Jump to content

Historic Boats for sale online


alan_fincher

Featured Posts

1 hour ago, John Brightley said:

Elizabeth at Stockton in December 1984:

post-23238-0-13849500-1451584325_thumb.jpg

Eeerm there appears to be a large phallic like object made out of balloons on the aerial about a 1/3rd the way back on the roof of Elizabeth.

Edited by Ray T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, magnetman said:

Wood floats on water. steel and iron sink.

A narrow boat with less draught is going to be less trouble and go along better on narrow canals.

:banghead:

Not if the back end is so far out the water that it will barely go along at all>

But I give up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

I don't get it.

As I have already said, it would be highly unusual in an unconverted motor not to have to add ballast to get the back end down enough - otherwise you would typically have part of the blade thrashing around out of water.

I really can't see it matters how much of the total weight is the bottom of the boat, and how much is the necessary ballast to pile on top of it.

I thought it was about loaded boats. I also thought (perhaps wrongly) that boats with wooden bottoms would be able to carry more tons of cargo. The logical conclusion would therefore be that comparing a wooden bottom boat with an all metal boat carrying the same amount of cargo the wooden bottom one would be less deep in the water leading to improved handling and "swimming" characteristics.


On canals that is. Obvsiouly on deep water it would be different but I expect that a lot of narrow boat steerers never went on rivers anyway.

 

I found the answer to Ray T's question quite eye opening. So it seems to be a traditional belief or "lore" of some sort

Edited by magnetman
typo and added a few words at the end
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are we talking about boats carrying their maximum load?

Or the type of boats being recently discussed in this thread, none of which are likely to be commercially loaded?

They are two different things, entirely, surely?

Our "Flamingo" is significantly harder work to steer than an equivalent unconverted "Town" class motor, because the heavy conversion is equivalent to it being something between one third and one half loaded.  If we chose to ballast it down to the equivalent of it carrying a load of 20 tons or more, it would undoubtedly become a lot harder work still.

This has nothing to do with what the bottoms are made of though.  That would only be an issue if naturally the boat sat low enough in the water with no added ballast.  Most unconverted boats simply will not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This wooden bottom discussion thing started with a comment by Ray T about a bloke called Mike H.

I've no idea who he is but I admit I assumed he was someone who at some point steered loaded narrow boats in commercial trade.


Happy to be wrong but that was what I was basing my comments on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

This wooden bottom discussion thing started with a comment by Ray T about a bloke called Mike H.

I've no idea who he is but I admit I assumed he was someone who at some point steered loaded narrow boats in commercial trade.


Happy to be wrong but that was what I was basing my comments on.

No, actually it didn't, it came from here.....

On 12/5/2017 at 16:25, billybobbooth said:

You are very true, if i was in a position i would have it as its the sort of boat i would be after hull wise. Most boats have had steel replaced and if you ever stear or use a boat with a wooden bottom there far better in the water in my opp.

Ray then latched on to that with a comment about what an ex boatman had said, but I still maintain that for those of us unlikely to ever load a full commercial load that it is a red herring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, magnetman said:

This wooden bottom discussion thing started with a comment by Ray T about a bloke called Mike H.

I've no idea who he is but I admit I assumed he was someone who at some point steered loaded narrow boats in commercial trade.


Happy to be wrong but that was what I was basing my comments on.

Mike H is a retired Narrow boat captain who worked for Barlows and BW. He comes from 5 generations of boaters. His first boats were the motor Gort and the butty Grace, he took charge of these at the age of 15. So he is not just "a bloke". Besides it was Billybob Booth who first mentioned wooden bottomed boats. 

Also you have to be aware that through lack of opportunity many boaters were educationally deprived. That however did not mean they were thick, far far from it. They had a lot more savey than many who use the cut today.

Edited by Ray T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a bloke? Is he a woman then?

 

 

9 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

No, actually it didn't, it came from here.....

Ray then latched on to that with a comment about what an ex boatman had said, but I still maintain that for those of us unlikely to ever load a full commercial load that it is a red herring.

OK fair enough I went off on a tangent there. Anyway I found it interesting while it lasted but as you say nobody uses narrow boats commercially any more so it irrelevant really.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, magnetman said:

Not a bloke? Is he a woman then?

 

 

OK fair enough I went off on a tangent there. Anyway I found it interesting while it lasted but as you say nobody uses narrow boats commercially any more so it irrelevant really.

 

"Nobody uses narrow boats commercially any more." What about many historical boats still used to deliver coal, fuel etc. If that isn' t commercial use I don't know what is. May I suggest you look at the fuel boats tracking thread. Nick Wolfe in Aldgate is very much a commercial enterprise. Aldgate is an ex GU large Woolwich.

Also:

Gosty Hill.png

Edited by Ray T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all wood floats. The mahogany tiller handle off TYCHO came loose and fell in the cut. It never came up again. Wooden boats do have an afinity with water that steel does not. But does a wooden bottomed steel/iron boat swim better than an all steel/iron? Can't see how that can be so, but there certainly is a difference in feel. After YARMOUTH lost her wooden bottoms for steel, something was lost. It's hard to pin it down, but the boat - whilst swimming better than ever due mainly to an 18' stern swim - just 'felt' different. More 'clang' and less 'thump'.

Jim's ELIZABETH (it'll never be anyone elses) is a joy to sit in, yarn, and sample home brew. And yes, he did clout a motorway pier on the Trent in fog. The Old Lady took it, though some of the Mahogany cabin side had to be replaced according to Jim. An era passing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As no one on here so far has admitted to ever steering a working boat with wooden bottom, I with throw my three hapence in. Back in the 1960's I used to crew Pisces which was a Small Northwich riveted iron hull with an elm bottom. As I had nothing to compare it with, I cannot state whether it was easier or harder to steer than a steel boat with a steel bottom, but one thing I can remember was that there were always several inches of water in the bottom of the boat, and whilst it was pumped out regularly some water had to be maintained in order to prevent the upper surface of the bottom boards from drying out. I wonder whether that dead weight in the bottom of the boat made it more stable.

One other point about wooden bottoms, It has been suggested that the wooden bottom was contained within the hull sides. I am not sure that is correct, my recollection is that the bottom was underneath the hull sides, being pinned to them through the cast knees. the edges were then protected by a semi eliptical guard iron pinned to the sides of the bottom boards.

Edited by David Schweizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

As no one on here so far has admitted to ever steering a working boat with wooden bottom, I with throw my three hapence in. Back in the 1960's I used to crew Pisces which was a Small Northwich riveted iron hull with an elm bottom. As I had nothing to compare it with, I cannot state whether it was easier or harder to steer than a steel boat with a steel bottom, but one thing I can remember was that there were always several inches of water in the bottom of the boat, and whilst it was pumped out regularly some water had to be maintained in order to prevent the upper surface of the bottom boards from drying out. I wonder whether that dead weight in the bottom of the boat made it more stable.

One other point about wooden bottoms, It has been suggested that the wooden bottom was contained within the hull sides. I am not sure that is correct, my recollection is that the bottom was underneath the hull sides, being pinned to them through the cast knees. the edges were then protected by a semi eliptical guard iron pinned to the sides of the bottom boards.

With the 'Bantocks' such as the one listed what would have been the chine plank was still wood and did indeed butt up to the iron sides. It made fitting one out interesting but did allow for air to circulate through the boat behind the knees, at least in our case.

Ive steered Sagitta, Usk and Vulcan and something about Usk seemed smoother. Could have just been me being more careful with a wooden boat but it didnt feel more stressful just smoother. Not sure if that helps at all but my observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best handling  boat built for carrying mixed cargo ever steered was all wooden , swam like a fish sank like a stone . ( thus disproving theory that even if you have lots of wood it can still sink)

star class wooden Guccc motor far nicer to steer than either star class or town class motor. 

Only once steered star class butty but  towed one a few times  felt heavier than star class butty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose if its a motor with a wooden bottom then the engine beds are fixed to the wood which could make a difference to the "smoothness" of running compared to engine beds being attached to metal.


There's going to be less noise.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

As no one on here so far has admitted to ever steering a working boat with wooden bottom, I with throw my three hapence in. Back in the 1960's I used to crew Pisces which was a Small Northwich riveted iron hull with an elm bottom. As I had nothing to compare it with, I cannot state whether it was easier or harder to steer than a steel boat with a steel bottom, but one thing I can remember was that there were always several inches of water in the bottom of the boat, and whilst it was pumped out regularly some water had to be maintained in order to prevent the upper surface of the bottom boards from drying out. I wonder whether that dead weight in the bottom of the boat made it more stable.

One other point about wooden bottoms, It has been suggested that the wooden bottom was contained within the hull sides. I am not sure that is correct, my recollection is that the bottom was underneath the hull sides, being pinned to them through the cast knees. the edges were then protected by a semi eliptical guard iron pinned to the sides of the bottom boards.

Some images of Sculptor for you all - yes she still retains a wooden bottom. David is correct in that the wooden bottom is not contained within the hull sides but rather sits under the hull sides with some big bolts up through the knees.  The other image is of Sculptor with about 17 tons of coal - a delight to handle as she is with only a few tons of ballast. Oh and you have to be most careful when pressure washing as there is a seal between the sides and the bottom which you have got to be careful not to damage.  Dry dock Braunston Marina 26-Sep-14. Sculptor doesn't leak through the bottom (there is the slightest of weeps in one place but only enough to make the wood damp) but does retain some water which gets there through the weather/rain and runs under the forward engine room bulkhead.

DSC_0438.JPG.b3ce225b2f5b144d46d73541a7b8e818.JPG

DSC_1929.JPG

Edited by Leo No2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

As no one on here so far has admitted to ever steering a working boat with wooden bottom, I with throw my three hapence in. Back in the 1960's I used to crew Pisces which was a Small Northwich riveted iron hull with an elm bottom. As I had nothing to compare it with, I cannot state whether it was easier or harder to steer than a steel boat with a steel bottom, but one thing I can remember was that there were always several inches of water in the bottom of the boat, and whilst it was pumped out regularly some water had to be maintained in order to prevent the upper surface of the bottom boards from drying out. I wonder whether that dead weight in the bottom of the boat made it more stable.

One other point about wooden bottoms, It has been suggested that the wooden bottom was contained within the hull sides. I am not sure that is correct, my recollection is that the bottom was underneath the hull sides, being pinned to them through the cast knees. the edges were then protected by a semi eliptical guard iron pinned to the sides of the bottom boards.

I have seen craft that have been rebottomed with steel to replace a wooden base, these clearly show a step up at both stem and stern posts rather than the usual level base. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, BWM said:

I have seen craft that have been rebottomed with steel to replace a wooden base, these clearly show a step up at both stem and stern posts rather than the usual level base. 

I don't actually think there is any contradiction in the various statements people are making.

Nobody I think has suggested that on something like a "Star" the wooden bottoms are in any way contained within the steel or iron sides.  Clearly they are not, sitting directly fixed to the knees, but below any of the metalwork of the sides of the hull.

This means that if you replace 3" boards directly with 10mm steel, the actual total depth of the boat throughout most of its length is reduced by in excess of 2.5 inches.

However, if you make no changes to the stem or stern arrangements, then these will continue to come down as far as they were when the wooden boards were in place.  Hence, as you rightly say, the steel baseplarte must be set higher, resulting in a "step".

Put another way, the 4' 2" depth of an original "Star" includes the elm bottoms - convert them directly to steel, and I believe most of the boat then reduces to under 4 feet.

I'm sure there were some recent(-ish) pictures of a wooden bottomed "Star" being changed to steel bottom, but after a bit of searching, I can't immediately find them.

EDIT:

Not terribly helpful, but here is Deneboa on dock, one of the few other "Star's" beside Sculpto to retain its wooden bottom.  In this picture many of the planks are off, but you can clearly see that those remain sit below the metal hull sides, and are in no way enclosed by them.....

IMG_0750.JPG

Edited by alan_fincher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

As no one on here so far has admitted to ever steering a working boat with wooden bottom, I with throw my three hapence in. Back in the 1960's I used to crew Pisces which was a Small Northwich riveted iron hull with an elm bottom. As I had nothing to compare it with, I cannot state whether it was easier or harder to steer than a steel boat with a steel bottom, but one thing I can remember was that there were always several inches of water in the bottom of the boat, and whilst it was pumped out regularly some water had to be maintained in order to prevent the upper surface of the bottom boards from drying out. I wonder whether that dead weight in the bottom of the boat made it more stable.

One other point about wooden bottoms, It has been suggested that the wooden bottom was contained within the hull sides. I am not sure that is correct, my recollection is that the bottom was underneath the hull sides, being pinned to them through the cast knees. the edges were then protected by a semi eliptical guard iron pinned to the sides of the bottom boards.

Wooden bottom with a steel hull for comparison

gallery_5000_522_121451.jpg

gallery_5000_522_202640.jpg

To my knowledge not all steel hulls were built as above.

P1010300.jpg

Edited by Ray T
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

THe picture of the composite boat is excellent, and shows well how the bottoms overlap the sides, but that the metal at the back then extends down by a further 3" or so, such that it all aligns.  If the bottom were replaced in steel, that's where a step would result.

However the steel bottomed picture is not particularly relevant, as it is a Middle Northwich that has round chines and a slightly V-ed bottom.  Not at all the same construction as most of the steel boats in the GUCCCo fleet, so not really a valid comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ray T said:

I did say: To my knowledge not all steel hulls were built as above.

I know!

8 only in fact, or 16 if you count the buttys.

They are unusual beasts, (and I should know!......).

I'm still wondering who bought Tycho - anybody care to own up to it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found some pictures.........

First clearly shows a boat with some of it's planks still in situ, but a large amount of the bottom already replaced in steel.

I't is very obvious how this has reduced the total depth of the sides by some 2.5"

You can just about see the resulting "step" where the front of the boat now extends lower than the new steel base plate.......

IMG_5394.JPG.bbcf9afa464d875f0b0d61e7fd78a92f.JPG

 

IMG_5397.JPG.5eb05efe3e20bfa8a71304898ec982a6.JPG

And for comparison the back end, (which, sadly is now a "front end, as the butty shown has been cut and made into two motorised boats....

IMG_5396.JPG.ad9654c1a6b1099b5246eabcc91e6cf0.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2017 at 11:36, magnetman said:

Almost identical to a boat I owned called "orianne" she was a "mk1 bantock" motorised in the same way but with an anti ventilation plate.

 

Forum member Arnot bought it from me and some interesting info has been added to the historic ships register. Including an unverified claim that she was motorised "in the early or mid 20th century"

 

So were these boats motorised while still trading? I always assumed that it was when they were first used for pleasure boating.

 

I think the claimed age of conversion is incorrect (in the case of Orianne) no date is claimed for he eBay one.

 

Very similar boat except orianne had s steel shoe.

In around 1964  a guy who was a mate of Jim Yates had a converted butty called Orianne he moored  some where on the BCN & sometimes left it moored at Norbury Jcn I"m not sure if it was the same boat but likely as the bow from memorywas a nicer shape than the normal BCN boats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.