Chimney liner

I have a logburner (Little Wenlock), not a range or a stove, but a simple woodburner.

We have recently had the whole house re-decorated/renovated and are about to re-install the burner (we used to use it before) but when we consulted a sweep, he recommended a liner be fitted to the chimney. Currently it is a standard brick chimney, been swept twice a year and has no faults/cracks. It has a "kink" in the uplift, but apart from that it's fine.

To get the liner fitted would cost us over £1500 as he said it would require chopping-out some of the fireplace so they could straighten out the "kink" which, I am led to believe, is quite normal for chimneys in houses such as ours which was built in 1970.

Can anyone shed any light on whether we SHOULD actually have the chimney lined, or whether it would be fine as-is?.

Also, I have just bought a new "exit-flue" for the wenlock, as it used to vent from the back, and the new one is a straight-up flue which I can poke-into the chimney-breast directly straight-up from the top of the woodburner. How far should I "poke" this up the chimney?..... It is about 3" but can be cut.

Thanks!.

Adam.[/list]

Ok you have been advised to have your chimney lined for a reason, because it probably needs it.

The brickwork may be in tact now but what if it corrodes away with the products of combustion in a few years?

Worst Case Scenario - Mortar of the chimney corrodes, spillage occurs (products of combustion escapes), people in the house are affected by carbon monoxide poisoning, the people die.

Yes £1500 is a big price to pay, but is it not worth the piece of mind that you and your family are safe?

If you used it before with no problem?

IMHO, as long as you have got a well fitted/sealed register plate with the stove pipe passing through with an access for sweeping and do the necessary smoke test etc., I wouldn't have thought you'd have a problem.

Ok!................... I'm afraid the terminology is lost on me... IMHO?

I have a fireplace, with a bit of metal that I need to secure to the hearth, through which passes the flue-pipe from the log-burner.

I am not at all convinced that I need t install a liner for the reason that over the last 400 years, did people actually install liners?..... NO!. And their chimneys are still intact and functioning without problem.

I'm willing to tmake that call, as my house is less than 40 years old and I can't see any problem likely at the moment.

(IMHO) In my humble opinion.


The metal your describing is the register plate.
I quite agree with you, think of the wigwam, they just cut a hole in the top of the tent.

Cheers, tryitandsee..... IMHO, I should have realised!!!!!.

Maybe an interesting link to any body thinking chimneys

http://environment.uwe.ac.uk/video/cd_new_demo/conweb/heating/chimneys/section1.htm

We had same query 2 years ago: 1950s house, standard chimney - with kink, used previously with no apparent faults. Decided to line it anyway, just in case, and very pleased we did. Unlike a standard brick chimney, the metal liner heats up very quickly when you light the fire, with immediate improvement on the draw, and no condensation on cold internal stack brickwork. And dead easy to sweep with a 6" brush (which we have done annually, in April, before any winter soot deposit hardens off). For the record, it cost £300 fitted for an 8m liner including conical thingy on the top (but that's West Country prices for you!)

Took two blokes about an hour to fit, cementing it into the top of the stack and fitting to top of burner flue above register plate. With one guy pulling and the other pushing, the liner negotiated the kink without any chopping or chiselling. Did it from a roof ladder without scaffolding. They seemed to know what they were doing and just did it without any fuss.

Apart from any safety issues (which they weren't too bothered with 400 years ago) , I would definitely consider lining to improve efficiency (which they also weren't too bothered with 400 years ago), but £1500 sounds a high price (but you might have a high house, of course).