[Where I am]

57 minutes ago, Richard T said:

 

How about this one?

Reminiscent of Tusses Bridge but I don’t think the buildings or the bridge are quite right for it to be there.

 

[Fat boats on the North Oxford]

1 hour ago, kris88 said:

I see Curtain Twitchers United have got a lot of supporters. 11 greenies you must feel proud of yourself, I’d wager that’s the most greenies any of your posts has ever got? So you should be thanking me for making you raise your game. The only way to get better at any game is to play against people who are much better at it than you. It’s okay you don’t have to thank me, it’s just part of the service I’ve programmed into my personal ai. The algorithm thingy. 

Yet I’m a poster on here who will stand up for CCers and wide beams where they are acting within the terms of the law and their licence, that’s as they are written and not my interpretation or notion of what i’d like them to be.

 

I also know from direct experience how unsuitable some wide beams are on canals like the Grand Union and my own method of cruising is most definitely not to the taste of some members. It’s not one big clique here.

 

But the key point is that this boat is operating outside of the rules. It works both ways. You can’t defend compliance with letter of the law on one hand while turning a blind eye to contravention on the other.

 

What’s your position?

 

 

 

 

[Where I am]

2 minutes ago, Heartland said:

As always interesting and useful images of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal

 

But what about this 2001 image

 

 

 

Is prefacing the photo with a comment about the L&L trying to throw folk off because it looks like Bradeshall Junction to me.

[Fat boats on the North Oxford]

5 hours ago, kris88 said:

Did you get passed this boat? So what’s the issue? Is the problem you don’t like the colour scheme( it doesn’t appeal to me either,) or is it just that you have a bias against wide boats? 
I do find the mass hysteria on here over a few wide boats quite funny. But the encouraging each other to report other people all the time is very sad. It’s definately a case of curtain twitches united interfering in situations that they don’t have all the facts about. Has anybody spoken to the owners of the boats that people have been happily posting pictures and moaning about on a public forum. Plus posting the numbers of the boats.

I find this behaviour very dubious. You would be responsible if there is any vigilante activity agianst the owners of said boats. The truth is nobody who has posted on this thread knows the reality of these boat owners situations. So maybe best to say nothing?

The above is a good reason why reporting it is the correct course of action.

 

The boat is on a canal where passage of wide beam craft is only allowed for transit to or from marinas and online mooring is not permitted. All movements are subject to advice notices from CRT so it’s pretty easy to surmise that something is amiss, be it a wanton or unintended action.

 

It’s also not really the point that the poster was able to pass. What about another wide beam making a legitimate booked passage or the loaded coal boat? Passing on the Oxford can be problematic if you are pushed toward the offside of the deep channel.

[Fat boats on the North Oxford]

1 hour ago, Ronaldo47 said:

Presumably to allow a motor and butty to use the lock at the same time. When a group of us hired Black Prince's entire original fleet of two boats in 1976, the owner suggested we might like to try roping them together when using  broad locks. We did try this at the Braunston locks, and it certainly speeded things up. Modern hire conditions seem to prohibit this activity. 

To enable both pairs of narrow boats and wide beam boats to use the locks.
 

Wide beam boats have always used the full length of the original Grand Junction canal.

BWB reduced the width of dredging to full depth in the centre of the channel from 27’ to 21’ north of Berkhamsted because there were no 14’ wide craft being used beyond Berkhamsted. 12’ 6” is the width dimension enshrined in law to which the canal must be maintained.

 

In reality though for a modern wide beam the awkward bit isn’t so much the width of the channel but the fit of the cabin through arched bridges.

[Stoppage At Maffers]

If it’s the repair of last years fix that’s broken it may not be straightforward. It involved fabrication of a bespoke bracket to join the heel post, collar, and top cross rail.

[Show us your COBS!]

7 hours ago, 5239 said:

Tell me why it isnt in the Black Country ?

Crickey, I’m not a Black Country bloke, but this is fighting talk, 

😃

The traditional view of what constitutes the Black Country is that it’s the area where the coal seam comes to the surface. This is possibly where the name comes from and does not include Stourbridge, Wolverhampton, or Smethwick.

The Black Country is historically known for its coal and iron, Stourbridge is a glassmaking town.
 

However the Black Country is often now considered to consist of the metropolitan boroughs of Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton. Stourbridge is within the borough of Dudley. Although I’d say it’s pretty clear that some of the fringes of these boroughs are not in the Black Country.

 

[Show us your COBS!]

12 hours ago, carlt said:

Isn't "Cob" more East Midlands?

It may be used there - I wouldn’t know - but having cobs for sale at the end of the bar is something that’s common in Black Country pubs.

 

On that subject in the past week I’ve found there is excellent array of such items plus other pastry based goodies and 15 beers on tap at the Seven Stars at the end of the approach road to Stourbridge Junction station.

 

Cobs are also for sale at the Weighbridge at Alvechurch Marina.

 

Now while we could debate at great length whether Stourbridge is or isn’t in the Black Country, Alvechurch is obviously not.

[What is it all about? Braunston?]

I particularly like Braunston because of its history and in many ways it’s quite unspoiled.

 

The view over the bottom lock from the point where the track to the bottom lock leaves Dark Lane (the road that leads to the Nelson and the top lock) is superb and probably very little changed in the last century.

 

The Gongoozlers Rest is not a highlight. Mostly because it’s almost never open if you’re passing through while boating.

 

The pubs collectively aren’t the best but at least they all serve a different purpose. Unlike say Alrewas which seems to have three pubs of similar mediocrity.
 

[On the Oxford]

1 hour ago, Lily Rose said:

I haven't timed it but if you've got time I would suggest going on to the Thames at Dukes Cut then take the river through Oxford at least as far as Donnington Bridge. If you have time to moor overnight on the river then go as far as Abingdon and moor there.

 

Either way, when you go back leave the river at Sheepwash Channel to go back to Thrupp via the canal. You will then have seen both river and canal at Oxford. In my opinion it's better to do it that way round as you're heading towards Oxford as you pass Port Meadow. Looks better that way I reckon.

A circular trip through Oxford via Dukes Cut would be good advice if it was open. The lock has been closed now for months and no date set for repair.

[What is it all about? Braunston?]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

There is no stop. Its just Sutton's or Suttons'. 

 

 

While there is plenty of evidence in literature that many boaters called it “Suttons” the whole area is known as “Sutton Stop” to locals. Indeed I recall my grandmother who was born there and lived for the entire 20th century in close proximity would sometimes call it “The Stop”.

 

As has been pointed out these days it’s actually the official address of the properties there.

 

A couple of years back somebody posted a picture of the junction bridge on social media and referred to it as “Sutton Stop” to which some internet bore then tried to mansplain to the poster that she was wrong because “Sutton Stop” was specifically the stop lock and not the junction. I concluded she was likely a local and he most definitely was not.

[Show us your COBS!]

24 minutes ago, carlt said:

I got a bit irate when I moved to Coventry and got blank faces until I called it a "batch".

 

Then I discovered that their local delicacy is "Faggot and Mushy Pea Batch"

 

 

That's just wrong!

Always thought that faggots and peas (pays) was more a Black Country thing. As is the cob.

 

I think Coventrians would also recognise that cob refers to a crusty batch even though they may still refer to it as a batch.

 

At Fishsmiths - the chippy near Newbold moorings - they sell a chip batch rather than a chip butty. I make a point of having one when there simply so I can order one and use the word as a bit of childhood reminiscence.

@matty40s I wasn’t aware of batch being the term for a bread roll in Blackpool but I think it is used on the Wirral.

[Narrowboat hadling, just curious]

I’d say on about 50% of narrowboats the tiller won’t go to 90 degrees.

 

This subject came up not so long ago as a sub-discussion and it transpired that 90 degrees works for owners of Sea Otters.

 

On my boat the rudder acts as a great big spoiler at 90 degrees and pretty much no motion in any direction results at any amount of power.

 

I don’t buy the pumping thing either. At least not with a motor boat. It’s something I’ll do when steering a butty. Shove it over as hard and as far as possible, which means letting go and letting it recover on its own, then repeat. But it has limited effect. Maybe there’s a better way?

 

I was taught to manoeuvre by reducing speed to a near stop, position tiller at 45 degrees (you can argue about the angle but you can’t measure it in practice so half way across is a good instruction), apply a burst of power to get the boat rotating and then throttle back.

 

I was also taught that when winding and needing to reverse that the sequence is to first take all forward power off, move the tiller to opposite lock (45 degrees), then power on in reverse. That way you never destroy the rotational momentum. And the opposite sequence to re-engage forward drive.

 

 

 

[When is a Davis not a Davis?]

10 hours ago, PaulJ said:

Its being sold by Nationwide. They have an obligation to describe it as is. @plato is right about Lilys build history- this is exactly as was told to me. May have even been him who told me.

Yep I thought it was an RW Davis too - right up until the point where I was told it was actually built by an employee. I did wonder why the handrails were different.

Im sure you recognise this one- it was tied up to you at Ansty when I spotted you as I passed on it..😀

Yeah, I thought it was that boat.

[When is a Davis not a Davis?]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

I reckon a previously agreed sale fell through when the buyer found out it was not a standard RWD product.

 

Possibly when they realised it had the 'wrong' handrails. 

 

The way it is written at the start sounds like part of an agro story which may have cost someone some money.

 

If a Boat was advertised as being by a certain respected yard then a knowledgeable surveyor discovered it was not then the buyer could be a bit hacked off. 

 

 

That’s very plausible. It would still help to simply describe its provenance. I mean it bears the name of the company and one of their builder's plates so it’s still going to be confusing to any viewer.

 

R W Davis also build canal boats that are not ‘Northwich Traders’. And quite why anybody would be concerned about the exact detail of something that’s not authentic in the first place I don’t know.

[When is a Davis not a Davis?]

9 minutes ago, Wafi said:

Why do some of these adverts have so much superfluous verbiage, and why do they need to explain the purpose of everything? Phrases like "At the heart of Lily’s journey, an Ailsa Craig RM4 engine provides propulsion, ensuring smooth sailing" and "solar panels managed by an MPPT Controller, ensuring energy efficiency and independence wherever your journey takes you". It's as if the writer has swallowed a bucket of adjectives and barfs a few back up in every sentence.

 

When I was looking for a boat I found this style of advert almost unreadable; is it just me?

Definitely not just you. As @IanM suggests it’s likely AI generated.

 

It may be appropriate when trying to sell an old shell with a new London White interior to a prospective new liveaboard but for a boat like this it suggests to me the broker doesn’t really know enough about what they are selling.

 

Buying high end boats from general brokers can bag you a bargain. They have a small market even with high end brokers.

 

[When is a Davis not a Davis?]

28 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Hudson may have cut the first few himself but after a time the steel used to come into his yard laser cut. There used to be firm advertise in waterways world and they used to advertise the fact that they supplied S M Hudson. I think that is why all the later ones look the same at the bow and have that strange hip effect around the traditional engine room doors.

My meaning was that it is generally employees of the yard owner that tend to do the physical building. So the fact that one particular employee fabricated the boat in question doesn’t in itself make the boat any less an R W Davis.

 

28 minutes ago, Tonka said:

So are you suggesting that the chap nicked the r w Davis plaque

As I didn’t mention a plaque, obviously not. I was musing on why someone may wish to assert the (non-)provenance of a boat. The plaque would though be a bit at odds with my theory.

 

An alternative is that the builder wished to assert their own claim to the boat rather than have it identified as an R W Davis and that claim has grown legs of it own through onward sales leading to a bit of a misconception.

 

[When is a Davis not a Davis?]

It raises a question as to who literally builds any boat.

 

Do Hudson owners believe the man himself cut and welded all the steelwork?

 

It’s possible that R W Davis stipulated that the boat was not to be classified as one of their builds because they had no build contract and therefore to describe it as one of their builds could have legal ramifications down the line. But to all and intents and purposes it’s an R W Davis boat.

[The Paddle Gear Thread (formerly Cheshire Paddle Gear)]

On 02/04/2025 at 09:10, Philip said:

 

I think the middle paddles (and ground paddles) at the top of Wolverley Court are of the traditional Staffs-Worcs design, as is the one at Compton, whereas all the others along that stretch are the single-gear cast iron BCN type. Ground paddles along the southern section seem to be a bit more hotchpotch, with a mix of single-gear Staffs-Worcs type and the double-gear BCN ones (also the single-gear example you mention at York Street), varying randomly. It's one of the many quirky things I love about this canal!

 

There used to be a lot of cast iron BCN stuff used on the Shropshire Union network, but the only remaining examples left on the mainline are the middle paddles at Tyrley 5 & Audlem 13.

I missed Compton because it is as you say “one at Compton” rather than a pair as at Wolverley Courf.

 

On 01/04/2025 at 09:17, Pluto said:

When I did a survey of existing lock gate drawings for BW twenty years ago, I found about a dozen different designs for BCN locks, suggesting the design change over time and by location. Many locks have been completely rebuilt, as seen in the recent Rochdale Canal thread. I have copied a good number of the Rochdale Canal Engineer's annual reports where lock reconstructions are mentioned regularly. The locks on the L&LC also show details which suggest major reconstruction, though that canal's engineering records were lost when the head office was destroyed during the war. I suspect such reconstruction was a feature of every heavily used canal.

In terms of what is actually in use on the BCN today there are three basic types of mechanism:

 

- a BCN single geared design

- a BCN double geared design

- a small amount of Northwich gear

 

However there are six different styles of post design used with the above:

 

- wooden ground paddle posts (only now used in combination with BCN double geared mechanisms but appears to be designed for single geared mechanisms)

 

- BCN style cast iron ground paddle post for single geared mechanisms

 

- B&F style cast iron ground paddle post for single geared mechanisms

 

- BCN style cast iron ground paddle post for double geared mechanisms (seemingly only one pattern irrespective of which side of the canal it is used)

 

- BCN style cast iron gate paddle post for double geared mechanisms (these are handed left or right and are used on both mitred and single leaf gates)

 

- fabricated steel gate paddle post for use with Northwich gear

 

On the Stourbridge and Staffs & Worcs there is also a BCN style centre paddle design which are all single geared mechanisms. These are now extinct on the BCN itself.

 

In terms of the gate paddles there are two different patterns for the castings which are a mirror image of each other and potentially six different paddle arrangements for the full set up according to whether the bottom gates are paired or single leaf and on which side of the chamber they are mounted. In each case though the same basic mechanism and post head is used.

 

In total there are 13 different combinations of gate and paddle configuration used on the BCN’s 133 locks.

 

The most common - which is the B&F style shown above at Farmers Bridge - has 39 examples and the least common is unique (Wolverhampton lock 20). Needless to say elements of Brades staircase are also unique.
 

So while the componentry has a relatively high degree of standardisation there is far from one way of laying out a ‘BCN lock’.

[Where I am]

1 hour ago, Derek R. said:

With the vast amount of redevelopment that has gone on since 1940 - ish, it is hard to believe anything is comparable to what was once there. Older photographs, and in some historic videos, this view of the boats (some wide) have been shown as being in Paddington basin. The 'cooling' towers in wood, were fairly commonplace where power generation was needed. At the end of the basin there was (according to old maps) iron works, so the proximity would have been suitable for a power station of some sort. Of course I cannot show absolute proof of these 'claims', but with what is available online from historic images, it does seen to be a reasonable presumption. Paddinton basin - as was and as is.

 

If we are talking about Willseden station, there is no canal in the immediate vicinity.

 

 

@Heartland would have been referring to what was better known as Acton Lane Power Station which was easily accessible from Willesden Junction station.

[8 mm base plate]

1 hour ago, GUMPY said:

 

Surveyor 1

The thickness of the hull sides and bottom was measured using a DeFelsko PosiTector UTG ME ultrasonic thickness tester, with a current calibration certificate, in the multiple echo setting.

 

Surveyor 2

Plate thickness measurements were obtained by using a TM-8811ultrasonic point residual thickness gauge calibrated to an accuracy of 0.01mm. The instrument was re-calibrated prior to taking any measurements and was re­checked immediately after taking the readings. The areas tested were cleaned up for measurement using a cleaning wheel, with no grinding of the surfaces.

 

The first surveyor was a yacht surveyor who was venturing into steel boats.

The second a well established NB surveyor.

 

As an aside the first survey and I missed 150liters of water under the floor, there were no inspection hatches. Which only became apparent from a wet mark on the wall where there was no pipework after a 60mile road journey and two cravings.

Wasn't a problem as there is virtually no ballast in the boat.

 

I was happy with both.

 

No doubt that each report is useful but at least one of them is almost certainly not reflecting the true thickness of the plate, no matter the certification of the apparatus.

 

It’s just a lesson in accuracy, repeatability and claiming a level that you neither have nor is useful.

 

I trust my surveyor but by necessity they are a bit jack of all trades. I know a material scientist who once did specialist work on boat steelwork for insurance purposes. I wouldn’t employ him to survey the internal systems of my boat though.

[The Paddle Gear Thread (formerly Cheshire Paddle Gear)]

16 minutes ago, Philip said:

 

I've seen photos of some of the northern Staffs & Worcs locks from the 1950s-60s. They still had traditional Staffs & Worcs paddle gear then, at the top & bottom, and Gailey & Penkridge had the double top gate paddle arrangement like at Wolverley Court, at least in the 50s. Also seen photos of Tixall, Deptmore & Shutt Hill from the same period, but these didn't have middle paddles then.

 

Wonder why Perry Barr 12 & 13 had that quirk when the rest of the flight was 'standard gear'? 

Is Wolverley Court traditional S&W gear?

 

And what about the single geared ground paddles, are they S&W, BCN or neither in particular?

 

Kinver is an oddity because the tail gate paddle posts are made from steel sheet but the spindle supports are a BCN cast iron pattern. I can’t find a clear enough photo to see what the gear is but it’s not a big wheel gear so I suspect it’s a modified BCN arrangement on account of the angled steel gates. The angled gates at York Street are wooden and have standard BCN gear.

 

It just so happens I’ll be going through Kinver lock tomorrow so I’ll have a look.

[8 mm base plate]

3 hours ago, GUMPY said:

It was places that would get rubbed in normal use.

 

2012 survey

Thickness readings from the bottom plate were 15mm over most of it's length, again indicating little or no wastage. An area around the chine at the stern of the vessel gave a reading of 11.9mm and one just astern of the bow 13mm, indicating that there has probably been some wear to the bottom plate, but due to the specification of 15mm plate in this area, this is not a significant concern. There was extensive shallow (<1mm) pitting to the starboard side of the bottom plate along the length of the vessel, but again this is consistent with the age and use of the vessel and of no concern.

 

2023

the worst of any pitting was found not to exceed around 2mm in depth. Approximately 160 thickness readings were taken in areas judged to be vulnerable along with a selection of random locations. The majority of the centre of the base plate returned thickness readings of between 12.0mm to 13.4mm with just a few readings of between 11.6 and 12.0 to port beneath the engine bay.

 

Interesting how two surveyors can't agree on original plate thickness😱

I actually don't know the thickness I suspect 1/2 inch

That’s quite instructive about surveyors and their use of ultrasonic test meters. On the one hand quoting measurements to 0.1mm but on the other hand having a variance of up to 3mm when measuring the same thing (which is somewhere between 10% and 25% variance to reality depending on the real thickness). I doubt you lost much - if any - plate thickness between the two surveys.

 

However one thing that is always missed - and I maybe should have considered when I asked the question - is that neither surveyor knows the actual thickness of the plate when new. A nominal 15mm plate can be as little as 14.05mm thick and still comply with standards. It’s also the case that thickness isn’t uniform across the same plate let alone when using multiple plates to construct a boat.

 

These are reasons why quoting thickness to 0.1mm is pretty meaningless.

 

Perhaps the two surveyors used different types of meter; the first perhaps requiring clean metal to make a coupling and the second being done with a meter that can ‘read’ through paint? I do wonder if the algorithms used in the programming of the latter result in some loss of accuracy when distinguishing the boundaries of what they are measuring. Either way one or both were likely not particularly accurately calibrated.

 

 

 

 

 

[8 mm base plate]

47 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Was any boat ever built with an 8mm baseplate after 1995? 

 

 

 

But more seriously, I suspect it more a case of surveyors looking harder. Pre 1995 narrowboats were cheaply built and nobody worried all that much. Now, when a decent modern boat costs well into six figures buyers expect their surveyors to look VERY closely indeed which encourages surveyors to kick up a big fuss about trivial corrosion.

I think buyer tolerance and where more modern boats are placed in the market compared to older boats is definitely a factor.

 

But so might be the electrical equipment that modern boats have on board. A particular problem here is that you can do everything yourself to protect your boat but you also need your neighbours to do the same. Similar applies to whatever gets discharged into the water in marinas.

 

It is quite possible that modern mild steel has a greater tendency to rust than older steels. Early steel produced by the Bessemer method had higher natural resistance to rusting than those steels produced by the later open hearth steel making process. But the Bessemer process can't be described as making steel of a higher quality.

 

Steel from the 1960s will be riddled with hydrogen bubbles, other inclusions and have greater variation in exact chemical composition than modern steel. It will also be courser grained and softer. So somewhere amongst those changes it’s possible that there is a change in the natural rust resistance. Having said this it hasn’t manifested itself in any application of steel in which I have experience.

 

The key thing though it that this has absolutely nothing to do with the ‘quality’ of the steel.

[8 mm base plate]

20 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

My old boat was 1993 and had lost 3-4 mm in places but that's of no concern with a 15mm base plate😎 

Was that the pit depth? As general wastage of plate thickness that’s aggressive.