teadaemon

I don't think it is on pink paper, I think all of the pictures (if indeed they are different pictures) have been taken with a rather odd white balance setting, which has lead to the whole picture taking on a pink cast.

Well, one of my favourite "if I won the lottery" topics for daydreaming. Like some on here, I'd have to go for several boats rather than just one. The party boat/comfortable accommodation would be a new build motor wherry yacht. Welded aluminium hull (I did think of steel, but aluminium lapstrake construction allows the interior to be mostly free of frames and keeps more of the traditional lines). Counter stern like Sundog, wheel steering, serial hybrid diesel electric propulsion, twin screw (probably ducted or using Kort nozzles with variable-pitch props for maximum control and efficiency), and bow and stern thrusters. All-electric galley, diesel heating, and air con (with all that electricity on board, makes sense to use it). Varnished wood interior, although probably not up to Hathor's standards (I prefer something a little more understated). The serious sailor would be a new build River Cruiser style yacht (only 'style' because I want some features that aren't currently class legal, like a bulb keel). Probably with two carbon fibre rigs, one for reaching the limits of performance and one for easy handling. Better accommodation than the extreme racer river cruisers (given my size and lack of flexibility, I have no intention of crawling to the heads when required), but still not weighed down with camping gear. For pottering about on the water, a lugsail half-decker of some kind would fit the bill. I'm torn between an old woodie, or a new build in cold-moulded ply with vacuum bagged glass/epoxy skin, carbon fibre rig, and modern keel/rudder design. Oh, if money really were no object, then a 50-100 metre LOA, ice-strengthened motor sailor with a moon pool, mini sub, ROV, decompression chamber, and a large hold reconfigurable for carrying equipment or people would be a good fourth vessel. I'd make it available to scientific researchers and schools as required to advance learning and education, and fly out whenever it was going to be somewhere interesting to tag along for the ride.

Unless things have changed since I lived on the road to St. Benet's, there's a good car park just before the abbey itself, although the path to the moorings is a bit steep in places (but recently laid, so it should be in good condition for those able to walk along it).

I'd agree that most cities have a similar road or two, St Mary's Street in Cardiff, Broad Street in Birmingham, Bigg Market in Newcastle, just to name three cities I've lived in.

When I bought my boat, she was 'Bonny Anne', a name with absolutely no relevance or meaning to me, so it was definitely going to be changed. After consultation with the other half, my first two thoughts ('Millennium Falcon' and 'Thunderchild' - both reflecting one of my other passions, science fiction) were dismissed. I thus fell back on one of my favourite bands, The Levellers, and named her 'Liberty Song' after one of my favourite tracks by them. I've no idea what the new owners plan on calling her, although when I last saw her in Jon's yard at Wayford Bridge they'd removed the old name, so they obviously have their own ideas.

Similarly, as a (now former) marine surveyor, I've seen a number of Alphacraft, and one thing that I'd take from that experience is that whilst two boats taken from the same mould might look externally identical, there can be a considerable difference in both the quantity and quality of materials used in their construction, not to mention the design of various systems (stern gear, especially the reinforcement of the rudder post being a specific example). It is obvious to me that within certain constraints, Alphacraft were willing to build shells and whole boats to a certain price point, rather than to a detailed specification. Consequently, when boats based on their mouldings come up for sale, a wise buyer would do their research and get a good surveyor to check exactly what it is that they're planning to buy, as there's no other reliable way to tell.

It's going back to a much older topic, but that's one of the reasons why I favour a manual inflation lifejacket - I've got the buoyancy if I need it, but don't have to deal with the bulk and movement restrictions if I don't need to.

I'd guess the Reedham yard for sale is this one: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/property-60239894.html I've had a quick look at the particulars, and whilst it's certainly better prospect than some yards, it does look to have issues. 1) There's an old fuel pump and buried steel tank(s) in situ. I doubt very much that they come up to modern standards, and even just getting rid of them is a cost the new owner will have to think about. 2) Having sheds with slipways is good, but they're actually a little too small to comfortably take the largest boats on the Broads. In particular, they look a bit too low for modern flybridge or sedan boats, which is a problem for a yard in that location. They would probably have been perfectly fine for traditional Broads cruiser designs. 3) I'd really want to see how often and how deep the site gets flooded in winter (I'm pretty sure it's going to be wet, it's a question of how wet). Bad from the point of view of working there year round, but potentially good if it means the site is unsuitable for residential development. 4) The dyke is silted up, and given the location, dredging is going to be a regular requirement. 5) The local river conditions are not great for moorings (it's obviously possible, but I'd worry about keeping a boat there a lot more than I would in most other places on the Broads). 6) The road access is not good for large vehicles, so not too much scope for getting business craning boats in or out. Overall, I think the site's too small to be a viable hire yard, and probably doesn't have enough room to make a significant amount of money from moorings (even if the dyke was dredged and perhaps extended into a basin). It might be viable as a working yard doing maintenance, repair and refits, but that does depend a lot on the exact dimensions and state of the buildings. I know in the past I've said I'd like to take on a yard, and I'd probably be in a position to at least raise a deposit on this one, but I wouldn't have the necessary capital to invest to make it viable, and I certainly don't want to consider it with the current economic climate. Mind you, if somebody did want to become a yard owner and was in need of a manager, I'd happily talk to them.

A BSS examiner could be responsible under civil law, criminal law, and/or for breaching their service level agreement with the BSS scheme (which can lead to suspension or revocation of their registration). They owe their clients (and third parties) a duty of care, which means they can be liable for negligence if either the examination isn't conducted properly, or their actions on discovering a potential hazard aren't in line with the requirements of the scheme. (For example, if I notice any potential CO hazard, in addition to failing the appropriate ECP, I should issue a warning notice to the owner of the boat, leave a copy on the boat, and make the appropriate communications with the Boat Safety Scheme office.) More than that though, if there's an incident on a boat that I've done the BSS on, even if I've done everything right, I can expect (quite reasonably) that what I've done is going to be thoroughly investigated by a number of interested parties. That is never going to be pleasant. One of the reasons why I'm intending to pull out of the surveying business (although remaining as a BSS examiner) is that I don't like being employed mainly as somebody who's prepared to put their head (and bank account and PI insurance) on the block in the event of litigation in the future, rather than for my expertise in the role.* *I should probably make clear, this isn't due to anything involving any of my clients on the Broads, who have, without exception, been exactly the kind of people I'm happy to deal with. I just wish I could say the same for certain other waterways.

Obviously it's only speculation as there's been nothing official as to the source of the CO, but who's to say that it's a fitted appliance? It could easily have been a charcoal barbecue of some kind, or a portable appliance such as a generator. Speaking as a BSS examiner, after my first thoughts for those involved, families, friends, etc, one of the things that crossed my mind was "I hope it's not one of mine". Fortunately for me, it isn't. I do agree that the vast majority of CO incidents are avoidable if boat owners and users take note of the available information on the subject and apply it properly. Having said that, I have come across one or two in the literature that would have been very hard to predict or foresee (one in particular involved a boat in a specific configuration, operating in a specific set of weather conditions, and resulted in a family getting non-fatal CO poisoning from exhaust fumes).

Considering that the isotope in question (Americium 241) produces alpha particles that are stopped by human skin, is a sealed source, and there's only about 0.3 micrograms of it in a modern smoke/CO detector (with an activity of approx. 1 microcurie), that would seem to be somewhat over cautious. You'd probably take in more radiation eating a banana than you would sleeping under an ionisation smoke/CO detector.

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this on other threads concerning the BSS, but implementing a new check is not as simple as somebody in the BSS office thinking it'd be a good idea and adding it to the checklist. Can you imagine the (quite reasonable) reaction of boat owners and hire boat operators if that was the procedure? It's fair to say that CO is one of the current high priorities for the BSS, and there is a lot going on behind the scenes, but at the moment there is no current plan to introduce a check (advisory or essential) for a CO detector. (Although they are strongly recommended.) If anyone does want any further information on the risks associated with CO, the relevant pages of the BSS website can be found here: http://www.boatsafetyscheme.org/stay-safe/carbon-monoxide-(co)/ There is also a link there to a pdf of the blue CO leaflet that the BSS office produces, I always have plenty of them in my kit and if anyone wants one and happens to spot me out and about doing a BSS just ask and I'll let you have one.

I'm not saying that they're a bad idea, just that they're not a requirement for the BSS, and that there are other things that are probably more important if you want to avoid a fire on board (the number 1 cause of which is operator error in one form or another). All leisure vessels over about 8 feet LOA new to the market within the EU (including this country) since 1998 have been required to adhere to the Recreational Craft Directive. I don't have the relevant ISO standard for fire protection to hand (since it's about £160 and I don't do RCD compliance work), but I've surveyed plenty of vessels that are built to RCD cat D and C, and have yet to come across one with a fire extinguisher port (although several have had fixed engine bay extinguishers). Therefore I'd suggest that while one may be required in certain circumstances, and may be one route to compliance with the standard, they're certainly not required for all vessels. If they're common on French hire boats then it could be that the builder fits them as standard, the hire operators want them fitted as standard, or possibly that local insurers require them.

If the boat's on fire, then bluntly anywhere less than knee deep in water/mud will do as a place to evacuate to, a piled bank is nice, but not essential. I don't expect calling the fire brigade will result in the boat being saved. If a boat catches fire, then making sure everyone on board gets off safely is the main priority, followed by (if possible) trying to stop the fire spreading to other boats or anything else nearby. If the boat is repairable afterwards that's good, but it's not really important. (That's what insurance is for.) I'd suggest that installing one of these ports should be a fair way further down a boat owner's priority list than making sure that their fuel and electrical installations are up to standard, keeping the engine bay clean and free from oil or grease, and regularly inspecting the engine bay before they set off every morning. Preventing a fire from starting in the first place is far more effective than any method of dealing with it once it's started.

The standard used for the BSS, which is based on the relevant ISO standards, is 2 minutes at 600 degrees C. It's only ever intended to contain the fire for long enough that you can evacuate the boat. The BSS is, and has always been, the bare minimum standard necessary for the relevant navigation authority to be satisfied that they have discharged their duty of care to other users of the waterways. It does not, has never, and does not claim to certify that any vessel is 'safe'. Mind you, neither does a survey, MCA coding, or any other form of inspection or testing of boats.

I'm well aware of what they are and how they're used, but they're not part of the BSS and at the moment there's not even the slightest discussion of whether they might be in the future. They have their place in coastal and off-shore boats, where the alternative to fighting a fire is to evacuate to a liferaft, which is why they (or fired engine bay extinguishers) are required for some classes of MCA coding for small commercial vessels. In the case of a boat on inland waterways, if I suspected an engine fire in a boat I was on, I'd get to the bank, get everyone off the boat, and call the fire brigade. If I did have one of these ports, I certainly wouldn't be following the suggestion to open it and attempt to look through it to see if there was a fire - if I'm opening it then it's to let an extinguisher off through it and then maybe take a look later, if the fire's definitely out and everything has had time to cool down.

I may be 5 months late, but I've just spotted this and couldn't let it pass without comment. Statements like the one from that seller are the reason why if you want to know anything about the BSS, you should check the BSS website, ask the BSS office, or at a pinch ask a BSS examiner (although with a lot of questions the best answer they could give to you would be "I don't know, I'll have to check with the BSS office and get back to you"). As far as I'm aware, the fitting of fire extinguisher access ports to engine bays is not even being discussed at the moment as a check for either private or non-private boats. The seller has pulled that bit of information straight out of their own backside. On a related point, if you're going to fit one and intend to use a carbon dioxide or halon-replacement gaseous extinguisher, then you also need to fit some means of remotely closing any engine bay vents, as otherwise the gas will escape through those and although a fire could have been initially extinguished, it could easily reignite when exposed to air once more. Incidentally, carbon dioxide fire extinguishers, or fixed engine bay extinguishers of any type do not count towards the minimum number or combined rating of fire extinguishers required in part 6 of the BSS, so if you do want to have either, they're in addition to, not instead of, the BSS requirements.

Well adequate ventilation is an advisory check for private boats, although it's one of the checks most likely to result in the issue of a warning notice due to the risk from CO. There are a number of essential checks that apply to all electrical wiring, whether it's carrying AC or DC, and no matter what the voltage. The advisory checks of 240V AC systems were introduced at the start of 2013, when the checks for private boats were last updated. They are advisory rather than essential because that's what the BSS management committee decided. This does not just include representatives from the BSS office and BSS examiners (in fact they would be in the minority). It also includes representatives from various trade bodies, navigation authorities, and a number of organisations representing boat owners, amongst others. If you think the BSS should include more essential checks, then these are the people you'll need to talk to and convince that you're correct. The best time to do this is when the checks are being updated, and I don't know when that process will begin again for private boats (the hire boat checks are currently going through that process, in the expectation that the new set of checks will be implemented in April of next year, although that's not definite yet).

Like certain other areas in the BSS, it's primarily a first party risk. As you (or your estate) are not able to sue the navigation authorities when you electrocute yourself with a faulty 240V installation, they don't consider it to be an essential minimum requirement in order to licence/toll your vessel. There was also considerable resistance to making those checks essential from various organisations representing boat owners.

Of course the BSS examination, being a minimum set of safety standards, doesn't have a check as to whether a circuit is actually connected to anything. So long as it passes through a battery isolator, and the wire and connections are in good condition and not in a position where they might get damaged, I can't think of a point on which I could fail a redundant circuit, and if I can't fail it, it's a pass.

Yes, there are definitely easier ways of earning money. However, I've got ethics, so I decided not to become an arms dealer, and a relatively low boredom threshold, so I ignored my dad's advice to become an accountant or an insurance broker. Instead I'm really, really geeky about boats, and really enjoy enabling people to enjoy the Broads from a boat as much as I do. I'm probably destined to die overworked and broke, but so be it.

The only thing that might keep the yard as a working boatyard is the Broads Authority's attitude to change of use for boatyards, but even then I think it would take an investor who was prepared to invest for the good of the local economy more than their own pocket in order to make it work. A pity really, as running a decent hire yard is just about my dream job, and Royalls are about as close to the best yard on the Broads as it's possible to get.

I've also just seen this. It'll be interesting to see what happens to the site and the fleet. I'd love to see the site stay as a boatyard, and for it to continue to operate as a hire fleet. Whether it's possible for a buyer to do that, I don't know. I'd love to have the opportunity to find out, but I don't have the resources to consider making an offer, and I'm not sure it'd be profitable enough for me to be able to offer any backer enough of a return on their investment.

I think the big green truss is actually just part of the transport 'system' and the load is the large, grey box slung inside it. Not sure what it is, but if I had to guess I'd say maybe an electrical transformer. It didn't have enough exposed bits to be my first thought, which was a ship's engine (if it was, it'd actually be a fairly small one).

If it's solid GRP, then that's true. If it's cored with end grain balsa (as a great many similar hulls are, at least for the decks and superstructure), then it can be a very different matter, especially if any fittings, internal or external, have been screwed into the core or are fitted through holes cut into the structure and not properly lined (which is fairly common, even on relatively high quality boats). I have seen a boat built like that that sank, and although it initially seemed fine, a year or two later a lot of the balsa core had turned to mush. It was possible to work out exactly how deep she'd been submerged by using a moisture meter - it went off the scale anywhere that had been under water, and there was pretty much no way to get the water out.