alan_fincher

I have always found it odd that the floor in the cabin of a "motor" is considerably higher from the bottom of the boat than it needs to be. The floor only needs to clear the prop shaft, (or possibly bearings on the prop shaft). Both our boats (a Large Northwich and a Middle Northwich) have considerable air space between the top of the prop shaft and the bottom of the floor in each case. I can't remember exactly, but I'm sure the floor could be lower by more than 3". It doesn't sound a lot, but as a six footer I would be very grateful of that extra cabin height.

Marsworth yard including the carpenters shop, where enough people objected to the development there that it did get "saved", albeit modified to accommodation. Back in the days when dredgers were seriously large bits of kit. I'm no expert but think it was a Priestman. I'm fairly sure that somewhere I have one of my brothers photos of Renton and dredger, with dredging actually in progress.

I think that probably the easiest way to determine which ice boat it is could be to study exactly how the bottom ends of the A frame join with and are secured to the deck. To me these seem to actually attach initially to the deck boards before being secured (if at all) to any of the steelwork of the boat. If I'm correct they would have stopped you being able to remove at least the front deck boards, which seems an odd choice. Unfortunately I don't believe I have good enough images of Sickle, Theophilus or Renton to make an accurate comparison to the photo supplied by Mark.

Unless I am missing something obvious the narrow boat William in your picture would seem to be operated by a firm called Joseph Rayner of Runcorn. You could usually, (but not always), assume that Joseph Rayner also owned the William. Therefore I would suggest whoever it is pictured on the boat the strong assumption would be that they are operating the boat as employees of Joseph Rayner. A quick Google indicates that Joseph Rayner commissioned some boats from new, including some built by the famous yard of Nursers.

Although one, of course, doesn't exclude the other

Ah! - Not seen that for a while. Remind me, please, do we know a date? I seem to recall it was linked to Cactus being taken away from Bulls Bridge? My strong feeling is it can't be Tycho or Sextans, as the shape of the frames supporting the rocking bar was quite different on those. Also if we assume a ram would still be visible from where the photo was taken, then that is a second reason to exclude Tycho. So if we assume Middle Northwich I think this can only be Sickle or Theophilus. I don't have any pictures of Sickle that that show the front A frame in sufficient detail to make an accurate comparison to your image, but I think it is certainly plausible that this is Sickle. A long shot is that it is not a "Middle" boat at all, and could instead possibly be Renton. I think it is possible that the much smaller ice blade on Renton could be hidden by the angle the picture has been shot at, but I could be estimating that wrongly. I would really, REALLY, like to: 1) Know the date Sickle's ram was torched off. 2) Acquire an image of Sickle with the ram.

Another possible person to talk to, (not yet I think mentioned), is Colin Dundas, who is based in the wet dock at High House Wharf, Nether Heyford. All done by brush, I think - no rollering I'm aware of.

Based on very old (1970s) experience Seagulls were probably about the worst possible choice of outboard for a small canal cruiser. The one we had used a "shear spring" to protect things when the engine got stalled by hitting detritus in the cut. The shear spring got "remodelled" by the impact, and was then unusable. Replacement springs had a significant cost, but if you were unlucky they could in turn be wrecked less than a mile later. We only operated the Seagull a very short while before replacing it with an Evinrude, the latter being about 1000% more suitable. The 2 stroke Seagull also guaranteed you were likely to be followed by a pall of smoke.

Could this just be a question of inaccurate terminology? It would make sense if it instead said... They are charging via the inverter/charger on shore power.

I think that in the past one of the real experts on the GUCCCo boats, (Steve Priest, I think?) has indicated that at least the Small Woolwiches didn't originally have speed wheels. A search of old forum posts would I believe turn up that conversation, but I don't have time to do so at the moment.

I believe Sculptor has a lever for engine speed rather hand the near ubiquitous speed wheel, (assuming no more recent change of hardware). I'm not sure if it is "original" equipment or not.

Well one of ours must be "wrong" then, whereas the other must be "right". I do admit to making a few errors if I have to switch between boats!

Same for me, (on both counts).

Failure to replace weed hatch, (either properly or at all) is one of the possible causes of a sinking mid channel. Not that common, but we have personally encountered at least two sinkings where this was the case.

From memory our anchors are roundabout the weight being discussed - I'd not be too keen on boating with one swinging around randomly from the ceiling.

Unless the picture is misleading it looks more than a challenge. Even if there is sufficient gap width-wise, I can be very certain that boats with draughts like or pair couldn't possibly float whichever of the gaps they tried.

Oh please don't keep us guessing! What (approx) 15Kg weight would you choose to hang from the roof, (presumably on a fairly permanent basis.) I think you need to consider what may happen if your progress is brought to a sudden halt by grounding on something or collision with something, (such as with a lock gate say, if you suddenly loose reverse because of a major prop foul.) 15Kg of something unexpectedly swinging in all directions could possibly be quite dangerous.

So is it the Coventry or is it the Oxford?

A|ll of which would make it a very dubious purchase. You can't be sure you could actively use it without it bending, snapping, or otherwise failing. Used only as an ornamental piece, it is not a copy of anything that might have been actively used "in the day". I'll pass, thank you!

I'm trying to work out why there is fairly good definition for all their faces, but their hands and legs are highly pixelated.

Well BOGNOR wouldn't need to worry about the Aylesbury arm. The "narrow" locks on the arm are remarkably wide. Probably good for 7' 6" or even more. Certainly more than any very spread Town class.

It appears to have a bow thruster (or at least the possibility of one). Not something you find on the average Large Woolwich! It passed through Berkhamsted, heading North, a few days ago.

Yes, I remember the open days, but not at the time as a boat owner. We had yet to acquire "Chalice". I wish I had pictures, but don't think I have. We went on a trip from Bulbourne to the Tringford pumping station on one of the decked over ex GUCCCo tugs. I'm fairly certain that it was Renton rather than Sickle. I think they had erected some crude stanchions to support ropes to reduce risk of the general public falling overboard. I think the arrangements would not have been considered safe in the modern age. Certainly I doubt the BW skippers would have held Boatmaster certifications! Happy days

This uses to be a thing in the South East. Not for quite a few years though, as they sold it off.