Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by archie57

  1. 3 hours ago, koukouvagia said:

    Our Braithwaite and Kirke butty has a small stud welded to the stem post.  I've no idea when or why this was added, but it does make it easier when on cross-straps.  It prevents both arms of the rope from slipping over to the same side of the stem post.  I also wonder what purpose the swivel bracket  with the eye was for.




    The bracket is for attaching the chain , used at one time for stopping the boat in locks . must have caused a lot of wear on the stumps!

  2. 3 minutes ago, dave moore said:

    I’ve always said that Sod’s Law bites harder and deeper where boats and boating are concerned. As far as attitudes go these days , all of the old timers , myself included, hold the opinion that things are less pleasant these days . We had the best of it long ago……

      - but it wasn't really that good then........!

  3. 5 hours ago, Tam & Di said:


    In my experience boatmen running a pair simply used the word 'boat' if they meant the one with the motor, and 'butty' for the unpowered one.



    My late friend Hannah Boyes, who was boating 1896 - 1953 on the Grand Junction and connected canals, always talked of a pair as being a Motor  and boat........!

  4. On 15/04/2023 at 11:41, magnetman said:

    Physical restrictions should be in place where wide beam craft can currently fit but where the canal was not made for wide craft. For example Berkhamsted. That road bridge which slopes slightly. You could easily build a concrete structure under there limiting the channel to 7ft6. Whether this would be allowed I don't know. 


    The first one to do would be the A45 bridge out of Braunston turn on the way to Rugby. There should obviously be a width restriction there. 


    Give boat owners 6 months notice of works then sort it out. 


    Quite possibly not allowed by law. I don't know but it would deal with some problems. 


    Not a good idea to alter the A45 bridge leaving Braunston - being a blind bridge you need to be able to pass an oncoming boat there - which I've done many times.

    • Greenie 1
  5. 10 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:


    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.

    I didn't mean to suggest it was still a steamer!  It was 1970 when I travelled with him from the bottom of Wolverhampton to Warwick via Norton Canes

  6. 2 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

    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?

    No - Mr Bush's boat was a composite (I'm guessing it still was then) FMC steamer on which I travelled on one occasion!

    5 hours ago, harrybsmith said:


    I didn't want to distract from the actual topic of the thread as it was a bloomin controversial boat in need of massive amounts of work, but it was ex Thos. Clayton tanker Pearl (wooden) 


    Was a few years ago, I imagine it sank too many times and they got fed up and chainsawed it to bits.


    Once the current steel (nearly historic) boat is done then I will do a wooden one to make up for not saving it ; ) 

    Don't think it would do a chainsaw much good trying to cut up a wooden boat........!

    • Greenie 1
  7. 42 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

    The Coventry also received water pumped from mine workings at Hawkesbury. As was established during the water problems this year it is a canal principally fed by natural discharge and not by reservoir.


    It did have a reservoir - Oldbury, near Mancetter - seems to have disappeared though.......

  8. 5 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:



    Could be there for a while until the tow path side wall is demolished and any rubble in the cut dredged out(navigation stoppage) and the rubble removed from the towpath and a new boundary fence put in (towpath stoppage) is my guess.

    Doubt if they'll dredge the rubble out of the cut because it's probably now "contaminated" which is a good excuse to leave it there......

  9. 4 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

    One thing I don't completely understand is why CRT don't fit some vulcanised rubber strip where boats turn, its the same at Norton Junction. Lovely sandstone edging at Coventry basin, being mashed by boats turning and hitting the edge as often happens.


    Its sad, as replacement costs would be large and unsightly. Appreciate they haven't any money, and that they don't tend to do preventative . Thus perhaps I have answered the question. Surprised the Coventry Canal society/ IWA haven't raised it, or perhaps they have. 



    All the sandstone coping was replaced when the canal basin development took place - so it's only 30ish years old -  and that ridiculous swing bridge was installed, no doubt an architects whim, and doubtless at vast expense!

  10. 18 hours ago, nicknorman said:

    What is sad is that our licence fees and government grant goes in part to paying the salary of Lyn Pegler, whose role it is to create fake news and spin on behalf of CRT. Noticeable by its absence is mention that the Macc was closed long before there was significant drought, due to CRT’s failure to maintain the Todbrook reservoir in a safe state. 

    ..... plus their previous inaction on sorting out the Coombes feeder......

  • 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.