My new project... MFV Elizmor

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re Chinita.
What you say is absolutely correct.

Myself I would be a tad bothered to be buying a piece of paper on top of yard fees and cranage fees in lieu of 4, 8, 20 new batteries.
Boat ownership is all about choices innit..

Perhaps both the paper and the batteries will prove useful for the same 5-7 years(?) but I don't get any further benefit from the paper , though others will.
Still, not being able to buy batteries would make the cranage lighter I guess by several hundred kilos.

All a bit Pythonesque paper performance, so " always look on the bright side of life..."
 
Last edited:
Lazy Kipper said:
I know it sounds all 'elf-n-safety-gorn-mad but here is a relevant example - my Father-in-law is an engineering surveyor of cranes for a large insurance company, he was tasked with an inspection of a yacht club crane which had been in use for about 7 years; a change in insurance companies meant a new inspection, which has since changed to an annual one. They pointed out that it had been used safely for 7 years and was professionally installed and certified. He pointed out that it was dangerous and incorrectly installed - "we've never had a problem" says the yacht club.

It's not an exact parallel of course but the argument that nothing went wrong before is an amateur's argument. We rely on professionals to make a careful judgement rather than a guess. The fact that 10 years ago they didn't have the same checks to make is hardly the fault of anyone today. Arguing that it's just paper is naive; 70 tonnes swinging through the air, lifted by a crane and balance weight of over 100 tonnes isn't a job for a well-meaning bloke. The speculation is fun but the job will get done when it's done in the right way, by the right people and that will cost proper money. As someone who spends a lot of time in boatyards I'm very glad the business of safety is taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Too true! I vividly remember, way back in the mists of time, when my brand new Westerly Pentland was delivered to the marina on a low-loader and craned into the water. "Sure it's OK?", I'd asked the driver of the marina's crane. "No problem", he replied. As my shiny new boat was dangling halfway between lorry and water, the (very loud) crane overload alarm started sounding. It was a very worrying minute or two before the thing was safe in the water! Things are much more re-assuring these days.
 
Blueboatman said:
Re Chinita.
What you say is absolutely correct.

Myself I would be a tad bothered to be buying a piece of paper on top of yard fees and cranage fees in lieu of 4, 8, 20 new batteries.
Boat ownership is all about choices innit..

Perhaps both the paper and the batteries will prove useful for the same 5-7 years(?) but I don't get any further benefit from the paper , though others will.
Still, not being able to buy batteries would make the cranage lighter I guess by several hundred kilos.

All a bit Pythonesque paper performance, so " always look on the bright side of life..."
Click to expand...

Apologies, I have not read all of your posts on the subject but, by 'piece of paper' do you mean the insurance certificate?

If so, it is not just a piece of paper and nothing to do with choices. As we are discovering, there needs to be some pretty sound engineering before underwriters will insure the risk.

Old saying; A paper umbrella is no good when it rains.

That is why this paper needs to be pretty special.
 
Watching a new shiny boat hanging with bells ringing, ugh indeed.

But surely, the crane wasn't actually overloaded cos it neither broke nor fell over.

I wonder at what % of stability and or gross capacity the first alarms start these days?

I do know that new cranes have GPS and Internet and each 'lift' gets logged back at the manufacturers factory, for future reference and in case of dispute..
 
chinita said:
Apologies, I have not read all of your posts on the subject but, by 'piece of paper' do you mean the insurance certificate?

If so, it is not just a piece of paper and nothing to do with choices. As we are discovering, there needs to be some pretty sound engineering before underwriters will insure the risk.

Old saying; A paper umbrella is no good when it rains.

That is why this paper needs to be pretty special.
Click to expand...

I like the paper umbrella analogy

It seems everyone wants insurance in this case- the crane, the ground owners, the ground lessee, the boat owner, third parties ...
I wonder if ground surveys come with a disclaimer 'as far as we are able to determine....'?
I like proof impirical, myself.. And maybe some iron plates to spread the ground load
 
Lakesailor said:
So, you have decided that the discussion should be limited to one view-point. What if we have a comment to make which is borderline? Should we send all our prospective posts to you for checking first?
This is a forum, where things get discussed.
Click to expand...

Yes, suggest would have been a better word than ask - but pleeeeze read the post before jumping down my neck - I just think that there's a minotity here who make snide remarks and I wasn't referring to the battery comment or even to you Mr Lakey

I repeat - constructive criticism good
 
Blueboatman said:
I like proof impirical, myself.. And maybe some iron plates to spread the ground load
Click to expand...

An empirical determination that the ground was unsound would end up costing >EUR1m and you'd have a bloody great crane stuck in the lock! I'd probably opt to pay a few grand to an engineer and his ground testing dubreys; unless I wanted some very expensive Liebherr landfill.
 
Blueboatman said:
Myself I would be a tad bothered to be buying a piece of paper on top of yard fees and cranage fees in lieu of 4, 8, 20 new batteries.
Boat ownership is all about choices innit..
Click to expand...

Absolutely fine if it's your crane, your boat, your dock and nobody else's property at risk. But if you think the bit of paper is expensive, just look at the cost of replacing the crane and the boats it falls on as well as rebuilding the harbour wall ...
 
The missing insurance is to cover the damage to the crane if the ground fails. Cranes are not cheap. They do lots of lifts so the cost per day is cheap relative to plant value. For someone to underwrite this risk they want an engineers report. For an engineer to offer opinion on the ground he wants valid data. None of these people will take additional risk to keep Ellie's lift costs down.

When you deal with bigger numbers the risk and costs go up and that's that.

If an engineer has relevant local experience he may take a lower fee because he understands the risk. Get the engineer that looked at the last major lift and talk to him.

I agree with others I see no fault with the boatyard. They are just pressing to have this done properly
 
dom said:
An empirical determination that the ground was unsound would end up costing >EUR1m and you'd have a bloody great crane stuck in the lock! I'd probably opt to pay a few grand to an engineer and his ground testing dubreys; unless I wanted some very expensive Liebherr landfill.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Think of the YouTube hits though
 
Lakesailor said:
....and, if it should go tits up Ellie would be pleased for the insurance pay-out rather than years of wriggling.
Click to expand...

Agree. I've watched this thread for ages. There's no cheap or easy way to get an old MFV craned into the water. Ellie will just have to smile and pay the money. Hopefully, there won't be too many other problems once it's in the water.
 
Blueboatman said:
Indeed. Think of the YouTube hits though
Click to expand...

Ah yes the media age, forgot about that ...it would get more hits than the, "Don't be horrible to Britney!" one. Actually ignore that last sentence as I don't want to steal anyone's thunder if they're lining up such a post on this thread.
 
dom said:
Ah yes the media age, forgot about that ...it would get more hits than the, "Don't be horrible to Britney!" one. Actually ignore that last sentence as I don't want to steal anyone's thunder if they're lining up such a post on this thread.
Click to expand...

I was going to post a link to that earlier, but Mr Crocker uses some terribly sweary words and I didn't want the moderators to be cross at me.
 
dom said:
Ah yes the media age, forgot about that ...it would get more hits than the, "Don't be horrible to Britney!" one. Actually ignore that last sentence as I don't want to steal anyone's thunder if they're lining up such a post on this thread.
Click to expand...

I was being facetious acshually, too!

I am reluctantly coming round to the general consensus of 'don't fight it just pay whatever is asked ' and jump through the survey hoops and indemnify every single foreseeable risk..

However, Ellie is a pretty resourceful chapesse and indeed the boatyard have hinted at promising new developments so who knows....?
 
There seems to be a wee bit of exaggeration creeping into this thread. We're talking about a 53ft converted Ring Netter, not a battleship. She won't be anywhere near 70 tons. I owned, and converted, a somewhat larger MFV, and at 60 ft, she was only about 45 tons. She also had a seriously heavy engine, which weighed 3 tons, which is probably 2 more than Elizmore's one.

I'm not sure where the weight of batteries is relevant. My MFV had 4 x 12v batteries, arranged in two banks of 24v. My present 36ft ketch also has 4 x 12v batteries, which are actually slightly heavier.

None of this alters the fact that to lift a vessel like this, safely and legally, all sorts of conditions have to be met, and that means paying out money. Lots of people dream of having boats of this size, but in the cold light of day, one has to wake up to grim reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Top