David Schweizer
-
Posts
11,472 -
Joined
-
Days Won
22
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by David Schweizer
-
-
This is the engine enclosure we had on Helvetia
-
20 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:
Not my words. I haven't checked the exact words that were used but it's David Blagrove's account of his conversations with Leslie Morton. Let's face it, he'd be the person to know. The more obvious reason for the GUCCCo purchasing narrowboats at that time was that they hadn't fully completed the widening to Birmingham (and never did) and most of the sources of long distance traffic on the fomer GJC were only directly accessible by narrowboats. They presumably built what they thought they needed for the intended traffic. Over ambitious as it turned out but surely the more critical factor is the intended lifespan (in terms of economic payback as much as physical) of the fleet rather than the size of it. Wide boats would have been potentially economically viable with widening of the Leicester line and the route to the Warwickshire coalfield which was the ambition.
Both Thomas Clayton (Paddington) and FMC operated wide boats on the northern GJC in addition to other small private operators. Very small numbers of craft in relation to narrowboats of course.
I find it hard to believe I'm telling you or Alan anything you haven't forgotten, I'm sure you've both got - or once had - the same reference material.
I knew both David Blagrove and Leslie Morton, but have no recollection of either of them ever referring to any plan to use wide boats on the G.U. I have not seen such an ambition stated in any published information, and would be interested to learn of your source.
-
45 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:
42' is the nominal channel width but for geological/topographic reasons it wasn't achieved everywhere and yes the constraints of Tring cutting and more notably Blisworth and Braunston tunnels were detrimental to the economic viability of using broad craft, not least in relation to the impact it had on other craft.
So there is some precedent for your statement, but to claim the canal was never traditionally built for broad craft isn't true. Even Leslie Morton was quoted by David Blagrove as saying the purchase of the GUCCCo fleet of narrow boats was an interim measure but the GU's plans for further expansion never happened. We shouldn't rewrite history because we don't like someone else's boat.
388 new Narrowboats in three years is a pretty adventurous "interim measure"
-
1 hour ago, magnetman said:
Yes they are doing quite well there. The EA put in an adverse possession claim before the boaters did but several have fenced sections off and been there for quite a number of yars.
I guess on the K&A it is different as the CRT presumably own the land whereas the molesey moorings were unregistered land.
Having said that the K&A may be interesting as it was at one stage closed as I understand it. This may have legal implications around land ownership after the canal was restored.
I think there is a chance that the boaters who have been staying a long time at Molesey may end up with possession of their mooring plots.
Certainly interesting to see what happens. They have been there about 15 yars. I used to moor there quite often before they turned up. There was a scout base there with a Russell Newbery generator.
The Canal towpath where George Ward is moored remained in the ownership of BW for the period when the waterway was not operational, it was also a registered Public Footpath. When all Public Footpaths were closed during the Foot and Mouth epidemic Parish Councils were required to formally close them and post notices to that effect. I was Parish Clerk at the time and was responsible for organizing the closures. When I contacted BW to arrange this for the towpath, they advised me that they would be arranging the closure themselves under powers already issued by the Government to all public bodies with public footpaths on their land.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, kris88 said:
Not if it’s true.
Having received in service training on the subject when I worked for the Local Authority, I can assure you that Libel Law is not as simple as that.
-
40 minutes ago, matty40s said:
Have you met Tony then?
No, didnt think so, just on a thunderous forum near here.
I have, when he was working a hired single motor on the GU in the 1960's. If I described his observed boating practice and behaviour, I could be guilty of Libel
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Tracy D'arth said:
Glycol is what it is supposed to be so that it does not evaporate too soon. The colour would be unimportant to the function.
Hateful device anyway, by far prefer to use a manometer occasionally than introduce another potential leak point - or 4 - into the system.
Agreed. The sight glass on mine developed a leak which deposited the contents of a calor bottle into the gas locker. I removed it and fitted a test point near the boiler, checking it when I did a service. Every BSS examiner who subsequently examind the boat, was far happier to use a manometer, rather than break their back trying to read a bubble tester in a dark gas locker.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, David Mack said:
But is the OP's problem caused by water coming under the door, or through the vents?
Assuming that the doors have vent covers on the outside, it is unlikely that much (if any) water is getting through them to cause such a high degree of damage, the areas of damage suggest infiltration from the bottom. I have seen many examples, including my own boat, where there was similar damage to the door bottoms, caused by water leaching across the botton edges, and the original doors did not have the vents in them. I replaced the doors with steel ones with wooden infill panels.
-
5 hours ago, magnetman said:
The cause wants looking at as well. Is this a case of rain water splashing up through the vents?
The standard practice on wooden exterior doors is, depending on the door thickness, to rout a 6mm to 8mm drip moulding into the bottom of the door, about 5mm from the front edge of the door. This breaks the natural tendancy for the water to migrate across the door bottom and cause it to drip onto the door cill. Unfortunately, from the illustration this will merely transfer the problem to the wooden door cill. So the alternative is to eithe fit a waterproof cill, or fit rainbars to the bottom of the outside surface of the doors, fitting small Parliament hinges to allow for the rain bar clearance when the doors are opened.
-
If the alternator still has it's original pulley, it may be worth having the crankshaft pulley groove widened to 13.5mm, and fitting a 13.5mm alternator pulley and belt. I had to do that when I upgraded my alternator to a A127 70amp, and was experiencing belt slip with accompanying screeching. The widened pulley grooves and belt cured the problem.
-
1 hour ago, RickS said:
Thanks David, I have to go into Braunston some time this week. I'll pop in and have a chat.
Hope it works out.
By the way, it is Tim that you need to talk to. Will is the painter, Tim manages the dock.
-
You could try Union Canal Carriers in Braunston, ask for Will Hewitt.
-
42 minutes ago, Paul C said:
It all got a bit messy, because you wrote so much. I tried to extract the relevant part but alas I am on a mobile phone since I’m out and about (by a canal, as it happens). I did manage to quote the right part eventually; and I have edited my post to include the missing “never”.
I’m not implying non boaters should be banned - and I feel I ought to pull you up on drawing that conclusion from what I’ve said. It’s like 2+2=17
My point is, on some of the more low quality posts on this forum (I DO NOT include you in those, but I think we can all relate to the type of negativity observed), it is clear that certain members take for granted the free use of their soap box to type drivel and/or personal attacks on others, and aren’t that bothered if the overall effect is to drive away new members or muddy up useful threads into a social media slanging match.
We all know who the regular offenders are, and I, for one, put them on "ignore"
I sold my boat in 2016 after fifty years of boating and no longer own a boat, or go boating. Does that put me into your catagory of people who are not invested in this forum, which I joined on it's first day?
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, archie57 said:
No - Mr Bush's boat was a composite (I'm guessing it still was then) FMC steamer on which I travelled on one occasion!
If you are referring to the engine, it certainly was not a steamer in 1967. We met up at the Leicester IWA Festival where Binky was very proud of his "new" engine, which he claimed was the most powerfull engine fitted in a narrowboat at the time. The Festival Organizers were organizing Tug-o-war competitions and we challenged Pearl. Our boat, Pisces, pulled Pearl backwards along the entire length of the contest. What we had not told him was that Pisces had a 36HP V4 English Turner fitted, wich proved to be more powerfull than his 3 cylinder Bolinder.
-
There was a converted narrowboat called Pearl, moored in Aylesbury Basin in the 1960's. It was owned by Binky Bush, who was one of the founders of the Narrowboat Owners Club. Is this the same boat?
-
10 minutes ago, magnetman said:
It would be interesting to see how much nuisance a random passer by would have to cause in order that the boat person acquired a restraining order against them.
It takes all sorts but I think messing with the locals could lead to significant negative outcomes.
Arrr the boats still floating ?
Of course it is entirely possible the locals think of the geyser as some sort of amicable "character" rather than someone who has threatened to harm waterways management staff.
Let me assure you that most of the "locals" do not think of him as an amicable character, rather a nuisance who has caused the local Emergency Services a lot of trouble over the years.
-
3
-
-
14 hours ago, magnetman said:
This is an interesting assertion. Why would it make a difference how the head was positioned? I also have bronze and also a chromed cast iron the same as the first one below and yes they are very nice to use but I'm struggling slightly to work out why a similar thing with the head in line with the shaft would actually be less efficient in use.
It is an interesting theory you have. I'd love an explanation as to why it would be the case.
This form of windlass clearly follows the forged wrought iron type which was made that way due to the material being used. I think you could cast one with an eye in line, it would look naff and be heavier but I can't see why it would be less efficient in use.
Over the past fifty plus years. I have used both types of windlass, and have always found that those with the head set at 45 degrees to the shaft seem to be more easy to use. I have no definitive answer as to why this should be, except that the shaft on the 45 degree ones are operating from the outside circumference of the spindle wheras the 90 degree ones are operating from inside the circumference.
13 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:Interesting that you describe your copy as a 'Harry Neale' and I see it has some stamped mark on it.
May I ask what the stamping says? I have what is supposedly an original and I very rarely use it, because it's only one my seven windlasses that is precious.
The bronze windlass I not my one, but it is identical to mine. Mine has nothing stamped on it, and I have to admit, I cannot see anything stamped on the one in the photo. The reason I describe it as a copy of a Harry Neal is because Lawrence Hogg, who commissioned them, told me that the pattern used was an original Harry Neal Windlass.
-
1 minute ago, Ray T said:
Like wot this is?
Bought from Warwickshire Fly Boat Co., Stockton Locks.
You beat me to it whilst I was adding the photo, and yes, bought from Warwickshire Fly.
-
I have five or six traditional windlasses, but tended only to use two of them, a Cast Bronze copy of a Harry Neale Windlass, and a chrome plated double headed welded steel windlass. Both have the head set at 45 degees to the shaft, which makes them more efficient to use.
-
16 hours ago, Morris said:
Thanks for your best guess Dave. I thought it had some age to it but I've not seen any examples by 'old masters' to get the idea of what they are like.
I cringed at the sticker as well. You can forgive that sort of thing at a car boot sale but not really when they are wanting top whack.
After something like forty years of removing retailer's stickers from antique items made from wood, I can safely state that the best fluid for their removal is White Spirit. Simply dampen the sticker with White Spirit and wait a few minutes for it to penetrate through to the adhesive layer, then gently lift the sticker away. If it resists removal repeat the process until it will lift without any difficulty. Once removed, any adhesive residue can be easily cleaned off with a cloth dampened with White Spirit. If you have any doubts about the effect of the White Spirit on the paint, test in an area out of view first.
9 minutes ago, magnetman said:The one in the OP. It was the picture if yours that reminded me of how important it is to see beneath.
The OP stool does not appear to have the vertical boards at the sides like yours.
Maybe they are there but the angle of the photo does not make it all that obvious.
I would be very surprised if it did not have side rails. I have never seen one without them, and their absence would, as you suggest, make the stool a very weak construction.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, magnetman said:
It seems okay but one would need to view the underside construction to ensure that it is a nice firm stool.
To which stool does that comment relate?
-
1 hour ago, MtB said:
Seconded. Strikes me as "Priced to sell to the first viewer".
I'd have happily bought it at double that price.
So how much would you be willing to pay for this one?
-
3 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:
When we went down the Southern Stratford in the 1970's when it was still being run by the NT, there was a notice when you joined it with a list of boats that were too wide to pass a certain lock.
Ah yes, I remember it well, but there was no warning sign in 1968 when we took Pisces down the Lower Stratford, and got firmly stuck in one of the Lapworth locks. The water went down, but the boat stayed suspended in mid air, so we re-filled the lock, but the boat stayed firmly wedged. Strenuous efforts were deployed to release the boat, including tightening the hull chains, applying oil along the rubbing strakes, and the volunteer Lock Keeper's Land Rover working hard. All efforts failed to achieve anything until a large party of walkers arrived. With ropes attached to the rear dollies, and about forty people in two groups on both sides of the canal, and the Land Rover and boat engines both running hard, the boat suddenly popped out of the lock like a champagne bottle cork. Once clear of the lock, we had to reverse through numerous lock back to the junction before we could continue our revised journey. The Southern Stratford had not been re-opened very long and, having read the above post, I now wonder whether our experience led to the erection of the warning sign.
-
17 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:
Some of the above is incorrect. The UK canals are split into three, with centre part in the mthe idlands only accepting a beam of 6ft 10 in or so. Therefore, a wider boat will be limited to the norther canals & rivers or the southern ones, with a sea passage or lorry between the two.
Pedantic Point. I am intrigued to understand why the myth, started by BW, continues to suggest that the maximum width for all single lock canals is 6ft 10ins. Our former boat was 7ft wide and we managed to negotiate all the Central Midlands canals without any difficulty. The narrowest canal we experienced was the Trent and Mersey, which isn't really Central Midlands, and even then we had a couple of inches spare.
A narrowboat micropub?
in New to Boating?
Posted
The Tripboat I used to captain had a bar which sold draught Wadworths 6X. As suggested above, we could only sell the beer after we had set off, and closed the bar before we moored up. That was quite a few years ago, so things may have changed more recently. The only problem with the bar was that we had to carry more kegs in the locker than we were likely to sell as they took up to two days to settle before the beer could be drawn.