thorne lass

Is that the one that got stuck in Maida Vale Tunnel some time ago? Portholes in the hull (or coamings) will have no effect whatsoever on the structure (other than watertightness) if they incorporate steel flanges, or are those nice ones with 10mm thick tapered weld-in rims from Toplicht (unless of course you also have a phobia about mixing metric with imperial 3/8" plating). The sight does not offend me in principle but it would be nice if they had all followed the shear. If "Beecliffe" is drawing 3' aft then "Drake" is drawing more and will of course displace more. The photo of "Drake" might be Mylor Bridge (Tregatreath Boatyard) but I thought she was at Gweek when I last went there a few years ago. No difference, both nice moorings. Slipping / docking is a problem in Falmouth area. Pendennis Shipyard have the only big hoist and they are into mega yachts, hence mega prices. The old slip at Ponsharden Shipyard was dismantled years ago when Falmouth Marina expanded, and was bought by the late Martin Heard of Tregatreath. I am not sure whether it has been reinstalled there yet but I seem to recall it was 50 tons only, and designed for fishing boats so access underneath a flat bottomed barge was very difficult. As said there are plenty of boats in the area, but mostly within the scope of a 30 tonne Wise.

Look at the run of the middle rubbing band, and compare with the gas cylinder, or the daffs. I'd say (not my calculator) that it is drawing about 3' aft, that 70 to 75 tons is about right and it probably has concrete in the bottom. A JP2 will push that fine, just slow to get going and it won't stop, and it will go round in circles while it is trying, but it won't use a lot of fuel either. It looks as if it is at Gweek, so would be a problem to get a survey done. The nearest affordable slip would be Polruan (Fowey), which means going to sea again. Nice mooring though.

There's another clip about (sorry, you'll have to find your own link) taken when Pride of Dover was run up the same beach, but taken from the ship. I don't think it was so spectacular since "Dover" was an engine down, one of the reasons that ship was broken. I was surprised to hear that both these ships have been scrapped since ferries usually seem to find another life in third world countries and these ones were relatively young. One reason I heard was that they did not have integral ramps, but that doesn't seem an insurmountable difficulty. Perhaps with the clamshell bow design they are less suited for deeper and more exposed waters.

Some further thoughts. 1. I presume that the areas photgraphed are within the main cabin area and are not in lockers that have been stuffed with effects, limiting air flow. 2. It is not unusual for there to be no ventilation under the well deck / forward cockpit and it is often not a problem other than long term corrosion so long as any condensate drops onto the steel bottom and drains aft. It is however a sign of an unconscientious boat fitter and not ideal. 3. Ventilation to the area is not a requirement but is sensible. 4. Condensation forming under the well deck plating can be copious and if it stands it will feed itself or re-cycle, i.e. vapourise and then recondense above. 5. I suspect that your cabin sole (floor) protrudes perhaps slightly forward of the cabin bulkhead, i.e. the bulkhead lining is built on top of it. Your damp problem would appear to be mainly and primarily in the sole, and the damp is then rising up the oak cabin lining boards. I suspect that condensation is dripping or tracking from the well deck underside or the water tank onto this protruding section of cabin sole and saturating it. I can probably help you further with this if indeed you are under warranty from a professional boat fitter but you would need to send me a private email.

For a new boat this is most unacceptable. I suspect that the problem could well be faulty insulation / bare steelwork on the forward bulkhead, in which case there may be problems elsewhere as well.

When Hillmorton Locks were doubled in the 1830's there were culverts and paddles linking each pair of locks to halve water usage off the Braunston pound, and presumably the River Swift at Rugby was helpful in augmenting the Rugby - Hawkesbury pound (via what is termed the Cosford loop).

There is room for an awful lot of "live & let live" in this topic. Beyond mentioning the concept of basic pride and consideration for others (as obviously not necessarily evident in other areas of life, e.g. house dwellers who regard their front gardens as a cross between an SSSI and the local tip) I would comment no further on the human aspects of how you choose to maintain your boat. However the practical aspect is the question "is it being realistic to pay many thousands of pounds for a gleaming coach finish on a narrow boat?" By "coach finish" I don't mean "well painted," but "excessively well painted." I have always regarded narrow boating as potentially a "contact sport" and this is becoming increasingly the case with overgrown banks, narrowed channels and inconsiderate mooring. Whilst I would be the first to remonstrate if somebody pointed a spike-shod boat pole at my boat (except perhaps the likes of Pete Harrison who would know where to safely place it!) I would equally belong to the group who consider that topsides hull blacking is expendable like the tyres on a car, and decks are to be walked on (but not cants or cabin tops!). Branch scratches must be expected on the cabin sides. Working boats were precisely that : working boats, and despite that many crews managed to maintain their boats immaculately, albeit aided by the fact that much of the brightwork was of limited area and in reach of the steerer without straying too far from the tiller. So even if the working areas were worn the boat would be clean and.....er.... shiny. Contrast that with an excessively immaculately painted boat that I saw the other day where the owner had not seen fit to take a mop to his exhaust-sooted counter for many a day or week.

Whether the generator and petrol can can share the same locker as gas cylinders may be a moot point but the fact is that the petrol AND the generator must be stored in a locker of equivalent construction and venting and on that basis the gas locker is the safest bet for most boats if they have the space. Given the fume risk I would suggest that the generator is never run when on board the vessel in ANY location unless it is a suitably permanently installed installation. The suggestion of LPG power is potentially good. LPG is far cheaper and far more convenient than petrol. I am always amazed at the number of burger vans you see in laybys running on petrol when LPG would be far cheaper and of course available since they have it for cooking! The down side for a boat would be that you would have to lug a gas bottle off the boat and connect it up on the bank : not so convenient. BSS is a snapshot in time but I believe the boat owner has some responsibility to maintain the boat is a BSS-worthy condition between BSS inspections. If there were to be a fire or explosion then any insurance assessor spotting a generator or petrol can within a boat would rightly be very suspicious!

Creighton Inlander 27

I'm not too sure about the tippy ash can theory. They have no positive seal and it would only be too easy to leave the lid ajar. I suppose it all depends upon the amount of active embers that pass through your grate.

Strapping posts and the opportunity to practise the related skills will be lost due to health and safety excuses (sorry....concerns) but perhaps also because of the risk of damage to the gate if not properly carried out. There must be some risk of racking the gate joints if a riding turn causes the weight of the boat to come fully on the gate structure, although modern steel gates may resist this better (but might also twist permanently). Unfortunately some of the old boatmen's practices were very rough and would cause damage, hence perhaps the overall dumbing down policy. I well recall Willow Wren's on the grain run treating the gates through Berkhamsted viciously, ramming them open when the levels were nowhere near equalised, but just to clarify for those that don't read these posts too carefully it is definitely the case that a well controlled and surged rope around a strapping stump will not cause damage any more than a couple of hefty blokes swinging on a balance beam. There is also the risk of injury, and there are tales about of one-legged boatmen who had caught their leg whilst strapping. A grit laden rope is an effective chain saw! On the continent strapping is still absolutely normal, and remains the best way of taking the last bit of way off a barge, but all is done at carefully considered slow speeds, especially with direct reversing engines. It used to be said that most wooden Bolinder powered Joshers had had new fore ends at some time, and damage repairs to continental barge bows seem more common where they have been fitted with direct reversing air start engines.

I'm stretching my memory here but I would say it was Harris's of Netherton. The term "Hotholer" also springs to mind but I recall no more. It's not a Bantock as I recall them.

The Tirfor should work but will be slow and those things have a horrible tendency to jam up at key moments. I would reiterate that you should seal all openings aft in case the stern goes under: Exhaust, deck covers, aft doors etc. It is difficult to judge the angles but I would think of using the tree just aft of the boat by the tug bow, although this might try and slew the boat. This might be prevented using a line from the stern to the tree, surged as appropriate. With this sort of exercise speed is of the essence. The stern can then dip under if necessary but will bob up quickly rather than lingering under, hence my suggestion of shoving with a tractor, Land Rover etc. if there is access and the ground will permit. What about a line from the bow, around a snatch block on the tree and led to a tow vehicle on firmer ground away from the river in the access track (if there is any firmer ground!). As said, the higher the water the better and I don't think, from the sound of the plans, that your insurers could fault you for taking swift action on the concensus basis discussed. One point I forgot: the other reason for suggesting the tree on your bank is that those opposite are right on the river bank and could tear out, which might give you a "tree on boat on bank" situation. I would certainly look at anchoring back further away from the river if possible, perhaps just using the trree on the river bank as a lead.

From what the photos show there is no hope of getting a crane anywhere near, and if you could it would have to be a whopper, would need a hard standing built and would cost rather more than £800.00! A lot will depend upon what can be seen when the river is back to normal level. One of the original pictures posted seems to show a slipway leading up to a sort of mill building. Is it a slipway? Could a wrecker truck get there??

If you can get a vehicle in there (Land Rover, tractor, JCB) shove it in with a plank or beam used as a ram between the tractor or w.h.y. and the boat, or the JCB bucket etc. Even if at a frightening angle the boat (if a narrow boat) is highly unlikely to turn over. Narrow boats were very often launched sideways. I guess you are stressed at the moment btu if you can post a photo or clarify the situation a bit more it might help people give more constructive comments. If you can get on the boat safely block up any apertures (vents in hull, exhaust pipe etc.) Rags will do.

What sort of boat? What access? Any location photos? Try ringing Rob Locatelli, River & Canal Services 07860 871071

I don't know Malcolm Burge but I have a strong suspicion that he is not into canal carrying for the money, and just how he has financed his boats is his own private business. If that suspicion is right then one can only applaud him for financing a lifestyle business which helps preserve the ethos of the waterways and historic boats in a better way than any museum can do. If I am wrong then I would hate to see his business model, given that barges of over 1000 tonnes are now generally considered unviable on the mainland on most of the routes available to them.

The BSS evolved from the old Certificate of Compliance ("CofC") which applied to hire boats and commercial boats only from about 1980 as I recall. The C of C system was prompted by Derbyshire County Council who wanted to impose a set of safety standards on boats passing through waterways in their patch. The national C of C scheme was the result of a fear that every Council would impose their own differing regs. I don't recall whether there was any situation with accidents in Derbyshire to prompt concern but it has always been the case that there are various areas of BSS where the need for standards is not based on statistically proven risk, whereas proven risks are ignored. The BSS mandate is to reduce third party and pollution risk but strangely BSS does not see a boat sinking as being a pollution risk.

Thanks Peter, had not heard of ABC so that is useful.

I guess there may be some work for this ship on the Garonne, and the exercise would be viable since ships this sort of size can be bought for less than 100,000 Euros in NL / BE : either too big or too small for present trade. Peter, do you know the name of the team in Toulouse please?

I believe they sometimes worked in pairs abreast when sailing.

Further digressing from the topic (now Berrichons) others may be interested in the "Charleroi Baquets" or "Clogs" or "Tubs" built to very similar dimensions (20m x 2.6) as the Berrichons for use on the waterways crossing the Schelde - Maas watershed in Belgium, principally the Kanaal Bruxelles-Charleroi. These were again improbably deep hulls to maximise load (70 tons) whilst minimising water use in the deep locks of the area. A very few are still around the system as houseboats, and one is preserved at the Canal du Centre Museum at La Louviere. I suspect these may have traded a bit more widely since some of the old derelict locks in West Flanders seem to have similar dimensions. I read somewhere that a few were motorised using traction propellers in the bows. Google "Charleroi Baquets."

The vertical seam welds should have been ground out to a vee or a slight gap left to allow full weld penetration, in which case as I said seams are not a structural problem. Seams are often dressed off on the outside for neatness, which is not a problem, particularly if the internal welds are left undressed. The problem with "straightness" with "folded" sides, (most often folded for the gunwhale and at the top rubbing strake to give a "tumblehome" to the shear strake), is that the longer the sheet the greater the risk that the fold is not uniform, so a 4 metre capacity press brake needs to be very strong and in good order for 6mm plates of that length.

The sea toilet will let you control water input to an extent, but it will still be significant. You need a 1.5" hose so that will not fit in jerrycan, and unless the vent is plumbed overboard you will not gain over cassette in terms of smells. A jerrycan will be horrible to empty: gloop gloop splash! Thetford cassettes are as ideal as you will get and worth the money, especially if you can pick up spare cassettes on ebay.

"Ladybank" was a very well known old conversion, of the "bus window" era as I recall, and owned by Denys Hutchings for many years, a leadiing light on the K&A. I don't know what has been done to the hull, and with any old Town Class it is particularly important to look at the hull repairs, but she looks nice and straight (HNBC site photos). Just love the anode above water!!! What do you see wrong with an RN (and by this I mean the old ones)?? "Ladybank's" is possibly the original.