Tonnage Survey for Part 1

[macd]

I had a battle 3months ago with Cardiff with regard to to renewal of my SSR. The 183 day rule is a rule of thumb they use. As you say it is all about 'normally resident' it is actually very easy to prove if you have a UK bank account, property in the U.K., a UK pension and family. We eventually got our SSR renewed even though we are currently cruising out of the UK and won't be back in the UK until next year.

I'm sure that confirmation will be helpful to many.

Checking on-line, the MCA SSR application pages now seem to reflect your experience: "If you are ordinarily resident in the UK...please press PROCEED to continue [with your SSR application]..."
(https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/ssr/ssr/)

The gov.uk information site seems to be lagging a little behind: "you must live in the UK for at least 185 days of the year." Perhaps they've been a little distracted.
(https://www.gov.uk/register-a-boat/the-uk-ship-register)

 

[KellysEye]

>What absolute rubbish. You clearly have no idea what is involved in a tonnage survey for Part 1 registration.

Can you prove that?

 

[macd]

Can you prove that?

No need. You already proved it in post #10.

 

[Mistroma]

>What absolute rubbish. You clearly have no idea what is involved in a tonnage survey for Part 1 registration.

Can you prove that?

I assume it was because you had indicated that tonnage for Part 1 reg. was based on the weight of a boat in slings instead of the arcane measurements actually used.

 

[VicS]

>What absolute rubbish. You clearly have no idea what is involved in a tonnage survey for Part 1 registration.

Can you prove that?

See your own post #10 .... says it all !

 

[Kukri]

The register tonnage is a theoretical measure of the volume under the weather deck, calculated using formulae which have been developed over centuries to arrive at a rough measure of a ship’s earning power. In origin, a ton was a “tun” barrel of Bordeaux wine, and this became one hundred cubic feet, with allowances for crew accommodation, navigation spaces, and propelling machinery.

The register tonnage is used to calculate port and canal dues. It is not and has never been either a measure of displacement (the total weight of the vessel) or of deadweight (the total carrying capacity with the ship at her load line, expressed in weight).

The formulae have been re-written several times as shipowners found ways to get round the calculation and more recently to simplify it.

The calculation is now defined by an IMO convention.

see here:

http://www.imo.org/en/About/Convent...nvention-on-Tonnage-Measurement-of-Ships.aspx

and here:

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 1291/volume-1291-I-21264-English.pdf

All clear now?

 

[Tranona]

>What absolute rubbish. You clearly have no idea what is involved in a tonnage survey for Part 1 registration.

Can you prove that?

Don't have to. You posted on method of getting an approximate weight of a boat in reply to a question about getting a tonnage survey.

The two are unconnected and I have no idea why you posted so the only conclusion is that you did not understand the question.

You seem to have a habit of not reading, or not understanding questions so mostly post irrelevant or simply wrong statements as in this case.

 

[KellysEye]

>You seem to have a habit of not reading, or not understanding questions so mostly post irrelevant or simply wrong statements as in this case.

As I said when we were lifted out our steel boat weighed 15 tons fully loaded as I saw on the weight gauge.

 

[dom]

As I said when we were lifted out our steel boat weighed 15 tons fully loaded as I saw on the weight gauge.

Assume you're just trolling; if not look up the word homograph.

 

[NealB]

>You seem to have a habit of not reading, or not understanding questions so mostly post irrelevant or simply wrong statements as in this case.

As I said when we were lifted out our steel boat weighed 15 tons fully loaded as I saw on the weight gauge.

How is that of any relevance, in the context of assessing 'tonnage' for the Part 1 register?

 

[Tranona]

>You seem to have a habit of not reading, or not understanding questions so mostly post irrelevant or simply wrong statements as in this case.

As I said when we were lifted out our steel boat weighed 15 tons fully loaded as I saw on the weight gauge.

I know because I read and understand the English language.

Does not change the fact that you don't seem to realise what that actually means and why it is irrelevant to the question.

 

[vyv_cox]

>You seem to have a habit of not reading, or not understanding questions so mostly post irrelevant or simply wrong statements as in this case.

As I said when we were lifted out our steel boat weighed 15 tons fully loaded as I saw on the weight gauge.

This discussion is even more unbelievable than the ones about voltages in marinas being generated by mixing salt and fresh water. Two posters, including myself, have posted our boat weight in the slings and our registered tonnage, showing them to be appreciably different. The thread is about registered tonnage, not weight on the gauge.

 

[Kukri]

By bizarre coincidence - and that is exactly what it is - my boat’s weight in the slings, in cruising condition, is indeed the same as her Register tonnage.



This is simply a fluke, and in no way invalidates what Vyv has written above!

 

[TQA]

As someone who has had to have a Thames tonnage survey done for Part 1 registration I can confirm that no weights are involved but that a complex arcane calculation is required based on linear measurements.

He also was required to take photographs of the boat in side view and record the engine number. I do not know if this was required just because the survey was done outside the UK.

 

[Tranona]

The photo is to show that the boat actually exists. Important as the register is official recognition of a chattel and who has title to it - as well as provided evidence of its flag state.

 

[Kukri]

The engine number goes in the Register and in the Certificate of Registration so if you change the engine you must “Notify the Registrar” on the correct form.

Now hang on a minute!

The Thames tonnage is another red herring in this thread!

“Thames Tonnage” is

Length on deck from the fore side of the stem to the fore side of the rudder post in feet
X Beam in feet
X half beam in feet
Divided by 94

It has a similar origin to register tonnage, since both derive from Builders’ Old Measurement, which was another way of computing the earning power of a sailing merchant ship, but the two went their separate ways 200 years ago.

Thames tonnage is so called because it was used by the Royal Thames Yacht Club to handicap boats for racing and was given over when, because beam is measured twice, it produced very narrow deep boats ( the “plank on edge” types).

It was replaced by the length and sail area rule( (LOA x Sail Area in feet) divided by 6,000 = rating ) in 1888.

It remained in use in Britain down to the 1970’s as a handy way of describing the size of cruising boats, because it gives a fair idea of the internal volume.

 

[vyv_cox]

By bizarre coincidence - and that is exactly what it is - my boat’s weight in the slings, in cruising condition, is indeed the same as her Register tonnage.



This is simply a fluke, and in no way invalidates what Vyv has written above!

That's a hefty vessel! Beats my 9.13 hands down.

 

[Kukri]

There’s an awful lot of her! She is new to me, but has had one careful lady owner since 1975... Uffa Fox reckoned that one man could cope with a 500 sq ft mainsail “under all conditions” ... I’ve developed considerable respect for Uffa Fox!

She is 54.5 ft overall, 44.4ft to the rudder head, 14.3ft beam, 9ft draft and as noted above her register tonnage is 23.37 whilst her displacement is probably 20 or 21 (figures vary) and her deadweight must be three or four tons (there is a ton of water, a good ton of sails and a lot of diesel in that) giving her a weight in the slings in cruising trim of 24 tons. Her Thames tonnage is 33 and the total sail area is 1575 sq ft with 500 of that in the mainsail. She has an encapsulated fin keel with 8 tons of lead in it and a full skeg rudder. Bermuda cutter.

Now, you would think that her Certificate of Registry as a Government vessel would be right, but for the past 43 years she has been going round with her draft transposed for her depth and her waterline length given as her length over all.


I thought I would look up some older boats.

My long term ex boat, a gaff cutter built before the War, is 37ft on deck,, 32.4ft to the rudder head, 9.75ft beam and 5ft and is 12 tons Thames measurement, her displacement is 9 tons, her deadweight might be two tons, her gross register tonnage is 9.26 and her net register tonnage is 6.69. Sail area is 675 sq ft with 450 sq ft in the mainsail. She is what one might call a moderately full displacement long keel type with 3.3 tons external ballast.

A Bristol Channel Pilot Cutter built in 1902 that I knew quite well is 50.2 ft on deck, 46ft to the rudder head, 13.5 ft beam, 8ft draft, her displacement is 28 tons and her deadweight would be 4, bringing her to 32 tons in cruising condition and her Thames tonnage is also 32. Her gross register tonnage is 19.02 and her net register tonnage is 11.44 Sail area is 1650 sq ft of which 800 is in the mainsail. She is a heavy displacement type with all internal ballast. Not sure how much but lots!

 

[KellysEye]

I didn't mention the previous owner registered the boat for Part 1 there was a wooden plaque with the registration number carved into the wood on the front bulkhead. The document gives the Tonnage as 15.35. The OP did ask about tonnage for Part 1, so I did understand the question and have answered it.

 

[macd]

...so I did understand the question and have answered it.

Actually, no to both. Do read and try to comprehend post #13.