Engine Question

[Newguy]

Hi

 

I'm hoping to get a canal boat built soon (58-60ft). And wanted to get some advice on engine choices. I wanted to know if all engines are capable when traversing rivers or it's better to get a certain type/ more powerful engine. I don't want to have any issues when using the Thames River etc.

 

Any advice would be great thanks

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, Newguy said:

Hi

 

I'm hoping to get a canal boat built soon (58-60ft). And wanted to get some advice on engine choices. I wanted to know if all engines are capable when traversing rivers or it's better to get a certain type/ more powerful engine. I don't want to have any issues when using the Thames River etc.

 

Any advice would be great thanks

Firstly you will need to get an engine that is approved to RCD Compliance, you cannot just stick in any old Car / truck engine.

 

Secondly, I am sure that your builder will have the experience / knowledge to know what engines are suitable for his Hull design and are RCD approved.

[MtB]

Pretty much any engine a new boat builder will offer you will be fine for rivers. 

 

You seem particularly concerned with rivers and I'm wondering why. Bear in mind the Thames and the Trent are about as different as football and cricket but the same engine will be fine for both.

 

The far bigger issue is preventing the engine from failing when giving it some beans on a fast flowing section of river. This is 100% down to standards of installation and maintenance, not the make and model of engine. The two big reasons for 'engine-under-stress' failures are overheating and fuel supply blockage. Inadequate cooling skin tanks and/or circulation cause overheating when you unexpectedly need the power, and on the Thames tideway and rough bits of the Trent the waves rock the boat about and stir up the residual crud in the fuel tank which gets drawn into the fuel filter and blocks it, making the engine stop. 

 

Neither problem is down to 'wrong engine' choice.

[Tony Brooks]

Well, you probably do not want one that is too small  but most engines that come as "standard" these days are probably over powered. I am perfectly happy with a nominal 36 hp engine of a 54 ft boat on the Thames when in flood and would be happy enough with it in a 58ft boat. Perhaps of more importance is YOUR experience, capabilities of reading the flow & eddies, and knowing when it is safer to tie up and wait.

 

Some hull makers still seem to fit undersized skin tanks that are fine on canals but a soon as you get on rivers and open it up a bit the engine overheats.  Once you know the power of the selected engine work out the skin tank size required (about 1 sq ft on one side per four hp) and ensure the hull builder makes one of that size. Any talk they may try to feed you about over cooling is rubbish and should be a warning of their technical competence. The engine thermostat makes sure you can not over cool.

 

One particular mariniser has a reputation for parts being very expensive and they tend to sell boat builders complete instillation package that in my view contains components that are not ideal on canals so check the price of genuine spares BEFORE you commit to  a particular engine. Service spares for any engine can usually be had cheaper from automotive sources than the mariniser.

 

 

[alan_fincher]

I would say that provided you use a reputable well respected builder they will normally have a fairly standard engine choice for a given type of boat, based on past experience, and generally that is likely to be a satisfactory choice for all normal needs.

 

Generally the power of engines fitted to new builds over the years has increased to the point that just about anything fitted should be suitable for normal river work.

 

Some builders offer a "standard" engine and a possible upgrade to something more powerful, but whenever I have studied it, "standard" would meet any normal need, and "upgrade" is usually overkill.

 

However it is not all just about powering the boat.  If you are planning massive electrics and high electricity usage, quite a bit of power may be needed to generate it, on top of what's needed to move the boat, particularly if you (say) specify a 240V engine generator as well as 12v alternators.

As to brand of engine, look at what hire fleets use, as it is a strong indicator of reliability and ease and cost of servicing.  Probably best are engines based on the Kubota motor, and Beta is probably best of these.  Gearbox is important too, and a PRM Newage box is usually reckoned the best and most bomb-proof.

You have not said if you are planning a narrow boat or a wide beam - obviously the latter will need a bigger motor than a narrow boat of the same length.

[Newguy]

It's a narrow boat I'm planning. The reason I asked is I was talking to an individual who stated he found some engines struggled on rivers while others didn't and this was down to there size.

 

Thanks for all the advice this seems to clear up my confusion. 

 

The builder I'm planning on using fits a 38 H.P. Yanmar diesel engine as standard.

[Tony Brooks]

13 minutes ago, Newguy said:

It's a narrow boat I'm planning. The reason I asked is I was talking to an individual who stated he found some engines struggled on rivers while others didn't and this was down to there size.

 

Thanks for all the advice this seems to clear up my confusion. 

 

The builder I'm planning on using fits a 38 H.P. Yanmar diesel engine as standard.

 

So a Barrus Shire then. A fine engine no doubt but would not be my first choice. At least its not the horribly expensive mariniser.

 

Engines said to be struggling can also be down to the propeller not properly matching the engine power, gearbox reduction ratio and hull.

[OldGoat]

If you want folks to suggest a specific engine, then my recommendation is a Beta 50HP.

My boat is 60 ft and the first suggestion was for a 43Hp. However, with a PRM160 gearbox and a Travel Power type of generator the price of the 50 was only a gnat's whisker more than the 43.

I'm on the Thames and in normal summer conditions a 43 would be good enough - but in the winter and spring the extra 'wellie' is very welcome.

The Beta is good because it's relatively easy to clamp on all sorts of bells and whistles ( larger alternators, Travel power, fresh water cooling)

Beta know what they are doing and specialise in oddball installations.

A narrowboat power plant can easily be an oddball installation.

I've seen some truly 'orrible modifications done to other engine makes and am glad I got it right (well pretty well right) from the beginning.

It's frightening when you start looking as there are all sorts of options - so what the hell do you look for??

 

I've said my bit - now folks will come along  and disagree..

(A 38HP on the Thames in a 60footer would be a bit underpowered 43 or 50 with bells and whistles, better. Freshwater cooling is lovely and quiet )

 

 

[Tony Brooks]

3 minutes ago, OldGoat said:

If you want folks to suggest a specific engine, then my recommendation is a Beta 50HP.

My boat is 60 ft and the first suggestion was for a 43Hp. However, with a PRM160 gearbox and a Travel Power type of generator the price of the 50 was only a gnat's whisker more than the 43.

I'm on the Thames and in normal summer conditions a 43 would be good enough - but in the winter and spring the extra 'wellie' is very welcome.

The Beta is good because it's relatively easy to clamp on all sorts of bells and whistles ( larger alternators, Travel power, fresh water cooling)

Beta know what they are doing and specialise in oddball installations.

A narrowboat power plant can easily be an oddball installation.

I've seen some truly 'orrible modifications done to other engine makes and am glad I got it right (well pretty well right) from the beginning.

It's frightening when you start looking as there are all sorts of options - so what the hell do you look for??

 

I've said my bit - now folks will come along  and disagree..

(A 38HP on the Thames in a 60footer would be a bit underpowered 43 or 50 with bells and whistles, better. Freshwater cooling is lovely and quiet )

 

 

 

Not having a pop at you honest. If by fresh water cooling you mean heat exchanger cooling with wet exhaust then I would be half in and half out of agreement for a RIVER boat but not when canals are involved - totally disagree for that.

 

They stop being nice and quiet when the raw water flow stops and then damage starts getting done. I my view such systems add a needless extra pump plus its ongoing maintenance for little advantage that cant be had from a decent dry silencer. It also complicates the winterising process or risks frost damage to the raw water parts.

 

Can't disagree about Beta & the gearbox though.

 

[Sea Dog]

4 hours ago, Newguy said:

It's a narrow boat I'm planning. The reason I asked is I was talking to an individual who stated he found some engines struggled on rivers while others didn't and this was down to there size.

 

Thanks for all the advice this seems to clear up my confusion. 

 

The builder I'm planning on using fits a 38 H.P. Yanmar diesel engine as standard.

Nothing much wrong with Yanmar, but 38 might be a bit underpowered in some river situations in a 58'-60' boat.

 

Want a definitive recommended? Ask him to fit the ubiquitous Beta 43 with a PRM150 gearbox.  They're reliable, manufacturer support is good, spares availability is good and the 43HP 2000cc will give you plenty of power for rivers in your size hull but will still sip diesel at a little over a litre per hour when cruising.   The engine is a marinised Kubota and has an excellent high power (175 amp) domestic alternator (in addition to the engine alternator), which easily meets or exceeds most boater's electrical generation needs.  See you can find anyone with a post 2007 engine (previous engines could have a problem with the bearing load from the alternator pulleys - now sorted) who would not recommend it.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Sea Dog
Punctuation

[OldGoat]

37 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Not having a pop at you honest. If by fresh water cooling you mean heat exchanger cooling with wet exhaust then I would be half in and half out of agreement for a RIVER boat but not when canals are involved - totally disagree for that.

 

They stop being nice and quiet when the raw water flow stops and then damage starts getting done. I my view such systems add a needless extra pump plus its ongoing maintenance for little advantage that cant be had from a decent dry silencer. It also complicates the winterising process or risks frost damage to the raw water parts.

 

Can't disagree about Beta & the gearbox though.

 

No offence taken - your views are always taken and (sort of) accepted. I though as you, were it not for the fact that all later Teddesley boats were FWC and we never had a blockage on the canals with Peter's boats. The only blockage I've had was when my Management pulled well over in a lock flight and filled the filter box with leaves - lots of water vapour and shout of *** from SWMBO. No damage done as we had a proper mud box. It's large with baffles - not just a pipe that dips into the oggin. I got so fed up with burning my elbow when working down the weed hatch on other hire boats that FWC was a must.

The boat lives on the Thames (blurry long way for us to have a boat

 

As with any 'craft' industries it's all a matter of what the boat designer is comfortable with. One of the joys - if any - of using the canals is the variability of boat designs, given that you're stuck with something long an thin to start with...  (that's open to misunderstanding)

[mrsmelly]

7 hours ago, Newguy said:

Hi

 

I'm hoping to get a canal boat built soon (58-60ft). And wanted to get some advice on engine choices. I wanted to know if all engines are capable when traversing rivers or it's better to get a certain type/ more powerful engine. I don't want to have any issues when using the Thames River etc.

 

Any advice would be great thanks

Japanese 35 hp ish or a tad more and not painted yellow will suffice.

[MtB]

A reconditioned 22hp Lister HA2 will have bags of power for any river work you might undertake.

[WotEver]

11 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

A reconditioned 22hp Lister HA2 will have bags of power for any river work you might undertake.

But probably wouldn’t be acceptable for the RCD. 

[nb Innisfree]

Innisfree (60') had enough power with a 40bhp LPWS4 turning a correctly sized prop and 24v 100 amp alternator (remember that's 200 amp@ 12v) 40 bhp at max revs mind which was unusable for anything other than emergency stopping, realistically 35 bhp could be used on rivers which was adequate though an extra few bhp wouldn't go amiss with a large alt on max output which reflects other posts suggesting 43 bhp. 

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

Innisfree (60') had enough power with a 40bhp LPWS4 turning a correctly sized prop and 24v 100 amp alternator (remember that's 200 amp@ 12v) 40 bhp at max revs mind which was unusable for anything other than emergency stopping, realistically 35 bhp could be used on rivers which was adequate though an extra few bhp wouldn't go amiss with a large alt on max output which reflects other posts suggesting 43 bhp. 

The "LPWS4" was rated at 36HP, as was the "LPWS4 Canal Star", it was uprated to 40HP when supplied as the "LPWS4 ALPHA 40", although the subsequent "LPWS4 ALPHA 45" went back to being 35.9HP

[nb Innisfree]

51 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The "LPWS4" was rated at 36HP, as was the "LPWS4 Canal Star", it was uprated to 40HP when supplied as the "LPWS4 ALPHA 40", although the subsequent "LPWS4 ALPHA 45" went back to being 35.9HP

Yes, it was uprated to 40 bhp@ 3000rpm instead of 36bhp@ 2600rpm

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

Yes, it was uprated to 40 bhp@ 3000rpm instead of 36bhp@ 2600rpm

My engine data stuff shows the :

Standard LPWS4 as 35.9 hp at 3000 rpm

LPWS4 ALPHA 40 as 40 hp at 3000 rpm

LPWS4 ALPHA 45 as 35.9 hp at 3000rpm

LPWS4 Canal Star as 36hp at 2600rpm

 

[mrsmelly]

1 hour ago, nb Innisfree said:

Innisfree (60') had enough power with a 40bhp LPWS4 turning a correctly sized prop and 24v 100 amp alternator (remember that's 200 amp@ 12v) 40 bhp at max revs mind which was unusable for anything other than emergency stopping, realistically 35 bhp could be used on rivers which was adequate though an extra few bhp wouldn't go amiss with a large alt on max output which reflects other posts suggesting 43 bhp. 

Yep that about right. Ours is 42 horses as we have Travel power on for washing etc when cruising. This one is only 68 foot. Our 70 foot very heavy Hudson had beta 43 and was fine on rivers even proper ones like Trent and Ouse.

[RLWP]

33 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

Yes, it was uprated to 40 bhp@ 3000rpm instead of 36bhp@ 2600rpm

Which is bloody useless for most practical purposes. I bet the 'uprated' engine gives 36BHP at 2600rpm, and more importantly you wouldn't use either much above 1500-1800rpm

Edited July 16, 2018 by RLWP

[nb Innisfree]

52 minutes ago, RLWP said:

Which is bloody useless for most practical purposes. I bet the 'uprated' engine gives 36BHP at 2600rpm, and more importantly you wouldn't use either much above 1500-1800rpm

I assume it's simply extra bhp coming from torque x revs.. Handy for emergency stops though (assuming suitable prop) 

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

Yep that about right. Ours is 42 horses as we have Travel power on for washing etc when cruising. This one is only 68 foot. Our 70 foot very heavy Hudson had beta 43 and was fine on rivers even proper ones like Trent and Ouse.

And a larger engine will produce bhp at lower revs which makes prop design a tad simpler. 

[mrsmelly]

15 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

I assume it's simply extra bhp coming from torque x revs.. Handy for emergency stops though (assuming suitable prop) 

And a larger engine will produce bhp at lower revs which makes prop design a tad simpler. 

Both boats had 18 x 12 prop which seems to fit the bill for most boats with a proper engine. A bigger vastly more expensive prop is needed for mud weight type engines.

[nb Innisfree]

1 minute ago, mrsmelly said:

Both boats had 18 x 12 prop which seems to fit the bill for most boats with a proper engine. A bigger vastly more expensive prop is needed for mud weight type engines.

Because of cavitation in reverse I changed our modified Crowther prop from 17x13 to 17x12 which left it still a tad overpropped though the first one had a bit more blade are than standard. I reckon 17x11.5 would have nailed it. 

[mrsmelly]

12 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

Because of cavitation in reverse I changed our modified Crowther prop from 17x13 to 17x12 which left it still a tad overpropped though the first one had a bit more blade are than standard. I reckon 17x11.5 would have nailed it. 

Funnily enough I reckon 17 x 11 or so would be perfect. With the 18 x12 we cannot reach maximum horsepower revs, however we can get to the best of the torque and its stops the boat in about an inch..............well you know what I mean.

[cuthound]

47 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Funnily enough I reckon 17 x 11 or so would be perfect. With the 18 x12 we cannot reach maximum horsepower revs, however we can get to the best of the torque and its stops the boat in about an inch..............well you know what I mean.

 

My 60 foot Alexander shell with a Beta 43/PRM150 has a 17" x 11" prop, and I and am thinking of swapping it for an 18" x 12" because it doesn't stop well in an emergency and 3mph equates to 1500 rpm.

 

A friend's 58 footer with an 18" x 12" prop stops much quicker and 3mph equates to 1000rpm.