Statistics

[Theo]

We had intended to live on Theodora for another year but circumstances changed.  Our tenants decided that they needed to look for another place to rent.  We had told them that they could have the place until this summer.  We decided that, rather than spend a shed load of cash on doing up the house for another tenant, we would go back on the bank and do the house up ourselves and for ourselves.  This has saved more than half a shed load of cash.

While living aboard I took daily readings of all kinds of things but here are the ones that might prove interesting to you:

We were continuous cruisers and rarely stayed in one place for more than a couple of days.  The exception was partly caused by the leak into the tunnel in February 2015 which led us to hang about in Cambrian Wharf for about two and a half weeks.

Here are some numbers:

Days living aboard: 910 (That was from 27th April 2014 to 23rd October 2016)

Total diesel fuel used: 2,778 litres

Average consumption: 1.21 litres/hour

Engine hours: 2,298

Total locks: 2,711

Total miles: 3,182

We bought a Kipor 1000 Generator in September 2015.  We ran it for a total of 217hrs and put a total of 5.5litres of petrol in it + 2 and a bit bottles of gas.

We used 10 bottles of gas for the cooker, filled the water tank 65 times and emptied the Portapotti 140 times.

At one point my brother in law asked me how many locks do you have to do before you get bored with them. I didn't know then and I still don't.

[mrsmelly]

Jeeeeeesus I have lived aboard for 27 years and I have emptied the bog er and charged the batteries and err bloomin heck Theo and I thought I had problems 

[Theo]

2 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

Jeeeeeesus I have lived aboard for 27 years and I have emptied the bog er and charged the batteries and err bloomin heck Theo and I thought I had problems 

Some people would call me obsessive.  I am not at all sure that they would be correct.  OCD is a very sad and afflicting condition.  My instinct to collect data doesn't seem to make me sad or to affect my life adversely.  What I find interesting is things like the number of mpg that Theodora manages.  People say that waterborne transport is environmentally friendly.  The spreadsheet tells me that the answer is 5.2.  Now that, I believe is much worse than an HGV which could carry more cargo than a large Woolwich.  Theodora is only 60 feet long and draws about 2'4".  That is not a big vehicle.

N

 

[matty40s]

had you have had Theodora blacked at the same time as the roof painted it would have saved you about £400. ....and 6 months corrosion on your hull....

If you are getting it zingered or blasted and 2-packed, fair enough, it is worth the extra.

If not, listen to Tim, cos he's from Yorkshire.

[Theo]

1 minute ago, matty40s said:

had you have had Theodora blacked at the same time as the roof painted it would have saved you about £400. ....and 6 months corrosion on your hull....

If you are getting it zingered or blasted and 2-packed, fair enough, it is worth the extra.

If not, listen to Tim, cos he's from Yorkshire.

I don't think I want to know this, Matty!

Lalalalalala (Fingers in ears)

[Jerra]

26 minutes ago, Theo said:

Some people would call me obsessive.  I am not at all sure that they would be correct.  OCD is a very sad and afflicting condition.  My instinct to collect data doesn't seem to make me sad or to affect my life adversely.  What I find interesting is things like the number of mpg that Theodora manages.  People say that waterborne transport is environmentally friendly.  The spreadsheet tells me that the answer is 5.2.  Now that, I believe is much worse than an HGV which could carry more cargo than a large Woolwich.  Theodora is only 60 feet long and draws about 2'4".  That is not a big vehicle.

N

 

It wouldn't work on UK canals but on larger waterways I think you will find the same size engine can tow an awful lot of weight rather than just what the individual boat can carry.

[MtB]

On 04/05/2017 at 23:11, Jerra said:

It wouldn't work on UK canals but on larger waterways I think you will find the same size engine can tow an awful lot of weight rather than just what the individual boat can carry.

 

I bet when a fully laden motor pulls a fully laden butty the fuel consumption doubles.

[Robbo]

5 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I bet when a fully laden motor pulls a fully laden butty the fuel consumption doubles.

But if you double the weight of the boat, you don't double the amount of hull area in the water making bigger boats more efficient for the weight.  It would be interesting to see what weight would be the crossover for boats been more efficient than road and rail.

[Alan de Enfield]

Studies have been done !!

In A new deal for transport: 'better for everyone' research indicates a potential to divert about 3.5% of the UK’s road freight traffic to water by the following means:
● ships re-routing to ports nearer to origin and destination

● bulk and unit loads shifting to coastal traffic

● greater use of the UK’s estuaries and inland waterway network.
The paper encourages greater use of inland waterways where there is a practical option and economic benefit. The rules of the Freight Facility Grant (FFG) regime are to be reexamined with a view to encouraging more applications for inland waterway projects. It is the Government’s intention to see the best use made of inland waterways for transporting freight and consequently to reduce the number of heavy goods vehicles (HGV’s) on UK roads. Recognition is given to the fact that the inland waterways also have an important role to play in providing leisure and tourism opportunities and can provide a catalyst for urban regeneration.
 

 

Payload Capacity of Selected Navigations

Navigation Payload (Tonnes)
72ft Narrow Beam Canal 25
56ft Broad Beam Canal 45*
72ft Broad Beam Canal 50
River Severn – Stourport 350 to Worcester
River Weaver – Winsford 350
Crinan Canal 100
Caledonian Canal 400
Millennium Link 60
River Ouse – York 200
Howden Max 3000
Selby   Max 1200
Aire and Calder, Leeds 600
Aire and Calder, Wakefield 250
South Yorkshire Navigation 700
River Trent – Nottingham 200
River Nene 50
River Great Ouse 50
River Lee 150
River Thames (down stream of Oxford) 500
River Thames (up stream of Oxford) 60
River Medway 60
Manchester Ship Canal 10,000
Gloucester and Sharpness Ship Canal

The above figures are approximate. Actual capacities are dependent on limiting dimensions of each waterway and should be checked with the appropriate navigation authority.

 

The tonnage that could be carried by working a standard 40 hour week using the existing navigation network is 12 million tonnes per annum or 0.33 per cent of the total freight carried within the UK. To maintain this level of activity throughout the network, an abnormal use of water supplies would be required which would result in a significant number of routes being depleted of water by August within any year.

This level of tonnage could only be achieved by stopping recreational use of the waterways during the working week. In addition, recreational use at weekends would probably need to be reduced due to far more maintenance being required to keep the network open during working days. It also is likely that, at such density of traffic, the environmental, ecological and heritage value of the network would be irreparably damaged.
The current level of critical arrears and other arrears is some £83 million and £150 million respectively for the British Waterways part of the network and £12 million and £17 million respectively for the Environment Agency part of the network. These levels would increase dramatically with the increased freight traffic with little expectation of being able to recover sufficient income from tolls etc, to address the additional maintenance required, except by means of further significant Government grants. AINA believes that it would not be worth the loss of all that is currently valued about the waterway network to achieve such a small shift in freight transport from road to water.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

On 05/05/2017 at 07:13, Robbo said:

But if you double the weight of the boat, you don't double the amount of hull area in the water making bigger boats more efficient for the weight.  It would be interesting to see what weight would be the crossover for boats been more efficient than road and rail.

 

But you do if you double the number of boats, which was my point.

[Machpoint005]

I'm as environmentally minded as the next person, but isn't there a major flaw in the study above? 

The average speed of a boat is probably about a tenth of that of a lorry, so the wages bill must be 20 times bigger (two crew as opposed to one driver). Given the low wages paid to many lorry drivers these days I can't see any viable business model there.   

[Theo]

1 hour ago, Machpoint005 said:

I'm as environmentally minded as the next person, but isn't there a major flaw in the study above? 

The average speed of a boat is probably about a tenth of that of a lorry, so the wages bill must be 20 times bigger (two crew as opposed to one driver). Given the low wages paid to many lorry drivers these days I can't see any viable business model there.   

And with the above only accounting for 0.33% with all the amenity and environmental damage accruing it hardly seems worth it even on environmental grounds.

N

[Peter X]

It seems to me that each waterway has to be looked at separately to decide whether more freight is viable, mainly because of the great variation in the size of vessel they can take. It's a lot easier to compete with road transport on a big river than it is using a 72 foot narrowboat, so those bigger waterways are very much the low hanging fruit here. As far as I'm aware the only people making a living out of carrying cargo (as opposed to passengers e.g. the hotel boats), on canals whose lock size is no bigger than the Grand Union locks, are some fuel boats who sell coal/gas/diesel to boaters, typically on a fairly limited patch. They seem to do OK, but no-one's getting rich at it, and I imagine it's only viable because they have the advantage over road haulage that they can deliver right to the customer on the canal. The NBT operates a loaded pair carrying coal and smokeless fuels over some distance, but only covers its maintenance costs and pays the crews nothing; we do it because we enjoy keeping the heritage alive. Maybe there's some very limited scope for other cargo on these canals, where delivering to places with poor road access, but canal carrying went rapidly downhill in the 1960s for sound economic reasons I'm sure, and I suppose the motorways had a lot to do with it.

It surprises me that water supply is much of a worry, given that on rivers much more water goes over weirs than through the locks, and on canals the little traffic that's commercially viable is a tiny fraction of the number of leisure boats passing through locks.