable on summary conviction—

(a)in England and Wales—

(i)to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months;

(ii)to a fine; or

(iii)to both.

(b)in Scotland and Northern Ireland—

(i)to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months; or

(ii)to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale; or

(iii)to both.

 

So it still looks as though you are in agreement with me. 

The act of selling a class of boat which should have an RCD is illegal, but this does not make an 'illegal boat'. 

I have such a boat. It is in the canal, Craftinsure issued insurance, there is a valid BSS, CRT issued a licence, in what way is my boat 'illegal'?

 

The original seller of the boat appears to have exposed himself to the risk of prosecution, but the boat is fine!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

The act of selling a class of boat which should have an RCD is illegal, but this does not make an 'illegal boat'. 

I have such a boat. It is in the canal, Craftinsure issued insurance, there is a valid BSS, CRT issued a licence, in what way is my boat 'illegal'?

 

The original seller of the boat appears to have exposed himself to the risk of prosecution, but the boat is fine!

We are in agreement - it was not I that said 'the boat is illegal'.

In a previous thread a poster stated the boat was illegal because it 'had slipped thru the net' and that it could not have a BSSC, or insurance without having an RCD.

As I have commented earlier (and in previous threads on the subject) my 2003 boat does not have an RCD, but has a Licence, BSSC, Insurance and is SSR registered. I do not consider the boat is in any way 'illegal'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

Referring to several earlier posts, I suspect that the issue of Steel quality my be more relevant than age. The hull of of our old boat was built in 1981 by a well respected builder, Braunston Canal Services. The builder told me that he always specified the highest grade of steel available, and tried to avoid too many welded joints, particularly on the base plate.

When the boat had it's last Hull inspection in 2016, there was still minimal corrosion with a few pits where the boat had been moored against a steel post in the past. These were skillfully filled by Roger Farrington and passed by the inspector. So after 35 years with standard blacking evey two years it was still in very good condition.

Grade does not signify quality. In generally available steels grade refers to yield strength and that is derived by the specific chemical composition of the steel. In the UK the choice from stock for boats is probably S275 or S355. Although the latter has a higher yield strength both are way more than adequate in terms of the mechanical properties required for a narrowboat. Additionally the chemical compositions are not different enough to give significantly different properties in terms of longevity on a boat.

Quality would refer to whether the steel meets the specification for chemical composition and the dimensional tolerance. Steel is produced to a highly uniform standard worldwide and this isn't a significant issue (at least not in general construction and narrowboat building).

Impurities and inclusions are the real enemy but improvements in the steel making process eliminate most of the historic nasties. Even then they are only likely to be significant if you subject the steel to repeated load cycles of significant magnitude such that fatigue failure is induced. That doesn't happen to a narrowboat.

I do agree on the point about welding. Way more to go wrong there than there ever will be with the parent steel.

JP

Edited by Captain Pegg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

Grade does not signify quality. In generally available steels grade refers to yield strength and that is derived by the specific chemical composition of the steel. In the UK the choice from stock for boats is probably S275 or S355. Although the latter has a higher yield strength both are way more than adequate in terms of the mechanical properties required for a narrowboat. Additionally the chemical compositions are not different enough to give significantly different properties in terms of longevity on a boat.

Quality would refer to whether the steel meets the specification for chemical composition and the dimensional tolerance. Steel is produced to a highly uniform standard worldwide and this isn't a significant issue (at least not in general construction and narrowboat building).

Impurities and inclusions are the real enemy but improvements in the steel making process eliminate most of the historic nasties. Even then they are only likely to be significant if you subject the steel to repeated load cycles of significant magnitude such that fatigue failure is induced. That doesn't happen to a narrowboat.

I do agree on the point about welding. Way more to go wrong there than there ever will be with the parent steel.

JP

Yes I understand all that, and i think you already knew what I meant when i said " the highest grade of steel available" by which I meant the best quality available for the purpose. To be honest, quoting BS Standards is completely irrelevant, as the boat was built from steel manufactured 1981, more than ten years before the British Standard for S275 and S355 steel (and most other steels) were introduced

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More important may be the myth of not painting the baseplate. Yes in the old days boats wore out ( hence composite bottoms easier to replace in the 30s, now they rust out. If your boat floats on a puddle there is no reason not to paint the baseplate. Hence my surveyors comments there's some pitting on the baseplate-  best blasted and epoxy into the pits, to slow it down. Sadly pits from bottom turned out to be too near the waisting from the top, caused by.... Water in the hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.