Timleech

Whatever you choose, don't go for a square stern. I had the doubtful privilege of collecting a boat with a completely square cruiser stern a few weeks ago, a 3-day trip at normal cruising rates which included coming down Cheshire Locks. It was the only time I've really felt that a bow thruster might have been useful, as there was absolutely no way to steer the boat out of the lock tails, & often the option was to either bounce along the waterway wall for a while, or stop & push the bows out. Luckily the weather was good (cruiser stern weather). Lots of room for socialising, but to my mind better for enjoying a drink in the evening sunshine after tying up than for boating. Tim

Forgot to say, if there's a choice go for the 'SAE' adapter kit. Chances are that it'll be a UNF or NPT thead. No guarantees from me, mind Tim

Durite (and probably others) do an adapter kit with all sorts of threads, it might be worth arming yourself with one of those (as well as the matching gauge) Tim

Does his trading name begin with 'M'? Tim

What's the Sabb 'gg'? Is that the 2-cyl 'g'? Singles were commonly fitted to boats around 30', 'Cheshire Plains' hire fleet & their partners in crime used them. A customer has a 40' boat with a Sabb single, had it for years & been everywhere with it & perfectly happy. Not sure about 21 bhp/cyl being a great advantage on a narrow boat (unless you have only the one cylinder, of course ) The J2 is much more of a narrow boat engine. Tim

Something like 7.8 Kg/litre. Get your calculator out! Tim

Agreed. So did a lot of people when the ST came out, which is why Listers brought out the Canalstar, basically (at the time) a reintroduced SR. I know of one full-length butty which was motorised (30+ years ago) quite successfully using an SR2, it wouldn't win any races but it's still going. Tim

Erm...Shome mishtake shurely? I think you'd need an SR3 for 20 hp. An SR2 would be more than adequate for the job, though. Tim

Just what benefit is an extra thick bottom plate supposed to bring? OK, you'll never have to worry about it rusting away in your lifetime, but the same ought to be true of 10mm. It's always struck me as being more to do with bragging rights than anything else Tim

My limited experience has been that LB has tried to keep their customers happy. Yes I've had a small number of their boats on my dry-dock for remedial work, in one case LB sent their own welder out to fix a leaking diesel tank, another time they promised to pay the owner for the dock and supply the paint for reblacking the hull (the blacking was falling off), I haven't seen anything really bad though there were one or two horror stories doing the rounds a few years ago. LB is a large-scale budget operation, they must weld up a few miles of seam every year so it's not surprising if occasionally something gets past whatever 'quality control' they might have I've been involved recently with a boat from a slightly less 'budget' builder, one with a very pretty website, supplied fully fitted with RCD. The diesel tank leaked into the boat, a small continuous leak and severely whenever it was filled near to the top, and had clearly never been tested though they claimed it had (there was no test marking). Because of the rather odd construction it was quite a big job putting it right, the owners ended up paying out of their own pockets to avoid more months of waiting, & going to court to reclaim the cost from the builder who wanted to deny any failing or blame. They got their money back eventually. That's just to illustrate that it's not neccessarily the real 'budget' builders who are the worst to deal with. Tim

Yes. I've been repairing canal boats for most of the last 35 years, & from time to time that has included 'repairing' new hulls. Tim

Chorus from audience:- "Oh, yes it does!" "He's behind you!" Etc etc... It might do, it might not. Depends on your luck. If there's a slag inclusion causing a leak, the leak may get worse rather than better as the slag works out of the hole.If it's a leaky diesel tank it certainly won't seal itself That's wooden or possibly rivetted ships. Or was it when Stan built ships in Liverpool? A good plan, or if you're really worried get a surveyor to inspect it before you take delivery. Rather spoils the 'budget' bit, though Tim

That's because the boat (Barge?) is double-ended, with a hydraulically driven prop at either end. I had the dubious pleasure of renewing a broken drive coupling on it a while ago, one of those nightmare jobs where you have to hang upside down by your toenails and work with your arms at full stretch, yet still manage to apply full torque to the spanner or whatever. Tim

I don't know what has happened to her, but here she was 40 years ago:- Easter 1967, Poolstock Tim

What I said was:- "probably the best working NB form ever built, especially the stern shape." I stand by that, as i) I was emphasising the stern shape, and ii) The fore-end shape makes bu**er all difference at canal or even normal river speeds, and the Woolwich shape allows a significantly greater carrying capacity than the (admittedly prettier) Joshers shape. Tim

Actually I did try, amongst the pseudo-tech stuff, to give some sort of an answer. Tim The torque requirements for propelling a bus and a boat are totally different. The boat needs the max torque at max rpm, the bus doesn't. The moped engine probably wouldn't last more than a day or two, but that's not really the point. Tim

We burn anthracite in the Rayburn at home, have done for 17 years, never heard of this degradation thing. As for lighting anthracite, I keep a bit of bituminous coal on hand just for that. A couple of firelighters, kindling wood if you've got it, then a few lumps of smokey coal. Start to put your anthracite on once the coal is properly alight. Tim

Agreed absolutely 70 years actually Yes the swim plates have 3-D curves, which are expensive to make, but just having a good length of swim with smooth curves gets you a long way there. The counter shape is particularly good, IMO better than the Josher, but I haven't seen many serious attempts to copy it even though it wouldn't be horribly expensive to do. Again, I agree entirely. That 'gearing' bit is vital, though, so as to drive the right size of propellor Tim

I can't comment directly on Dutch barges. I had a share for some years in Humber barge (Keel or Sheffield Barge), 61' x 16', & ballasted to about 4' draught That when first motorised in the 1930's had a 21hp Lister, she was 'modernised' in the 1960's and fitted with a 33 bhp Lister HA3. In that form we took her across the North Sea (Boston to Ostend, non-stop, 40 hours run) and travelled extensively in France, Belgium & Holland. We decided to change the engine before venturing down the Rhone, partly because the Lister gearbox was getting tired & partly because we wanted to be sure we could get back up the Rhone. We fitted a Gardner 4LW (about 60 bhp) with a 2:1 gearbox, which was well matched to the Lister propellor as the Lister had a 3:1 box. Tim

John I'm sure you're right about a lack of hull development, though there was some work done by BW & Alvechurch on the subject. Most pleasure narrowboats today are just scaled down copies of the working Narrow Boat form, some quite good copies & some pretty poor imitations. IMO the 'Small Woolwich' as built by Harland & Woolff was probably the best working NB form ever built, especially the stern shape. It's all been downhill since then Needing the counter well under water suggests to me that the stern shape is less than ideal, that's what I was alluding to as a possible reason why builders do it, and running the counter substantially under water is bound to increase drag and/or turbulence. It's well established that larger propellors are much more efficent when it comes to stopping & starting a boat, I believe there to be benefits when it comes to 'steady state' movement though I can't quote chapter & verse there. I'm not sure why you're concerned about increased drag, how can a prop create drag when it's propelling the boat forward? Yes it can be a problem with a sailing boat, but that's a different matter. Going back to the original question, just as an example for the OP, the only boat I've built from scratch (I'm a repairer/engineer) is 35' long, it's 20 years old now, fitted with a Vetus/Mitsubishi 3-cylinder engine (with 3:1 reduction!), the present owners have had it from new & there's never been the slightest hint that they've thought it underpowered. Mind you, they haven't tried to go to the moon with it . The counter sits flat on the water when static, BTW, & there's never a problem with cavitation or drawing air into the blades. ISTR those engines were well under 20bhp when they first came out, later versions were 20 & then 22 bhp. It's also smooth running. The current Vetus 3-cyl is quite a bit more powerful, & a 2-cyl version may well have enough hp for a 30' boat but I can't comment on how smooth or quiet they might or might not be. Tim

Can anyone explain to me a good reason why some volume builders now produce boats with 18" or less under the counter, when the 'finished' draught will be very likely getting on for two feet? I can't see why they do it, the counter drags in the water when under way creating inefficiency, and the choice of propellor size is severely limited. Maybe it's just to cover up for a poor underwater shape, if the counter is deep enough in the water it'll mask that so that air won't get drawn in etc.?? I think we should be told! Tim

Always worth looking at the max prop size your boat, or planned boat, will take, & try to take full advantage of that space (you really need a couple of inches tip clearance or thereabouts). That might mean specifying a 3:1 gearbox, if available, rather than the more standard 2:1. The initial expense may be a bit higher, but it will be more efficient overall (especially starting & stopping), also if your decision on engine size is hovering between two different sizes then it'll probably mean you will be happy with the smaller of the two. Tim

I was chatting to a friend just now who worked for years on the 'Dukers' (Bridgewater barges), thought I would ask him what terms they used. They were *always* shafts to him, he also told me that the 'Wiganers' (Leeds & Liverpool boatmen) always called them shafts, & something I didn't know or had forgotten was that they (Wiganers) had what they called a 'Fan Shaft' for clearing the 'Fan' (Blade or blades to narrow boat men, at least in these parts), more or less equivalent to the Narrow Boat 'Cabin Shaft'. The Dukers men just talked about the 'prop' rather than blades or fan. A curiousity about the terminology has just struck me, in that Narrow Boat men would talk about "getting Fan-hold", ie when an empty motor boat would pull down enough at the stern for the propellor to start doing its job properly, but I don't remember ever hearing the prop referred to as the 'fan' in a NB context, always Blade or Blades. No doubt someone will pop up to say otherwise Tim.

No, it's gone. Tim