agg221

If you are lucky, this fits: https://www.stationaryengineparts.com/ruston-ywa-fuel-pump-fyw-b2000b.html Alec

No ideas? I thought @Heartland or @Pluto might know? Alec

If the photographs could be found (modern and original) the same approach would work for identification, but I haven't looked at that one. I generally find that HNBC records are awful. They are full of errors which I have tried to correct on several occasions but nothing I sent them was ever incorporated and in the end I gave up trying - life's too short and I have better things to do with it. Alec

I can tell you how I identified it if you like? Bear in mind that this was 25yrs ago, but even so, the method was quite simple, if tedious. It was definitely a Big Ricky. That was from shape and size. The hull was completely unmodified, in the sense that, because it was relatively new at the time of conversion, there had been no re-planking. This was identifiable from the intact nature of the shearing throughout and the fact that all the shearing nails matched, so no changes. I started with the full list of Big Rickies and traced the fate of each one. Many were simple to trace - still extant at the time or identifiable as to when/where they were broken up, including those broken by Jem Bates. In the end I was left with about ten with unknown fates. In photographs of wooden boats, the scarf joints are often visible. Whilst the dimensions are standard, the placing of the scarfs makes optimum use of the timber. Scarfs can be at different locations and in different orientations. This is why the unmodified nature of the hull was important. The build pattern is essentially unique. BW archives had a number of pictures of the unidentified butties and several others are shown in various books, to sufficient detail to see the scarf joints. I was able to eliminate those which did not match. Eventually I found photographs of all the butties which had not been traced, including Hagley. Hagley was the only one which matched the pattern of scarf joints between the photographs and the actual boat. Further corroboration came from the ellum. There was no particular reason to swap the ellums around, although it was physically possible, and we were given the original ellum for Cristina, which had the name painted on it in relatively early paint layers so reasonable confidence that it was the one it arrived on the Basingstoke with. The critical part of the ellum for Big Ricky identification is the washer behind the upper pin. These come in three basic configurations - square washer set square, square washer set diagonal, round washer. The washer configuration on Cristina was relatively uncommon, only found on photographs of three boats, one being Hagley the other two having been traced. From the combination of the two, the evidence is overwhelming, to the point where I couldn't think of an alternative identification or alternative explanation, since it would require an explanation of a scarf joint pattern which is not found on any other boat which is not accounted for, and which can be positively determined to match Hagley. Alec

Why 'Hmmm !!' ? Alec Did that come off the Basingstoke? I'm not aware that it did, but I could be wrong on that. Alec

What actually went up there was quite an eclectic mix. They pretty much had their pick of a whole bunch of abandoned boats and there was no particular advantage to wooden or riveted at the time. Some of the boats were supplied full-length, others cut in half, which was much easier with the wooden ones. There were wooden joeys, riveted joeys, Walkers' butties and I believe a couple of Samuel Barlow boats. Derek's pictures show the range of wooden hulls involved. There was certainly still a riveted hull above the lock at Scotland Road wharf 10yrs ago or so when I last looked. If the Adelaide which is the subject of this thread was previously on the Basingstoke then it must have been one of the earlier ones to make it off. There is only quite a narrow window of possibility for that, when the locks were restored. There were two other wooden ones which definitely made it off - one was Cristina (actually the 'Big Ricky' Hagley) and the other was abandoned on the Wey. Alec

I met Philip Dresman once. I arranged to go and visit him to talk about Floating Homes. He would have been in his late eighties and his memory wasn't what it had been, but we had a good conversation nonetheless. They ended up with quite an eclectic mix of boats up on the Basingstoke. There were around 200 boats available to them but there didn't seem to be any kind of prioritisation of the 30-35 they took. They held up surprisingly well overall, providing useful homes for a lot of people and becoming quite a community. The derelict state of the canal meant they weren't in anyone's way and it all seems to have worked out well. I suspect one or two of the original rivetted hulls may still be there but not much else. Alec

Thanks Derek, @Ben Jameson has the right photos to compare with to see whether either of the possible contenders is correct. Rather off topic from Adelaide, but related in the context of the gradual decay of Rickies. Alec

It definitely sounds like a seizure and my guess is within the engine, although the advice to check for metal in the engine and transmission oil will soon tell you which. There is nothing to be lost by checking Tony's suggestion as to whether the engine will turn backwards, but the symptoms as described don't look right to me for a timing issue as it lost power rather than coming to a dead stop. In terms of what next, I would be inclined to start by getting this engine diagnosed and then form a view on whether to get it repaired. It has been reliable, the fact that you know service intervals for oil suggests it has been properly maintained and as such it is a known quantity apart from the current issue. If whatever it is can be resolved without a complete rebuild then I would stick with what works. If not, I would be inclined to stick a rebuilt engine in. This is for several reasons. Firstly, you know the make/model works with this boat and it fits the existing mounts and prop. Secondly, anything else is going to be a more major investment. The fact that you are planning to hand the boat over to your son means he may want to make changes anyway and it would be better if he does that from a sound basis. Thirdly, it gives the quickest resolution. That means the boat will be up and running for the remainder of the time you are using, it rather than you effectively spending your handover time in modifications. Once it is your son's, he is of course free to make whatever changes he likes, but you can be confident that it is on a sound footing to take forward if the engine is either repaired or replaced like for like, whereas any greater changes open up the potential for ongoing problems which you may feel some level of responsibility for (e.g. a not quite correct installation that eats engine mounts, a serial hybrid design that doesn't quite have the power calculations right etc), that could detract from what should be a pleasant handing on of the boat. Easier for relationships if it is a clean transfer. Alec

This should be a really easy thing to find as it is within living memory, but it is surprisingly difficult to track down actual dates for when BWB closed Ocker Hill and relocated to the new purpose-built workshops at Bradley. I can find plans and correspondence relating to the design of Bradley through 1958/59. I can also find correspondence relating to plans for stanking off the Bradley line in 1960. However, the Engineer's Reports file for Ocker Hill allegedly runs up to1964. Can anyone put any real dates to this transition? Thanks Alec

Derek, with apologies for dragging this thread off topic, do you happen to have photos of the other boats on the Basingstoke at the same time? I am particularly interested in whether you have any pictures of Christina? Alec

We have moored at Wolverhampton Top quite a few times in the past few years. There are moorings towpath side between the lock and the bridge (by the gardens) and then more along the towpath beyond the bridge, just past the services. There are also offside moorings opposite the latter but as David says there is no access to them so they are very secure but not good if you want to go to the pub! Something to be aware of, there is a homeless shelter just over the main road so there are often a few people around, in the gardens and along the towpath. In my experience this is nothing to be worried about. All the people we have met have been friendly, usually a bit lonely, and keen to have a chat. None of them have ever been drunk, high or threatening, just people down on their luck wanting a bit of conversation. I really wouldn't be put off mooring there - quite the opposite in fact as people being around probably means it is less likely that there would be anyone trying to break in. It's just useful to know in advance so you are ready for it. Alec

I think there is a bigger point here than the minutiae of the the CRT booking system for the Anderton lift. The survey is all about a visitor centre and what people would like to see take place there. This pre-supposes that there is demand for a visitor centre. Yes, people will come to see the lift, but will they spend? In my opinion, leaving the lift refurbishment itself aside, CRT is considering making an investment from its limited funds into other facilities at the site. It therefore should be considering the business case for doing this. If it will directly make more money than it costs, it is clearly a good investment. If it will secure indirect funding e.g. from government by hitting KPIs which cannot be otherwise met through a lower cost route, and this funding is greater than the cost, then again it is worth doing. However, if the figures do not add up then it simply should not be built, however nice it may be. With an increasingly stretched budget, this is the sort of question which should be asked up-front of all new plans. I am concerned that the survey appears to be pre-supposing the answer without any sign of a solid business plan being presented to the funding providers. Alec

I'm prepared to accommodate a bit of a relaxed schedule. If I have a booking for a time then I can usually aim to arrive a couple of hours before it, which unless it is at the end of a very long, hard slog of a day is probably enough to allow for plastic bags. On the T&M north of Stoke on Trent I am probably not expecting too many mattresses. The tightest I have ever cut it was a hire boat pick-up on Saturday afternoon at Norbury with a Harecastle booking at 4pm on the Monday. We made it by 5mins and we couldn't have done much more, having run pretty much every hour of daylight. However, we had a viable 'Plan B' of a booking the next morning. It's when the system doesn't allow for such alternative plans that the problems arise. It would, however, be pragmatic of CRT to recognise that boat movements are not predictable and hence bookings should be similarly flexible. Alec

Particularly as the system becomes less reliable. Imagine if you were planning to travel from Market Drayton to Northwich Dry Dock for some work, which in theory is a fairly easy weekend. With lock failures at Audlem, Hack Green and on the Middlewich branch, plus the sunk boat on the Middlewich branch, how many days could you actually have done that trip this year? If the boat lift is a booked component, how long between re-bookings, ie once you can't get through, how long do you now have to leave your boat on the towpath before you can come back to complete the trip? It's not practical to require precise timing from the customer when it is the CRT network which prevents this from being predictable. Alec