Jump to content
  • Announcements

    Welcome! New around here? Take a look at the New Members' Guide for some pointers.

    Not a member yet? Sign up here and you can soon be chatting away with friends old and new..

    Check out our Handy Information section if you're after something quickly!

  • If you would like to support the forum, please consider visiting the forum shop, where you can purchase such items as NBN Burgees, Window Stickers, or even a custom Limited Edition Wooden Throttle Control Knob

    Forum Shop

Recommended Posts

She came into service six years ago although she obviously older than that. She was a cancelled order so she could be seven or more years old so it wouldn't be impossible that the engine is a ten year old model. All in all a bit of a puzzle but it does appear to add up to her not being such a good deal after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am quite happy to put my neck on the line and say in all probability i think “waiting for engine spares” is a big fat lie and it dawned on them long ago that it wasn't any use where they were trying to use it and they are trying to quietly get shot of it drawing as little attention as possible.......

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, psychicsurveyor said:

I wonder if the Rangers and Head Ranger were allowed any input into the original purchase decision or it was just independent experts who decided.

It worked out well, not.

Guess it might be time to ask those who will use any replacement what they think..

If you read the reports that were submitted prior to the purchase you'll find that the Breydon rangers were consulted, as was the Head Ranger. The advice of an independent marine surveyor was sought and the NavCom was also involved, so pinning blame on any individual is rather difficult.

Perhaps it was just one of those unknown unknowns, from which lessons can be learned. I doubt very much whether it was a deliberate decision to buy something that would prove to be so mechanically unreliable. As has been said, it doesn't reflect well on the very reputable local firm that supplied it. I have no doubt that they have tried their very best to obtain the parts, as they well know that some people have very long memories and this will not easily be forgotten.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

I have heard that that she's for sale from two reliable sources, one of whom is in the trade & both people are trustworthy, not to say that they mightn't be wrong. I too have searched for an advert and can not find it but I suspect that she'll be advertised in rather more specialised publications than I have access to.  Recent photographs of her show that Broads Authority branding has all been removed from her. She was bought from an impeccable source & I suspect that the whole saga is an embarrassment to them. In the meantime her engine problems are in the public arena. Whilst a Ranger told me before Christmas that the Authority was waiting for spares, more than six months ago, I find it surprising that spares are not readily available for what is a relatively modern engine. The delay can hardly be good for the manufacturer's reputation. Perhaps she's for sale but not being advertised until she's problem free. Wonder what it would cost to re-engine her?

When the river launches were being replaced, the BA publicly advertised them for sale. I can't see why they shouldn't do the same for SoB. It's hardly likely they would be able to sell it and expect the transaction to be kept 'under the radar'.

The purchase of it was discussed at some length and the committee reports are available to read. I have found nothing in the NavCom reports up to 11 April that mention the sale. Could it be the two sources have rather jumped the gun and the sale is only being thought about (or is someone's wishful thinking)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Smoggy said:

Does anyone know what it's got in it?

 

Two rangers and a hiding CEO

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"lets get as many people in on the consultation as we can, then any blame can be spread a lot thinner"- you mean? :default_biggrin:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if, for example, the CEO made the decision on his own (or in consultation with the Chair's Committee), he would be pilloried. That a fairly lengthy and wide consultation process was actually carried out is also criticised. These rather irrational criticisms of the BA tend to stifle serious debate, it's not even funny any more, so I think I won't waste my time seeking out and bringing useful information here any more.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I have to agree with Paladin here, I will be among the first to  criticise the executive when it iis warranted sadly it seems now  some individuals just look for any  excuse to attack the BA devaluing any legitimate issues, it has been said many times about  the press not letting the facts get in the way of a good story it  seems the same can be said about some of the post on this forum now days

Fred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That the vessel was unfit for purpose has been talked of many times and my tendency is to agree that it is. However, if reliability is the issue, the great Dr would be ill advised to re-engine it if he too feels that he was given a "bum steer" when purchasing it, so "damned if he does, damned if he don't" springs to mind.

There are many unknowns. What was the brief given to the consultants? Who wrote that brief?  etc.etc.

As far as unloading it goes, he will want to do so as quietly as possible, perhaps not to keep his critics uninformed, but to keep the "genuine reason for sale" quiet from the buyer. Perhaps the price tag is low because of it's problems. again, no win for the Dr.

Either way I'll still crack my jokes and hold him in low regard until he proves himself worthy of better.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paladin said:

Could it be the two sources have rather jumped the gun and the sale is only being thought about (or is someone's wishful thinking)?

Not impossible but I would be surprised. If the engines are playing up, and she has spent increasingly long periods moored up at the yard, thus I do wonder if she might be for sale pending a reliable solution. I doubt that there is any wishful thinking involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me but if someone didn’t have the courage to dig into chit chat and rumor, without it being a nailed down fact, there would be no expenses scandal, no watergate, no climategate, no infected blood scandal , no wind rush scandal, the list is endless.  

Criticise away guys don’t stop. That way lies censorship of the self inflicted variety, the worst of all. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Pally is one of the best diggers after truth I know. 

We all owe him, all of us. 

 

M

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the issues with the boat are (if any) they cant be beyond the capabilities of a decent marine engineer, can they?!

I think all jokes aside its probably very fair to settle with the notion that SOB was not a sensible purchase when considering the constraints of its operating location, I don't see pushing that point attacking the BA but it does strengthen the FACT that they are quite good at making bad decisions.  Any negativity toward them arises because of the way they operate, they cant seem to help it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paladin said:

 I think I won't waste my time seeking out and bringing useful information here any more.

Please don't stop, it's nice to have your logical factual input in these such things such input helps adjust the scales. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is nothing to do with it being "unsuitable" - it is almost certainly an engine issue which cannot be fixed. But I know no more - others may.

As Pally has suggested the reputable firm who supplied it have been involved since the start  - over the coming months I suspect we may learn more but as has been pointed out, trying to blame the CE directly seems a waste of breath and further speculation without more info probably a waste of time!

I am sure I have said something that can easily be picked to pieces - off you go and do your worst!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paladin, the wider Broads community has grown to rely on your in depth observations, please don't think that any of us are ungrateful. 

I don't doubt that on the surface protocol has been followed to a 't' but perhaps the wrong questions were asked, or at least asked by the wrong people. I don't think that I am wrong to ask but who at the Authority was suitably qualified to take the SOB project forward, to ask the right questions? Questions such what is the expected life of the engine? What should we, the Authority, reasonably do to ensure reliability?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the engine issue isn't pure fantasy then to have the boat out of action because of an engine issue simply isnt good enough.  

Hire boats manage to be out rain or shine, yet SOB cant be fixed?

Yes it can, if it was such a valuable resource re-engine it, as that doesn't appear to be the case I can only suspect what I alluded to earlier, its not nor ever has been the right boat for the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOB was built as a tough, well proven commercial workboat by a reputable boat builder with a national reputation to uphold. Standard engine installation is a Nanni, a well proven engine with a worldwide reputation to uphold.  Like 'dnks' I find it hard to accept that it is just a humble spare parts issue. I believe that I am right in suggesting that reputable manufacturers guarantee spare part availability for twenty years. I don't know the facts, do any of us, but in this case things just don't add up. If she really was so necessary six years ago then why is she languishing at her moorings now? The forthcoming bank holiday will be the third that she's missed this year. Perhaps there will be a statement in the forthcoming Broads Briefing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until people know what the problem is, and what caused it,  I can't see how anybody can tell how easily, cheaply or efficiently the problem can be resolved.

Possibly the man who wrecked the gearbox when trying to clear the rope wrapped around the drive shaft thinking that would solve the way he'd cooked the engine when the cooling water stopped can tell us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was very kindly given a pair of dinghy oars last bank holiday weekend by a forum member, I would happily donate them to a more worthy cause, the rangers could do with the exercise......

They may need extending for use on sob though.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Until people know what the problem is, and what caused it,  I can't see how anybody can tell how easily, cheaply or efficiently the problem can be resolved.

Possibly the man who wrecked the gearbox when trying to clear the rope wrapped around the drive shaft thinking that would solve the way he'd cooked the engine when the cooling water stopped can tell us.

A gear box, or a cooked engine,  can easily be replaced, fact of life! John, surely the point is that the SOB's very existence and expense was justified by the perceived need for the Authority to provide a facility that could respond to calls from the Coastguard. That 'need' is well documented. That being the case then why has heaven and earth not been moved in order to make her available? I would suggest that perhaps the need has proven not quite as pressing as we were misleadingly lead to believe! 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the usage requirement would the cost not have been better given to the RNLI or similar (or even to a local towage co with a 24 hr call out clause) towards purchase of a rescue hovercraft that could reach grounded boats on breydon to check on occupants wellbeing, anything else can be done by the other launches.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware SOB is fitted with a Nanni.

As many of us probably know a Nanni engine is nothing unusual on the Broads.  To state they cant get parts for it has got to be a weak excuse at best! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • NBN Mobile App

    Want to use NBN when you're out and about?

    Get our mobile app for Android and iOS!

    Get it on Google Play

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.