Spirit Of Breydon On The Move

[Paul]

You do realise that this forum has probably spent more time debating SOB than the boat has spent in service?

[D46]

4 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

The builders built a boat, presumably fitting it out to meet the requirements of the original purchaser/contractor. Anyway, end result was that the order was cancelled, for whatever reason, thus the yard was looking for a buyer which, as we all know, came along in the form of the Broads Authority. I do know for a fact that the Authority responsibly and rightly sought professional, qualified opinion as well as seeking the advice of the Navigation Committee, theoretically that is all that they could reasonably be expected to do. The Authority had asked all the questions and set the criteria for the choice of boat, but were they sound and qualified, that surely is the crux of the matter?  I very much doubt that the original engine choice could in anyway the responsibility of the Authority. That said the Authority has to accept full responsibility for deciding on the perceived and potential role of SOB, and for the questions that it asked as well as the final decision to buy. Beyond that I do wonder what responsibility the yard has, if any, for the engine that it originally supplied? 

TBH I can't see how it can be vessels builders at fault , sir BA did all they could as in seeking the advice of the nav committee and employing a qualified person but unless the builders mislead BA in some way it's nothing to do with them .

I'm not in anyway blaming BA , they did all that could be expected of them but something went badly wrong as for her actual time of patrolling hrs SOB has to be the very least and most expensive ( in maintaining and down time ) of any launch in memory and I'd still now it's being re engined again a drain on the navigation budget .

Hopefully this new engine will be more suited to it's role , but I do believe that BA got very much carried away with the SOB hype when she was first introduced , if I remember correctly they did mention that she was coastal as well as inland .

I've still misgivings about her being placed for sale as part of the launch replacement program as she was only in service 6 yrs , that sounds a small amount of time considering the age of the other launch's .

Incidentally I have no connection at all with Goodchilds but I don't like to see reputations  potentially damaged by what has clearly nothing to do with them on less as stated they mislead BA and it's qualified person .

[quo vadis]

Have we all forgotten about the huge waves on Breydon that the old launches couldn’t handle 

[JennyMorgan]

In truth I do agree that the BA appears to have been carried away in regard to SOB, indeed with Breydon in general. It has long been clear to all and sundry that patrolling Breydon is both tide and weather dependent, what it isn't is a 9 to 5 service. 

As for the builders,  the harsh reality is that they built the SOB & fitted the original engine thus this unfortunate episode does have something to do with them, how can anyone think otherwise? One thing I am certain of is that there is no wrong doing involved.

I can't help but think that some of my thoughts on this one are being misinterpreted thus I'm now backing out of this debate. 

[Smoggy]

3 hours ago, quo vadis said:

Have we all forgotten about the huge waves on Breydon that the old launches couldn’t handle 

Arrrghhh there's a storm a brewing...

[BroadAmbition]

Arrrghhh there's a storm a brewing.

On Breydon?

It will only be in a teacup then!

Griff

[MauriceMynah]

11 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

As for the builders,  the harsh reality is that they built the SOB & fitted the original engine thus this unfortunate episode does have something to do with them, how can anyone think otherwise? One thing I am certain of is that there is no wrong doing involved.

Certainly no wrong doing, but I do question your assertion, or at least implication, that Goodchilds carry any responsibility whatsoever. They built a craft for somebody else to do a different job, governed by the original parties specifications. It may have been perfect for the intended craft, though It occurs to me that the original people might have worked out their error in some area and cancelled the contract.

The only positives that have come out of this are the multiple opportunities for some of up to give a certain Dr. a smack or two. Whether those smacks are deserved isn't, and never has been a matter of any importance.

[JennyMorgan]

13 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Whether those smacks are deserved isn't, and never has been a matter of any importance.

Even when there has seemingly been a costly error of judgement?

Okay, so that error might be debatable but that has to be a personal judgement. Best go back to page one for that!

[Vaughan]

In fairness, I don't suppose the good Doctor had any input into the technical installation of a launch. He would have relied on his technical staff (and maybe his nav. committee?) for that.

I don't know what is installed in this craft but I am told it is a turbo Nanni. I have experience of operating the 4 cylinder turbo Nanni (which replaced the 5 cylinder non turbo) in hire boats and they have proved a reliable and trouble free engine.

The problem may be that a turbo only works when the engine is "working". This is fine in trucks and also in high speed offshore craft but the use on inland waterways, cruising for long hours at low speeds, does not lend itself to a turbo application.

In our case, and in consultation with Peachments who supplied the units, I had the boats fitted with a smaller and finer propellor, so that the engine was revving a bit higher when the boat was going slowly. (2100 revs at 11KPH instead of 1700 revs with a big prop).  Sorry about the KPH but that is the speed limit on French canals. It is about 7MPH.

It may be that the SOB would prove more reliable, and just as useful, if they experimented with the size of the prop.