alan_fincher

If you are going to continue to be involved in this forum you could do well to take a bit of a look as to how it is intended to work. There is no concept of you "owning" a thread just because you have started it. Once you have it is in the domain of all members to do as they like provided they stick to the forum guidelines. Personally, subject to those guidelines, I will continue to post what I like, where I like and when I like. However you may well have got your own way on this one - your rude and hostile remarks mean I am unlikely to want to engage with you very much more.

It seems to me that rather than keep guessing at what may or may not have been, you should probably stop until you have collated the best information available. It appears that construction drawings exist for Vigilante, although until you sight them you will not know what they contain. If copies of these are amongst the materials Braunston Marina hold, then you need to get hold of them. If not you will need to approach the National Waterways Museum. We can only guess whether they refer to poured concrete ballast, or whether diagrams may show anything at all relating to ballast. Please let us know when you have actually got hold of this. (My cheeky guess is that there will be no reference at all to poured concrete ballast, but, as I have indicated already, strange things do happen, so I would not be totally surprised if I am proved wrong.)

I'm not saying it is impossible, as stranger things have happened, but I remain highly dubious that this boat built circa 1960 was ever intended to have been used for icebreaking. If it was, and if there is genuine evidence to support that, please can it be shared here - I'd love to see it!

I would have thought that if you have a bath 40 litres isn't really enough. I would suggest a minimum sizing of 55 or 60 litres.

I think we will have to agree to differ. I very much doubt there are large numbers of boats from the 1960s or earlier that have poured concrete added over their steel bottoms. This is only something one tends to encounter as a bodged way of trying to fix a problem, namely a bottom that was already too thin, or, worse, already stating to hole through. Put it another way - why otherwise would you lay concrete into the bottom of a narrow boat? At best it is going to make future assessment of the condition of the hull harder, and indeed also make harder any remedial work needed. I would be intrigued to know the names of the boats that you believe are known too have this feature. Are you prepared to disclose which they are, please?

No - that is very definitely a British Waterways conversion of a former working boat into a hire boat. No suggestion there of any other purpose.

Hard to tell from the brokers images, but to me the bow doesn't look vaguely ice breaker like. There doesn't seem to be much (if anything) to help break the ice. I don't know what the credentials are of those who have advised you that some narrow boats came with poured ballast from new - I would love them to provide even a single example of where this might have been the case. I'm confused that you talk about the concrete being compromised. What you need to worry about is how compromised the steel is that it has been poured on top of.

It is highly unlikely that poured concrete would have ever been used as part of the original construction of a boat. If this boat has poured concrete in its bottoms then I would say that invariably makes it at best a bodge, and quite possibly far far worse. I would further stick my neck out and suggest that any of the truly reputable surveyors with expertise in historic boats is unlikely to be prepared to make any statement about the condition of the steel underneath the concrete. This rings major alarm bells to me - I would be running away at this stage!

Not sure what has been mentioned so far, either in terms of description or photo. Here are a few images of ice boats at work which are certainly post British Waterways, (i.e. post 1948),,, TYCHO (which as has been pointed out still retains its ice ram to this day).... The 1947 date in the captioning on this following one must be wrong. It is clearly post Nationalisation, as TYCHO is painted in British Waterways colours. One of the Oxford icebreakers is behind TYCHO. Almost certainly SICKLE (my boat) Sorry for poor state of image - I have extracted several promises of access to an original over the years, but have been let down every time. The livery, (an interpretation of which is what we currently have, dates this picture to no earlier than 1959, I think, Edited to add RENTON RENTON was converted to an ice boat in the same time frame as SEXTANS, SICKLE, THEOPHILsS and TYCHO, but what was added as an ice blade was very much massive than that added to the 4 Middle Northwich boats. It was still in place in the 1970s, and it is my understanding that when torched off it stayed on the boat as ballast. I'm told it can still be found in the hold....

I recently replaced a failed Rule bilge pump with another from the same manufacturer, but very different in appearance. The new one didn't work, which proved to be because the small plastic impeller was not fixed to the motor shaft - the motor turned, the impeller didn't. From my personal experience I would avoid Rule in future.

Like some before me, I am doubtful of some of the history that has been attributed to VIGILANTE. Yarwoods continued building boats into the 1970s, so the suggestion this is a Yarwood build may indeed be correct. However the likelihood that any new builds were specifically for ice breaking seems unlikely to me. British Waterways still had on its books various ice-breakers, and canal traffic had diminished so much by the early 1960s, I doubt they would have justified building more. Our own boat SICKLE that was converted to an ice boat in 1942 had its ice boat conversion removed before the dates mentioned for VIGILANTE, bur remained on the BW maintenance fleet to 2000. Why would they have done that if ice boats were still a requirement. However I support the suggestion that Pete Harrison is the person most likely to be able to give chapter and verse on VIGILANTE's origins. I think I recall that he holds transcripts of W J Yarwoods & Sons build registers. If he does, and VIGILANTE is included, these will give a build date, and maybe o description of intended use.

I have two Yarwoods built narrow boats, and, don't get me wrong, I love them both to bits. However when taking on something that is 88 years old you do need to be a bit realistic about the possible problems that come with something that old!

Arguably a Woolwich boat can be a better bet than a Nothwich. Northwich boats have fewer rivets fastening the side plates to the knees so they are more prone to developing corrosion between the two.

Size? Style? "Traditional" or modern? Some clues would help!

Yes it is a Woolwich not a Northwich. I believe it is for sale, but can't recall seeing advert.

I found this really interesting. I had no idea just how impressive her achievements were as from my limited contact with her she seemed just a very nice and committed historic boater. What a legacy!

Arguably as it is a butty the only historically "correct" engine is no engine!

I'm only repeating what has already been said, I think. But it seems like a "no brainer" to me that if CRT considers a lock closed that they should have placed padlocks on it. If they haven't done so then I don't think a boater can be blamed for attempting to pass through it. I'm also aware that a very small minority of boaters might try to take bolt croppers to it, but I would argue it is indeed extremely rare that this happens.

Alf went on to eventually work as BW maintenance staff. In the pictures I took of our SICKLE in the 1970s it is Alf on the tiller in each case, and my understanding is that he was a regular steerer of SICKLE.

Excellent stuff - thank you for bringing it to our attention. Amongst the many things noted, (the Grand Union is my home patch), were:--- First small plywood boat they pass was a British Waterways "Water Baby" hire boat. The first boat my family owned was one of these - it could even have been that one Strange reference to 8 locks close together - the biggest number is surely the 7 at Stoke Bruerne. House still in situ above the Southern tunnel mouth at Braunston Tunnel. The humongously large gear wheel on motor TARPORLEY - try getting into and out of the back cabin with that in the way! I suppose what surprised me most was the immaculate condition of all the BW, Willow Wren and Samuel Barlows hire boats- if there was an untidy one, then I missed it. The only slightly scruffy boat seemed to be CANADA GOOSE. I'd love it if someone could find more like this, particularly if of this quality.

Our SICKLE, another conversion to a maintenance boat, now has at least its 3rd counter, and possibly even its 4th, (based on available photographic evidence). Not all of a 1930s boat was necessarily built in the 1930s.

My apologies if I am stating the obvious, but, just in case, this boat is 8' 6" wide, so will only be able to access broad canals and rivers. This is hugely restrictive as a huge part of the waterways system, including the only links between North and South of the country, is narrow canals. To access these requires your boat to be no wider than 7' 0".

I'm not sure that is correct. PRM switched some time ago and says "ATF" (Automatic Transmission Fluid) should be used in their manually operated (and smallest) gearboxes, such as the P120. These boxes (unlike the larger hydraulically operated ones) do have a reputation for being quite clunky / noisy. Has it always been as it is now, or has it got this way over time.