DHutch

Moved to general boating.

Thanks as always.

Since this thread was started, there has been a review of pinned topics, and a significant number of older or less valuable threads have been unpinned. Obviously its constantly open for review, and always happy for people to 'report' posts for pinning or un-pinning but broadly I think we are a reasonable place currently.

Hello?

Yeah, the modern high-spec ones can do. They in effect test the thickness of the paint and the steel and then do a sum. They can also be a bit better at not measuring the thickness of debris on the far side too. Still only works if you stick the probe on a sensible bit of steel, measure the depth of any pitting, and spot other serious but potentially less obvious hull defects such as the top of the weed hatch being under the waterline, the rudder tube being thin as thin, and the condition of underwater fittings. Dont get me started!

Depending on the survey there might not be any thickness readings taken. If there are, they should be few and far between, sporadic and targeted. Certainly I would question the competency of any surveyor who is taking a 'matrix' style set of readings every few feet on a narrowboat, even though it is sadly still common place in the industry from people who have done the ten day course but then applied the gain knowledge incorrectly without sufficient thought to what they where doing!

Agree.

Fair enough. I guess maybe one last consideration is the boat itself, displacement, lines, prop. But I presume the above graph is based on a reasonable quality prop. Tixall is a fairly standard narrowboat with a 23" X 24" prop. so probably not far off comparable. And better than some of the awful props some new boats have, and or bent up mess some boats have! Emilyanne is a touch heavier than most, drawing around 2ft9 under way to swing a 26x32" prop.

I bet its less than that, given how relatively oversize they are for the task, like 50hp when you typically only need more like 4hp. However I do am somewhat surprised its 'only ten time more fuel' (or 15x if you take 12mph vs 0.8mpg) for the steam boat. As suggested, a very large amount of heat goes up the funnel, and a significant amount out of the condenser which is raw water cooled. No superheat, and no feed water heater, although the condensate from the hot well is good and and warm. Working pressure for EmilyAnne is 200psi, and we aim to keep it at around 150-180 cruising. Tixall is 150psi working and especially now she is oil fired I presume Matt runs her pretty close to that. EmilyAnne and Tixall actually have near identical engines, the only two from the specific builder, and both have vertical fire tube boilers, all be in difference shapes. Cut off is very good for steam locos, when you are running at high speed and low loads. But on a boat you obviously have a huge great torque converter on the end of the shaft. So you dont really get the same effect, so running in full gear is much more common in a marine environment.

Apologies, I did miss that! I actually intentional excluded it from my list, in order to focus on narrowboats. But you are very much correct, and it was interesting information. While we are on the topic of 'not narrowboats' when I was on Steam Tug Challenge on her way back from Pegasus Bridge in Normandy it was suggested that the oil consumption was around 10litres per minute, which is 600l/hr. And if you assume to a trip length 300miles, over 26 hours. 11 gallons per mile, or 0.087mpg! So very broadly, a steam narrowboat does ten times less miles to the gallon than a diesel narrowboat, and a 240ton ocean going steam tug does ten time less miles to the gallon than that. Maybe.

Typically, you dont! If you record anything, you record revolutions. (note; not revolutions per minute) Although in the case of a steam boat fitted with a electrically fired forced air oil fired burner. You can log burner hours and or system on hours. Hurrah, someone who read the question! And another! Three! Four! Thank you. Brill. Nice. Well, more replies than I was expect, but some good information. Averaging the seven figures above gives 13mph. Or, you take out NB Alnwicks and Bargebuilders, 10.6mpg. As was mentioned, litres/hour is a more common measurement for canal boat, and may even be a better figure for consumption. Certainly it is potentially an easier figure to work out. And I guess it could be argued that the point in a narrowboat is an enjoyable time not a transited distance, although less so if you are touring rallies or running a fuel boat. It appears that this is typically around the 1-2l/hr for a narrowboat. I don't have much data yet, but the very first run oil firing showed around 30litres doing 10miles, which is 0.8mpg on. Maybe 5l/hour.

Has anyone ever tried to log their fuel consumption and mileage and hence been able to work out an average consumption per mile for their boat? Perhaps easier for those with day tanks, and certainly harder for those with diesel heating. Early testing of a friends steam powered narrowboat which he has recently converted from coal to oil firing got me thinking about comparing his fuel (and our) consumption with that of an internal combustion engined 'diesel fired' narrow boat. Cheers Daniel

Ha! Nice though isnt it. The mad thing is not that this happened, but that it still happens nearly daily 35 years later. Oh yes, very nice. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ovaltine+Court,+Ovaltine+Dr,+Kings+Langley+WD4+8GY,+UK/@51.710919,-0.4428438,3a,75.6y,34.44h,90.74t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sCIHM0ogKEICAgICE28P_5AE!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2Fgpms-cs-s%2FAB8u6HalXHmtxNJTv0xDsmXI1tGiCY0YYM4kNzfM_QYpQKxdyKw9U8zZFaFqvUGsIkQYoF__HO2P9Py9Hj4QpQbvtE53nN8lhMm-qmabNmvydqT6wBI_yG4V534a7LnNtDpfK1hNxZxW7g%3Dw900-h600-k-no-pi-0.7369142870049927-ya300.23854042380725-ro0-fo100!7i5376!8i2688!4m6!3m5!1s0x487641bb074726ff:0x2ddb6a4e029b4f1c!8m2!3d51.7116594!4d-0.4424802!16s%2Fg%2F1tm68f07?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYxNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D Very nice that isnt it, simple, understated. Incase nobody had guessed, I guessed happened on this thread looking for something else, but have enjoyed it a lot! Daniel

It is also worth adding to the above, that if there is a specific reason for wanting to close the thread, and or if the content of the replied breaches our site rules and guidelines, the thread and or replied can always be reported to our moderation team along with a reason for the report, and will then be review and appropriate actions be carried out.

It's a very good point well raised. I guess the events sub-forum allows better conversation maybe, but the calendar view is a nice touch too. Clearly posting to both would work well in many ways, but leads to duplication if manual will also lead to gaps. If we were to close one section, which would you prefer to use going forwards?