# 1977 morgan heritage/westindies 36



## rgrdgr (Jun 15, 2011)

anyone know how heavy the glass was laid up in these hulls? im looking for a tank!!


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

These are not a tank. They were moderately heavily built charter boats. The glass was pretty thick, but crudely laid up. They were built to be cheap to buy, docile to sail, and hold up while in livery and that not all that much more. Their Aechille's heel is that there was a fair amount of steel used for structure in these boats and have seen discussions of disecting these boats to get the rusting pile of 'formerly steel' out. 

Jeff


----------



## LessTacksing (Mar 17, 2009)

Is it possible he was looking for a tank to install?


----------



## rgrdgr (Jun 15, 2011)

thanks jeff i will look at that when i go to see one. iwas getting a 36 creekmore 1960 that was laid up to almost 5in thick below the water line, but sold before i could sell my house.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

If it is any consolation I assure you that the Creekmore 36 was not really laid up 5 inches thick below the waterline. I know the Creekmore 36's pretty well and they were closer to .5 inches below the waterline which is actually pretty thick for a 36 footer. 

But there is a lot more to strength than thickness. In most cases when you see a boat that has a thick lay-up, that thickness was achieved by using a lot of non-directional material (mat or chopped glass) and resin rich lay-up, the combination of which results in a fatigue prone laminate with minimal puncture resistance. 

Cheers,
Jeff


----------



## VetMike (Mar 5, 2011)

Jeff, I thought that mat could be laid in alternating orientation such that the grain, if you will, alternates direction, thus providing strength. Am I misinformed?


----------



## jdThaw (Aug 6, 2015)

Jeff_H said:


> These are not a tank. They were moderately heavily built charter boats. The glass was pretty thick, but crudely laid up. They were built to be cheap to buy, docile to sail, and hold up while in livery and that not all that much more. Their Aechille's heel is that there was a fair amount of steel used for structure in these boats and have seen discussions of disecting these boats to get the rusting pile of 'formerly steel' out.
> 
> Jeff


 I know this is an old post....But having just bought one, hull #4... 7/2015...I'll have to disagree with the majority of the quote above...having worked at both Irwin, and CSY factories in the '70's and commissioned Endeavor's..to set the record straight:...This West Indies 36 is not only a TANK, at 17000 lbs.!!!.... But sails fast!!! at 700 sq. ft SA.....docile is NOT a word to be describing this true classic thoroughbred...
everything FRP is thick, stout and strong...an incredible boat... what is true.....the mild steel used for the mast step, and below sole stringers...needs to be refit....mine is refit with Stainless Steel......awesome!!....this design is My dream boat!!!!!!!... my boat, with its total SS refit is unsurpassed... a true classic,... built like a battle tank...and will easily sail head to head with a Tartan 37...good luck finding one...only 40 were made....


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

jdThaw said:


> I know this is an old post....But having just bought one, hull #3... 7/2015...I'll have to disagree with the majority of the quote above...having worked at both Irwin, and CSY factories in the '70's and commissioned Endeavor's..to set the record straight:...This West Indies 36 is not only a TANK, at 17000 lbs.!!!.... But sails fast!!! at 700 sq. ft SA.....docile is NOT a word to be describing this true classic thoroughbred...
> everything FRP is thick, stout and strong...an incredible boat... what is true.....the mild steel used for the mast step, and below sole stringers...needs to be refit....mine is refit with Stainless Steel......awesome!!....this design is My dream boat!!!!!!!... my boat, with its total SS refit is unsurpassed... a true classic,... built like a battle tank...and will easily sail head to head with a Tartan 37...good luck finding one...only 40 were made....


I am glad to hear that you are pleased with your boat because in the end, what counts to any boat owner is how well their boat suits their needs. It sounds like your particular boat has had owners who made diligent efforts to upgrade and improve your particular West Indies 36. But I also think that some of your perceptions are not all that accurate when comparing a normal West Indies 36 to the full range of boats that are out there, and that some of your perceptions may change once you have more experience with your boat.

Take for example your comments that the you believe that your boat is a tank and you believe that it has thick fiberglass, which you seem to believe in part because it weighs 17,000 lbs. The reality is that 17,000 lbs was not all that heavy for that period, at least when compared to the other value oriented builders of that era such as the Hunter 36, which weighs 17,800 lbs, and the Hunter had a more sophisticated system of internal framing than the stock West Indies 36 (your boat's stainless steel modification not withstanding). Would you also refer to the Hunter 36 as "a tank"?

With your experience in the boat building industry did you ever watch a West Indies 36 or 38 being built to see how the fabrics and resins where handled, or evaluate the laminate schedule for percentage of non-directional fabric? It might help support your point if you provide some insights into why you believe that these boats were constructed differently then the 38 (I too was in and out of the Endeavor and WI factories during this period. Endeavor did a little better job of things), which I know very well and did see being constructed, and which were constructed as I describe. I won't comment on the W.I. 36 specifically, since the 36 that I knew may not be representative since it was the last hull built, and it was custom finished by a sailmaker quite a few years later with a taller rig, and beefed up structural system.

Similarly, I understand that perceptions of speed are all relative, and that the West Indies 36 offers decent performance as compared to many cruising boats of that era. But in a broader relative sense, I stand by my comments. While it can be argued that the centerboard option on some if not most of the West Indies 36 is a great feature, helping with pointing ability while maintaining a shoal draft, at least as far as PHRF is concerned the Tartan 37 is 12 to 21 seconds a mile faster when compared from region to the same regional rating. The Hunter 37 mentioned above is also rated 15 to 21 seconds a mile faster when compared from region to the same regional rating. And if we talk about where the West Indies 36 falls on a broader spectrum of boat performance, it is owed by a Beneteau 35 (shoal draft) 21-24 seconds a mile, a cruising series- shoal draft J-34 24 to 27 seconds a mile, and something like a Beneteau 36.7 over a minute a mile. Those are pretty big speed differences.

And while almost any boat can become hard to handle if purposefully over-canvassed, as they were typically delivered with a 138% genoas, these were comparatively docile boats. (For what its worth an SA/D of 17 is pretty good for a cruising boat of that era but is tiny compared to a boat that would be considered a good performing boat which would have an SA/D somewhere in the 20's and the stability stand up to that much sail area.) The centerboard allowed these boats to be balanced nicely in a breeze, and even with the custom taller rig, they seem to be well mannered. If you don't find your boat to be relatively manageable to handle, I would suggest that look at your rig tuning and sail inventory.

In the end, your perceptions are certainly meaningful to you as someone who chose to buy one of these boats, and should be relevant at least to someone who views boats as you do. I tend to base my comments on individual designs relative to a broad spectrum of boats and perhaps our differing views result from the boats we chose to compare to the West Indies 36.

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Jeff, I've looked at the hulls of a lot of Morgans, as you well know. I've never seen any evidence of a chopper gun layup in any of them. There are loads of powerboats, Ranger, Bayliner, etc..., that used chopper gun layups to beef up their hull weights, but it is quite evident when you look in the bilge. The only thing I've seen in Morgans, both the Out Islands and standard sloops I looked at was matting and roving. 

Not sure about the bottom thickness, but it's fairly substantial on every boat I looked at. Charlie Morgan designed a tank of a boat for the rental/cruising industry, a boat that would hold up to the abuse of being rented by novice boaters. As for those metal supports, they can easily and inexpensively be replaced with stainless, so that's really not a big problem.

You and I have always disagreed about the Morgan's sailing ability - but that's probably a non-issue for the OP as well. Hell, if we wanted to go fast, none of us would have purchased a sailboat.  Fast, as you stated, is a relative term when it comes to sailing. A couple extra miles a day really doesn't mean anything to any cruiser I've met over the past decade.

All the best,

Gary


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

travlineasy said:


> Jeff, I've looked at the hulls of a lot of Morgans, as you well know. I've never seen any evidence of a chopper gun layup in any of them. The only thing I've seen in Morgans, both the Out Islands and standard sloops I looked at was matting and roving.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Gary


Gary,

I did not say that these boats were laminated using a chopper gun. What I said was generically discussing the use a lot of non-directional material (mat or chopped glass) and a resin rich lay-up.

In the case of the Morgan Out Island hull that I helped repair, or in the West Indies in this discussion, the non-direction material was in the form of mat.

In a proper hull layup mat is kept to the minimum needed to bridge between layers of roving since mat is fatigue prone and brittle and so provides the failure mode for impact or horizontal sheer failures.

On boats like the Morgan OI's and the West Indies, a larger than ideal proportion of mat was often used as a inexpensive bulking material to increase the hull thickness with fewer layups. While this does add some initial strength, over time that strength is greatly reduced due to fatigue, loss of ductility, and more initial brittle nature of mat.

Jeff


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Jeff, there was another post about fiberglass fatigue on the forum, not sure exactly where it is, but the bottom line was that it really didn't fatigue, and some of the hulls were 50 or more years old, showing absolutely no sign of fatigue. You could be correct, but the last thing I would worry about with a fiberglass hull is fatigue. Sailboat hulls are generally pretty rugged, and I cannot recall a single incident of a hull breaking up from fatigue. Now, I have seen a hydroplane hull break apart, but those hulls are egg-shell thin, and slamming waves at 165 MPH in some instances. I really don't think structural integrity is an issue with any of the production sailing vessels.

All the best,

Gary


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

travlineasy said:


> Jeff, there was another post about fiberglass fatigue on the forum, not sure exactly where it is, but the bottom line was that it really didn't fatigue, and some of the hulls were 50 or more years old, showing absolutely no sign of fatigue. You could be correct, but the last thing I would worry about with a fiberglass hull is fatigue. Sailboat hulls are generally pretty rugged, and I cannot recall a single incident of a hull breaking up from fatigue. Now, I have seen a hydroplane hull break apart, but those hulls are egg-shell thin, and slamming waves at 165 MPH in some instances. I really don't think structural integrity is an issue with any of the production sailing vessels.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Gary


Gary,

I respectfully suggest that you are remembering this incorrectly or that the post to which you are referring is inaccurate. Fiberglass is an inherently fatigue prone material that (depending on the specific laminate) can lose significant amounts of strength due to long term fatigue and bad building practices.

You are also mistaken in your belief that fatigue and bad building practice failures are rare in older boats. Roughly 10 years ago there was a detailed study by the insurance industry looking at the issue of aging in fiberglass hulls. The insurance industry had noticed that across the board they were seeing a major increase in the number of claims and the amount of damage on older boats, (boats from the 1960's and 1970's). In particular, there was a trend that suggested that older boats were having greater damage from minor impacts, as well as outright hull failures in higher stress areas of the boat.

The process used to generate the report included detailed engineering evaluation of a comparatively large number of actual case studies, as well doing destructive testing, load measurement, and laminate analysis on actual panels cut out of actual older boats, and comparisons to control panels laid up for the purposes of creating controls.

The report concluded that many of these older hull lay-ups started out as comparatively low strength (as compared to normal design values for the materials involved) due to comparatively large amounts of non-directional fabrics (mostly mat), poor resin/reinforcing ratio management (mostly resin rich), poor material handling practices (folded fabrics and inaccurate resin-catalyst ratios), and through the extensive use of additives such as accelerators, that was prevalent in boats of this era. They also compared the results of those existing boat panel tests to boats from that era which were built to higher standards. (Le Comte would be a good example of 'best practices' yard from that era.)

The report included a section which analyzed fatigue in these older hulls and concluded it was a major contributor to the failures which were occurring in these boats. Some of the most revealing testing compared higher stressed sections of the hull to lower stress sections of the same hull. One of the striking conclusions was that boats which started out with bad building practices (listed above), experienced a much greater reduction in bending and impact resistance in higher stress areas due to fatigue.

The case studies in the report looked at actual failures and in most of the cases that were analyzed in detail, the combination of poor building practices, and most prevalently higher than ideal proportions of mat, resin rich laminates, and accelerators, resulted in a weaker initial strength and a higher fatigue rate. Those were seen as major contributors to the extent of the damage, and in some cases, the sole cause of the failure. Those cases included boats which literally came apart while sailing, or after a minor impact, often notably failing parallel to higher stress concentration areas like their hull to deck joints, or parallel to bulkheads.

By the late 1970's and early 1980's, many of these building practice issues were better understood, and better boat builders of that era were incorporating internal framing to limit deflection, since minimizing flexure in turn minimizes fatigue. Also better resin and fabric handling and quality control practices became more of the norm as well, producing stronger initial strengths, and a reduction in the rates at which fatigue is likely to occur.

Other contributing factors which have not gone away are construction methods which tend to localize stresses rather than to distribute them such as the roll-out flange hull to deck joint.

I hope this clarifies this for you.

Jeff


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Jeff, I found one of the articles. It's a good read. http://www.ericgreeneassociates.com/images/Boat_Longevity.pdf

Essentially, the fiberglass will likely outlast all of us.

All the best,

Gary


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

That is a good article. Thank you for posting the link. Hopefully it will convince you of what I had said earlier since the article is consistent with the Insurance Industry findings and my earlier comments. As for "the fiberglass will likely outlast all of us" that may be true but the older boats probably won't. There was a good article in Sail a few months back about a Triton getting hit by a wave, taking a knock down, and having the hull to deck joint sheer and open. The article includes a picture showing the joint failure probably due to sheer with probable fatigue as an accomplice. (http://www.sailmagazine.com/cruising/voice-of-experience-staring-into-oblivion/)

Getting back to the article that you linked to, and quoting from the article:

_"But just what can we say is the expected lifespan of a fiberglass boat hull? The answer varies with type of construction, choice of materials, and overall workmanship."_

_"It's true that the very early fiberglass boatbuilders were conservative with their laminate schedules, which perhaps has contributed to the longevity of some classes. The reason solid skin laminate were 3/8 to ¾ inches thick was because the laminates of the time had what we would today consider to be poor mechanical properties." _

Comment: It is those poor mechanical properties of those older laminates that I and the report are referring to.

_"An example is the US Coast Guard 40 foot patrol boat that was developed in the early 1950s for law enforcement and search and rescue missions. The boats are 40 feet overall with an 11 foot beam and displace 21,000 pounds. Twin 250 horsepower diesel engines produced a top speed of 22 knots. Single skin FRP construction was reinforced by transverse aluminum frames, a decidedly conservative approach at the time of construction. Laminate schedules consisted of alternating plies of 10 ounce boat cloth and 1 ounce mat at 3/4 inch for the bottom and 3/8 inch for the sides." _

Comment: This is a good example of 'good practices' in a boat build during that era. This paragraph describes aluminum internal framing and minimal mat, so it is not surprising that this particular boat showed no loss of flexural strength due to fatigue, although it did experience a large drop in sheer strength. What is also notable is that the numbers on those test samples reflect a near perfect resin-reinf. ratio rather than the sloppier higher resin ratios typical in the sailboat industry at the time.

_"Fatigue
"The conclusion from the Halfbeak study is important because it stated that the long-term cyclic stress loads on the part were about 25% of the part strength. Indeed if a hull or propulsion related assembly experienced fatigue cycling on the order of 105 cycles, we'd expect to see a design safety factor of 4, in which case the cycling profile would determine the life of the structure. That is, we'd predict failure when the shaft turned say"one million times" instead of after 40 years of service. Figure 7 is a graph that shows how various resin systems respond to cyclic stress." _

Comment: While sailboat hulls rarely would experience 25% loading, they do experience a large number of cycles at smaller percentage loads. The percentage of loading experienced is higher in high stress areas and so, as predicted by the Insurance Industry study, those areas are more likely to fail first.

_"Many fiberglass boats are still in service after fifty years. Today's resin systems and manufacturing methods certainly have improved, suggesting we set our goal for 75 - 100 years. I'm not sure we can do accelerated testing out to 100 years, but I do know that there are a lot of 50-year old boats out there that could be cut up and tested!"_

Comment: Again this reference makes the point that while many of these 50 year old boats are still in service, resin systems and manufacturing methods certainly have improved since those boats were constructed.

Jeff


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Jeff, at my age, the boat will definitely outlive me. ;

Gary


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

travlineasy said:


> Jeff, at my age, the boat will definitely outlive me. ;
> 
> Gary


Gary,

That is a sad statement whether it is you or the boat that makes it to fiddler's green first. Either way, hopefully, you will have many years to test the durability of your boat.

Jeff


----------



## jdThaw (Aug 6, 2015)

notwithstanding all the engineering technical jumbo...powerboat hulls from the 50's, construction methods...resin ratio's and on and on....
Fact is my hull will be around 100 years from now..with normal care...I've inspected every nook and cranny...very good construction methods used on her...all the taping, bonding, hull to deck joint ,etc is excellent...Charlie Morgan built good , strong boats..and anything that isn't an OI sails exceptionally well...though the OI line was well built too.
I should add that in 1978 I bought a 1971 Morgan 35 keel CB sloop... then, after doing an extensive complete refit myself, to include installation of a new 2 cyl yanmar 15, replaced the atomic 4, all new standing and running rigging, and everything else you can imagine... I sailed and lived aboard for 5 years island hopping all the way down to Bequia and back to Fl....captained Morgan OI 41's and 462's for a USVI charter company, crewed on a 52 catamaran in St Martin...after this in mid '80's I was a yacht broker in Ft Laud. for 2 years...
anyway....Jeff H at the beginning of this thread you reference the Hunter 36 @ 17,000 lbs...I guess you meant the Cherubini 37,...the H 36 weighed 13,500 lbs...I did consider a Hunter Cher. 37...but would much rather have my classic WI 36, which is far better constructed, stronger and prettier...the use of mild steel on the WI 36 was a shame though, again completely refit with SS on my beauty......because of this mild material not many left would be my guess..only perhaps 10-15 hulls, that would be well found and sea ready... can't buy any of the fatigue ,etc. comments on this hull...it is simply well made...period...I have an old surveyor friend, of 40 yrs,... well known thruout west coast of fl., who I worked with at the CSY factory back in the day, he surveyed my boat in 2010...when informing him of my about to purchase it......he raved about the boat, and let me say, he was more than enthusiastic about me buying it!!...this from a guy who has spent 5 days a week for 35 years inspecting boats for professional survey...a higher recommendation simply cannot be found...


----------



## under8ed (Mar 29, 2016)

jdThaw, Now that you have had your boat a few months, do you have any recommendations for someone interested in one. The owner has no knowledge of the steel discussed here, so I presume that has not been done. This one appears to be in great shape from pictures, some newer rigging, and it has the modified transom.


----------



## jdThaw (Aug 6, 2015)

Under8..I have spent many hundreds of hours in the past 8 months working on my beauty...too much to write about...please...go to cruisers forum, find my name JTHAW....click on it.....go to my album to see many pics and comments on the West Indies 36...such a fine classic..
Where can I look at the one you are looking at? online? pics? details? where?....great boats, ultra strong...my boat will be around 100 yrs from now, with proper care...
if you'd like, please contact me to get extensive info on these...


----------



## under8ed (Mar 29, 2016)

I thank you, will check out the site.. Almost hate to do this for fear of generating more interest. but I guess if I miss out, it will be only my fault. Have the cash, have contacted the owner, and it's only a few hours away, but I've yet to convince the spouse the time is right.. wwwboats.co_.. 
I cannot yet post links, but google will locate it right away, it's a 1977, located in Wrightsville Beach, NC. She looks just like your own.
(except for the transom, which looks great & adds performance)


----------



## jdThaw (Aug 6, 2015)

some additional comments and musings on the 1976 Heritage West Indies 36....
hands down; strength, thickness, longevity far exceeds the H37, or any other standard production boat; P's, E's, C;s, B's I's H's...
only 4 of these hulls were retrofitted with sugar scoop transom....which IMHO looks great...
While the WI 36 is not a joinery queen down below....they do have a raw, bulky, thick, strong, solid feel to them, immediately felt upon stepping aboard; overbuilt would apply..when comparing them to any standard production boat...
after spending many hundreds of hours on her ( only sailed her 350 miles or so...I am still amazed at the solid strength she exudes..
all the tabbing, deck to hull flange, keel bolts, mast step , bulkheads etc are excellent. though mine has had extensive , comprehensive refit. The Achilles heel was/ is the money saved at production, by using mild steel for the backing plates, athwartship stringers and mast step. at 40 years of age these now need attention...
the fatigue brought up above?....Bunk...OK, garbage....short of 3 circumnavigations....there simply is little to no fatigue factor...
the extensive, time consuming, expensive refit mine has had insures her longevity for the next 50 years and beyond...truly, remarkable...truly a good old boat classic...RARE...only 40 made '76-79, factory closed amid major economic downturn...
The boat sails excellent for a cruiser...comparing phrf seconds is not important to cruisers......its a cruising gem...if I had wanted a phrf racer i'd have bought one...its a great cruising boat.. though I do know of 2 that were raced extensively locally 5-20 years ago


----------



## jdThaw (Aug 6, 2015)

Under 8..I have extensive knowledge of this particular boat, You need to contact [email protected],com...cant pm you!


----------



## Gary B. (Mar 22, 2017)

Jeff

I am glad I caught this conversation. I was just looking for ideas on what to replace my 30 year old roller furl with. The one that came with my boat is undersized and needs new bearings....again. My HYC is the last hull of the West Indies 36. A tall rig sloop. Hummmm... The documentation says she is a Chrysler 37 Hull number 001. Hardware is stamped with HYC.

Please tell me more. Can you tell me what sail maker customized the rig. I also replaced the mast step. Fortunately I noticed this before I made an offer on the boat.

Any insight would be appreciated.

Capt. Gary B.


----------



## daniel (May 5, 2017)

*Re: 1976 morgan heritage/westindies 36*



jdThaw said:


> I know this is an old post....But having just bought one, hull #4... 7/2015...I'll have to disagree with the majority of the quote above...having worked at both Irwin, and CSY factories in the '70's and commissioned Endeavor's..to set the record straight:...This West Indies 36 is not only a TANK, at 17000 lbs.!!!.... But sails fast!!! at 700 sq. ft SA.....docile is NOT a word to be describing this true classic thoroughbred...
> everything FRP is thick, stout and strong...an incredible boat... what is true.....the mild steel used for the mast step, and below sole stringers...needs to be refit....mine is refit with Stainless Steel......awesome!!....this design is My dream boat!!!!!!!... my boat, with its total SS refit is unsurpassed... a true classic,... built like a battle tank...and will easily sail head to head with a Tartan 37...good luck finding one...only 40 were made....


I have a 1976 Morgan Heritage West Indies 36. Very solid Hull. Wonderful sailing vessel. May need to sell her. Shoot me an email if interested. Greenport, Long Island


----------



## wjmuseler (Feb 15, 2016)

If you need access to some of the original drawings they are here: westindies36.com/index_files/Document%20Files.html
They are full scale scans so all the details should be very clear.

Will Museler
Heritage West Indies 36 'Mystere' Hull #1


----------



## Mark Sullivan (May 24, 2018)

I am looking at purchasing 1983 Heritage West Indies 36...any comments comparing their construction quality versus the 1977 build discussed ad nauseum already would be appreciated. Did they have the problem with steel frequently mentioned?

Thanks for any help.


----------



## Knobee (May 31, 2017)

under8ed said:


> I thank you, will check out the site.. Almost hate to do this for fear of generating more interest. but I guess if I miss out, it will be only my fault. Have the cash, have contacted the owner, and it's only a few hours away, but I've yet to convince the spouse the time is right.. wwwboats.co_..
> I cannot yet post links, but google will locate it right away, it's a 1977, located in Wrightsville Beach, NC. She looks just like your own.
> (except for the transom, which looks great & adds performance)


I bought this boat in June of 2017. It was still sitting exactly where it was when these photos were taken.


----------



## Knobee (May 31, 2017)

Knobee said:


> I bought this boat in June of 2017. It was still sitting exactly where it was when these photos were taken.


And now she's happily sitting in Northwest Creek Marina in New Bern. I'm about 80% liveaboard and she's scheduled for a repowering (Beta Marine 30).

The more I deal with the boat, the more I love the boat.

(and yes, I'm posting to a really old thread) :devil


----------



## midwesterner (Dec 14, 2015)

Knobee said:


> Knobee said:
> 
> 
> > I bought this boat in June of 2017. It was still sitting exactly where it was when these photos were taken.
> ...


Congratulations, I'm so glad to hear of the update on your boat. They do sound like great boats and they are beauties.

I have been planning for several years for a semi-retirement / retirement that would include living aboard. I spent an inordinate number of hours on active captain searching the Eastern seaboard for affordable marinas, not too far from the coast, that might offer some hurricane protection and be accessible for me to fly to during my summer and winter breaks from my seasonal job. I had identified New Bern as the place I would likely move any boat I purchased. Then the hurricane hit. It seemed very ironic that I had planned on having a boat there by that time. A change in my employment situation delayed my plan and caused me to miss out on the hurricane there.

How is the area doing with recovery? I am getting closer to the time when I might be able to consider a purchase. I have liked the Carolinas and Georgia, and the Outer Banks area, when I have vacationed there on places like Cumberland Island National Seashore, and Daufuskie Island. New Bern seems to me to be the right latitude for tolerable year-round weather and an easy sail to a variety of interesting points both North and South.

I would love to hear your experience in the area, and any recommendations on marinas.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Knobee said:


> I bought this boat in June of 2017. It was still sitting exactly where it was when these photos were taken.


Did you buy that boat from Brad and Holly? That looks like their old boat and they kept the boat on the Nuese River.

Jeff


----------



## Knobee (May 31, 2017)

midwesterner said:


> Congratulations, I'm so glad to hear of the update on your boat. They do sound like great boats and they are beauties.
> 
> [....]
> 
> I would love to here your experience in the area, and any recommendations on marinas.


*I tried to send this as a message, but since I only have 4 posts (5 now!), I'm not allowed to send private messages (sigh).*

Hey! Glad to answer questions as I can...

I moved Loafer's Glory up to Northwest Creek Marina in New Bern 2 weeks before Florence hit. It was horrific.

Northwest Creek Marina is far enough up the river that we have no lunar tides. We have wind tides. Easterly winds raise the water level and westerly winds lower the water level. We had a strong easterly wind with Florence and it brought 9.5' of storm surge to us - we remained above "normal" for about 4 days. About a week later, we had westerly winds that took the water down about three feet (from normal).

Our docks are NOT floating, so prior to the hurricane we had to tie off making sure that we weren't going to sink by being held down too hard, and not so loose that we would drift out / into others... anyway... yeah, it sucked.

Regarding New Bern marinas: Bridgepoint Marina was destroyed. Grand Marina suffered some damage and their associated hotel (where the showers and toilets are) was damaged to the point that it is not expected to re-open until April or May (they are offering free pump outs until the hotel re-opens).

I love (with a capitol LOVE) Northwest Creek Marina - we are across the river from New Bern city, and a hurricane hole... The harbormaster staff are incredible, the facility is outstanding and the other sailors in the marina are great folks. We are allowed to work on our boats at no fee, a weekly (?) pump out is included in the dock fee (I have a composting head so I don't use it). The marina facilities are great - being associated with a neighborhood, there is a pool and a gym facility here, but much of it (including washers and dryers) were damaged in the hurricane, we are still awaiting replacement and a bit of rebuilding - it is happening.

My part of the marina (the circle) was out of power for 84 days, and there are still 3 docks that don't have power - the underlying wiring on the docks were damaged and work is continuing to get it back up and going. Monthly electrical costs are _not_ included in dock fees.

I have no idea were I was going with this, but I've gotta say that Northwest Creek Marina is awesome. Come visit some time!

The only negative thing I can say is that the marina is 7 miles from the nearest grocery store and there is not a courtesy vehicle available.

Oh yeah, sailing here is great too. ;-)

Let me know if you have any specific questions and I'll answer them (probably better to start a new thread somewhere, I guess...)

AlanC
S/V Loafer's Glory


----------



## Knobee (May 31, 2017)

Jeff_H said:


> Did you buy that boat from Brad and Holly? That looks like their old boat and they kept the boat on the Nuese River.


No, from Rick. She was docked at a private slip on Carolina Beach (Canal Drive) for a _long_ time before I bought her.


----------



## midwesterner (Dec 14, 2015)

Knobee, thanks for the information. It all sounds good. I sent you a private message, and I thought maybe you might be able to answer back, since I initiated the contact.

Bridgepoint Marina was one I called. They seemed a bit cheaper than Grand, since they were across the river from the main part of town. Then there was the daily opening of the bridge to schedule around.

The Northwest Creek Marina sounds like a great place. I appreciate the information you've provided.


----------

