|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Nov 18, 2021 17:12:16 GMT
She's reading this and has messaged me. All is well, a bit of a glitch but she's covered. Must have been a worry though. Good. I wouldn't like to think of anybody being totally hung out to dry.
Unfortunately, that's just what is happening, John, . . and it's RCR that's doing it ! In a post on page 3 of this thread she said - "The RCR have allowed a sum to cover fixing corrosion and around on the rudder . . .". Craftinsure, in common with every other insurer, won't pay out to remedy corrosion, . . they regard and include it as "gradual deterioration" in the policy exclusions - "Loss or damage due to wear and tear, depreciation, gradual deterioration, or mildew."
|
|
|
Post by cygnus on Nov 18, 2021 17:22:08 GMT
Thankyou tonyb for those last sentences of your post. I think we have covered the anatomy of a rudder/swan-neck ad infinitum, and possible repair solutions to nuclear physics level. In reality I think Jo has decided to go down the insurance route and all that entails. I would probably do the same if I was her. 😃 Why do you think that "to go down the insurance route" precludes making an insurance claim for a far less costly method of repair ? It's a damaged rudder that can be taken off the boat at Barrowford, where the damage was done, and put back on again, at the same place, after repair, . . for a fraction of the cost of towing the boat to Barlick and having it craned out Making an insurance claim against damage sustained in this particular incident may well be futile in any case, . . particularly in light of the fact that the rudder stock failure is attributable to an inadequate or defective weld repair to something that shouldn't have been cut through in the first place. If the rudder stock had been in sound and serviceable condition prior to the incident at Barrowford a week ago, it would have bent and not broken. Craftinsure's Narrowboat policies specifically exclude - "The cost of making good any defect in repair or maintenance, or replacing or renewing any defective part, or making good any fault or error in design or construction."Taken together with the fact that the incident giving rise to the damage and the resulting claim occurred while the boat was being operated single-handed in the dark, the sub-standard repair to the previously cut rudder stock will almost certainly result in the insurance claim being turned down -- and rightly so. If the owner had any sense at all, she'd be looking to get the repairs done by way of the most economical option possible, . . NOT by way of one of RCR's typical no unnecessary expense spared song and dance extravaganzas. I don't know why I thought that TD, I thought she had mentioned it. Please excuse my stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Nov 18, 2021 18:20:06 GMT
Thankyou tonyb for those last sentences of your post. I think we have covered the anatomy of a rudder/swan-neck ad infinitum, and possible repair solutions to nuclear physics level. In reality I think Jo has decided to go down the insurance route and all that entails. I would probably do the same if I was her. 😃 Why do you think that "to go down the insurance route" precludes making an insurance claim for a far less costly method of repair ? It's a damaged rudder that can be taken off the boat at Barrowford, where the damage was done, and put back on again, at the same place, after repair, . . for a fraction of the cost of towing the boat to Barlick and having it craned out Making an insurance claim against damage sustained in this particular incident may well be futile in any case, . . particularly in light of the fact that the rudder stock failure is attributable to an inadequate or defective weld repair to something that shouldn't have been cut through in the first place. If the rudder stock had been in sound and serviceable condition prior to the incident at Barrowford a week ago, it would have bent and not broken. Craftinsure's Narrowboat policies specifically exclude - "The cost of making good any defect in repair or maintenance, or replacing or renewing any defective part, or making good any fault or error in design or construction."Taken together with the fact that the incident giving rise to the damage and the resulting claim occurred while the boat was being operated single-handed in the dark, the sub-standard repair to the previously cut rudder stock will almost certainly result in the insurance claim being turned down -- and rightly so. If the owner had any sense at all, she'd be looking to get the repairs done by way of the most economical option possible, . . NOT by way of one of RCR's typical no unnecessary expense spared song and dance extravaganzas. Tony, on the previous page you posted ' The information with regard to the rudder stock being reportedly cut and re-joined by some method that has subsequently failed in service, cannot be confirmed until the boat's rudder and stock assembly has been removed and inspected.' Now you are posting '. particularly in light of the fact that the rudder stock failure is attributable to an inadequate or defective weld repair to something that shouldn't have been cut through in the first place. If the rudder stock had been in sound and serviceable condition prior to the incident at Barrowford a week ago, it would have bent and not broken.
As far as I can see we still do not know for definite what the failure actually is, and all posts are speculation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2021 19:51:30 GMT
Why do you think that "to go down the insurance route" precludes making an insurance claim for a far less costly method of repair ? It's a damaged rudder that can be taken off the boat at Barrowford, where the damage was done, and put back on again, at the same place, after repair, . . for a fraction of the cost of towing the boat to Barlick and having it craned out Making an insurance claim against damage sustained in this particular incident may well be futile in any case, . . particularly in light of the fact that the rudder stock failure is attributable to an inadequate or defective weld repair to something that shouldn't have been cut through in the first place. If the rudder stock had been in sound and serviceable condition prior to the incident at Barrowford a week ago, it would have bent and not broken. Craftinsure's Narrowboat policies specifically exclude - "The cost of making good any defect in repair or maintenance, or replacing or renewing any defective part, or making good any fault or error in design or construction."Taken together with the fact that the incident giving rise to the damage and the resulting claim occurred while the boat was being operated single-handed in the dark, the sub-standard repair to the previously cut rudder stock will almost certainly result in the insurance claim being turned down -- and rightly so. If the owner had any sense at all, she'd be looking to get the repairs done by way of the most economical option possible, . . NOT by way of one of RCR's typical no unnecessary expense spared song and dance extravaganzas. Tony, on the previous page you posted ' The information with regard to the rudder stock being reportedly cut and re-joined by some method that has subsequently failed in service, cannot be confirmed until the boat's rudder and stock assembly has been removed and inspected.' Now you are posting '. particularly in light of the fact that the rudder stock failure is attributable to an inadequate or defective weld repair to something that shouldn't have been cut through in the first place. If the rudder stock had been in sound and serviceable condition prior to the incident at Barrowford a week ago, it would have bent and not broken.
As far as I can see we still do not know for definite what the failure actually is, and all posts are speculation.
yup.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2021 21:10:37 GMT
I'm wondering how TonyDunkley is proposing to remove the rudder with the vessel either in the water or beached. The latter is obviously not possible without cutting something and the former would require enough water under the boat to drop it. Ok so that would be fairly easy but getting it back in could prove rather a nuisance and more awkward than it might appear. Investigating the status of the taper onto the tiller assembly would be needed as without being able to get that off the only option would be weld whatever has broken back together. So it would have to be done beached, which is against the CRT byelaws.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Nov 19, 2021 0:46:34 GMT
Why do you think that "to go down the insurance route" precludes making an insurance claim for a far less costly method of repair ? It's a damaged rudder that can be taken off the boat at Barrowford, where the damage was done, and put back on again, at the same place, after repair, . . for a fraction of the cost of towing the boat to Barlick and having it craned out Making an insurance claim against damage sustained in this particular incident may well be futile in any case, . . particularly in light of the fact that the rudder stock failure is attributable to an inadequate or defective weld repair to something that shouldn't have been cut through in the first place. If the rudder stock had been in sound and serviceable condition prior to the incident at Barrowford a week ago, it would have bent and not broken. Craftinsure's Narrowboat policies specifically exclude - "The cost of making good any defect in repair or maintenance, or replacing or renewing any defective part, or making good any fault or error in design or construction."Taken together with the fact that the incident giving rise to the damage and the resulting claim occurred while the boat was being operated single-handed in the dark, the sub-standard repair to the previously cut rudder stock will almost certainly result in the insurance claim being turned down -- and rightly so. If the owner had any sense at all, she'd be looking to get the repairs done by way of the most economical option possible, . . NOT by way of one of RCR's typical no unnecessary expense spared song and dance extravaganzas. Tony, on the previous page you posted ' The information with regard to the rudder stock being reportedly cut and re-joined by some method that has subsequently failed in service, cannot be confirmed until the boat's rudder and stock assembly has been removed and inspected.' Now you are posting '. particularly in light of the fact that the rudder stock failure is attributable to an inadequate or defective weld repair to something that shouldn't have been cut through in the first place. If the rudder stock had been in sound and serviceable condition prior to the incident at Barrowford a week ago, it would have bent and not broken.
As far as I can see we still do not know for definite what the failure actually is, and all posts are speculation.
Knowing something with a reasonable degree of certainty is NOT quite the same thing as having it "confirmed" by way of a visual inspection. Joe [ cygnus] got information from the boat's previous owner that the rudder stock had been cut in order to remove the rudder to gain access to work on the sterngear, and then welded back together to re-fit the rudder prior to sale to the present owner. Unless you discount what Joe and the boat's previous owner have stated, it IS 'known' with a reasonable and acceptable degree of certainty that the rudder stock has been cut, welded back together, and has now broken in two at the point where it was re-joined. It is also 'known', albeit with a somewhat less degree of certainty - having been stated by the present owner - that the upper section of the rudder stock, together with the ramshead, can be rotated independently of any movement of the rudder itself. Clearly, a rudder that isn't functioning as a rudder MUST be repaired or replaced, . . but until the broken rudder has been visually/physically inspected it isn't possible to 'confirm' the precise nature of the failure with absolute certainty. The only element of speculation in any of this IS the the precise nature of the failure, . . and that of course is relevant ONLY to the question of whether or not the insurers will entertain a claim for any or all of the cost arising from repairing or replacing the damaged and presently useless rudder and stock assembly.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Nov 19, 2021 1:50:05 GMT
I'm wondering how TonyDunkley is proposing to remove the rudder with the vessel either in the water or beached. The latter is obviously not possible without cutting something and the former would require enough water under the boat to drop it. Ok so that would be fairly easy but getting it back in could prove rather a nuisance and more awkward than it might appear. Investigating the status of the taper onto the tiller assembly would be needed as without being able to get that off the only option would be weld whatever has broken back together. So it would have to be done beached, which is against the CRT byelaws. Read this, . . it's a re-edited version of what I posted on the previous page yesterday : - A few facts relating to the design of (most) narrow boat steering gear.
With the exception of some modern so-called 'narrowboats' fitted with crummy bolt together rudder and stock assemblies, the steering gear as it exists these days on pleasure craft is generally a scaled down and much lighter version of what was universally found on working boats. Damaged steering gear, and sterngear, on both loaded and empty working/carrying boats sometimes had to be removed for repair and re-fitted afterwards, with the boats still afloat, on the occasions when damage occurred with no drydock or slipway conveniently to hand. Nothing of what follows comes from theory, or tales of the old days. ALL of it is what I learned from others as a lad, and from the many occasions over the last 58 years when I've removed, repaired, and refitted both steering gear and sterngear on working boats and pleasure craft when docking, slipping or craning out wasn't an available option : -- 1) From the time motorised working narrowboats, including the early steamers, first appeared on the canals in the 1920's in the form that some survive in to this day, the steering gear - rudder, stock and ramshead - was designed and intended to be removeable for repair, and to be re-fitted, with the vessel afloat, in the event of steering or sterngear damage when the boat wasn't near any drydocking or repair facilities.
2) The rudder and stock - ellum and ellum pole in the working narrowboat parlance of the day - were invariably a one piece rivetted assembly. They were also bigger, and much heavier, than the scaled down lighter versions of essentially the same overall configuration that's found on today's narrowbeam pleasure craft. 3) The ramshead - frequently, and wrongly referred to these days as a 'swan's neck' - was readily detachable, being fitted to the top end of the rudder stock on a square taper, and retained in place with single hexagon head 5/8" or 3/4" Whitworth bolt through a plate washer and into a female thread tapped into the top end of the stock. 4) Sufficient depth of water to allow the rudder and stock assembly to be lowered far enough for the top of the stock to clear the underside of the counter and rudder (ellum) tube for either removal or re-fitting was sometimes lacking in a canal pound, particularly when having to deal with a fully loaded boat drawing anything up to around 3' 10''. In those circumstances it was necessary to carry out the whole operation in a full lock, where an adequate depth of water is always is to be found. 5) The tools and equipment needed to both remove and refit a rudder and stock assembly were : - Blowlamp, spanner, 14lb sledgehammer, 3 x lengths of rope, 2 x lengths of chain , 4 x D-shackles, and a boathook (cabin shaft). One more essential item was of course the knowledge and experience of how to do the job, . . something which, incidentally, was always accomplished WITHOUT anyone ever having to get into the water.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Nov 19, 2021 7:47:24 GMT
Tony
Interesting about removing the rudder and stock while still in the water, presumable there is either enough play in the top bearing to allow sufficient sideways movement for the it to miss the skeg when lowering or the bearing is removable from the top to allow the angle.
I can see how the removal can be done simply enough but I imagine lining it up when replacing it must be a total PITA. I gather from the description there is a threaded hole in the tip of the stock, do you use that to attach a guide rope (running down through the stock tunnel)to pull the end of the shaft into place ?
|
|
|
Post by cygnus on Nov 19, 2021 9:52:53 GMT
There is a YouTube video by Wilton Marine about tiller bars on a narrowboat. The swan neck looks like the one Jo has, a square boss at the bottom without washer and stud.
|
|
|
Post by cygnus on Nov 19, 2021 9:56:09 GMT
To get emergency steering it might be an idea to lash a wide scaffold type board or even boarding plank to the swan neck angled diagonally downwards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2021 10:13:30 GMT
Tony Interesting about removing the rudder and stock while still in the water, presumable there is either enough play in the top bearing to allow sufficient sideways movement for the it to miss the skeg when lowering or the bearing is removable from the top to allow the angle. I can see how the removal can be done simply enough but I imagine lining it up when replacing it must be a total PITA. I gather from the description there is a threaded hole in the tip of the stock, do you use that to attach a guide rope (running down through the stock tunnel)to pull the end of the shaft into place ? Older boats had plain bearings at the top which lift off once the ramshead is removed. So with ramshead off you would first tie a retrieval rope to the rudder blade then due to the large diameter of the elum tube the rudder can be lifted off the bottom bearing and dropped to the side and downwards. I guess to get it back you would want to bolt a small length of chain with rope attached to the centre bolt at the top, manipulate the chain/rope up the elum tube then lift the rudder up from the stern deck. I can see it as being manageable but not that easy. Also in this case as there is a break somewhere you would need to secure both parts and apparently this rudder has not got a hole in it so some other way of retrieving it would be needed.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 19, 2021 10:18:51 GMT
What I don’t understand is, since there is no bolt or nut visible at the base of the swan’s neck thingy, how is one supposed to remove the rudder etc without cutting the stock? There must be some attachment means since presumably the base of the swans neck and the stock did not start life as one thing. Ours has a bolt on top, making it quite obvious, but Jo’s doesn’t.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2021 10:21:27 GMT
Earlier there was a suggestion that some of these are made with the taper just dropped into place, perhaps with heat to help it lock up. No bolts.
I suspect this is where the sledgehammer comes into play.
I still think there might be a side bolt somewhere but there might not be.
It appears that this is the problem which was discovered by whoever replaced the stern tube and shaft, hence the apparent cutting of the rudder stock.
Although at a later stage a new top bearing was fitted with boat in water so unless that is a split bearing of some sort the ramshead must have come off.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 19, 2021 10:32:34 GMT
Earlier there was a suggestion that some of these are made with the taper just dropped into place, perhaps with heat to help it lock up. No bolts. I suspect this is where the sledgehammer comes into play. I still think there might be a side bolt somewhere but there might not be. It appears that this is the problem which was discovered by whoever replaced the stern tube and shaft, hence the apparent cutting of the rudder stock. Although at a later stage a new top bearing was fitted with boat in water so unless that is a split bearing of some sort the ramshead must have come off. Maybe, but I would have thought a taper made to “boat engineering tolerances” (not particularly intimate and constant contact between the two mating surfaces) wouldn’t be a reliable and permanent connection. And it certainly makes it difficult to separate for future repairs.
|
|
|
Post by Isambard Kingdom Brunel on Nov 19, 2021 11:09:09 GMT
Earlier there was a suggestion that some of these are made with the taper just dropped into place, perhaps with heat to help it lock up. No bolts. I suspect this is where the sledgehammer comes into play. I still think there might be a side bolt somewhere but there might not be. It appears that this is the problem which was discovered by whoever replaced the stern tube and shaft, hence the apparent cutting of the rudder stock. Although at a later stage a new top bearing was fitted with boat in water so unless that is a split bearing of some sort the ramshead must have come off. Maybe, but I would have thought a taper made to “boat engineering tolerances” (not particularly intimate and constant contact between the two mating surfaces) wouldn’t be a reliable and permanent connection. And it certainly makes it difficult to separate for future repairs. The proper way was a square taper joint above the rudder. The Tyler shells have the rams head all welded, I did wonder when these first appeared as to how the bearings would be changed. Dad and I used to deliver some of the new shells but never looked as to how the rudders were mounted.
|
|