alan_fincher

I don't think there is huge potential for the area of land occupied by the Rising Sun, (aka "Riser"). It is fairly unusual that it faces out on to the adjacent lock (Lock 55), and is not actually on a road, being accessible from the nearest road only via an unmade track. It is a small pub, with virtually no outside area, relying on the lockside for a chance of an outside drink. It is in my view one of the very best pubs surviving on the GU, and it would be a great shame if anything brought that to an end.

As David has said, the original configuration of Large Woolwich boats was with a riveted engine room but a wooden back cabin. On the whole the vast majority of back cabins have been re-fabricated in steel, (to reduce ongoing maintenance), but done in a way to so far is possible look like wood. Fenny's 57 foot length is because it is one of a batch of boats that British Waterways shortened to become maintenance boats on Norther Canals where 70 foot (plus) boats can't travel. Subsequently it worked as a fuel boat in this shorter length, so it is a very genuine article.

At least for the short term I need to insure a boat to at least the level required by CRT to issue a licence. The boat is 88 years old, and does not have the recent full out of water survey and valuation required by (I assume) all regular insurers to get comprehensive cover. I believe I will need a basic third party cover to satisfy CRT. I recall "Basic Boat Insurance" having come up repeatedly in the past, but Googling for that string seems to produce many links to insurers actually asking you to complete on line forms that are very obviously about comprehensive cover. Could anybody with experience of buying "Basic Boat Insurance" please offer suggestions as to who I might approach. Can you please provide exact UPLs, to stop me keep ending up in the wrong place. I'd also welcome views on who is good, and who to avoid. Thank you

You are going to need bloody long arms to reach that gear change lever from the steering position!

I've not read all the previous comments in detail, but I am 100% certain that Carousel is an ex Rose Narrowboats hire boat. I don't think it has any connection to "Warwickshire". One sees quite a few sold off Rose Narrowboats about, mostly still in the company colours, and generally well presented. They do operate a fleet of fairly elderly boats though, and those that are sold off will generally be amongst the oldest. EDIT: Amended to acknowledge a reference to "Warwickshire" as the fitter out, rather than the shell builder, stated to be Hancock & Lane.

Well two people have already posted to say they had a boat with just s single plate, so it seems like I am not totally wrong. I have seen it on multiple boats, including on a number of hire boats. I can't recall ever being in charge of any boat that had any more than that, but as I have been boating well over 50 years, I can't fully remember what the situation was in the early 1970s.

Many narrow boats, (quite possibly the majority?), don't have a plate at the bottom level of the weed hatch. They simply have a plate capping off the top.. This certainly was the case with the only boat I ever had with a hatch. (both my current boats don't have such a luxury). I don't actually think it cases any significant effect on the bot moving forwards.

Best photo of it I have seen so far. Credit: Madhurika Gohil

I thought that it is often said that a Beta 38 is very similarly sized to a BMC 1500 or 1800. I can only assume that the BMC must also have been a very tight fit into the available space. If a skin tank was adequate for a BMC, then it ought to be equally adequate for a Beta. The estimated 6.5 square feet is not ideal, but I have seen a lot worse, and it should more than suffice on canals. As has been said pushing against the flow on rivers might be problematic, but for canals it sounds fine.

The first rut is the deepest???

Apologies Chris - yes my mistake. Should have read.... However LS-X can only help if you are able to undo the joint with no further damage. In this case it sounds like that has been declared risky?

I may have missed it, but think this is probably the first mention in the thread of Fernox LS-X. I'm well aware that compression joints should need no sealant and/or tape, but actually I have found LS-X very effective in sealing compression joints that are not 100% leak-proof. However LS-X can only help if you are unable to undo the joint with no further damage. In this case it sounds like that has been declared risky? I'm not aware of much that can be applied externally to make the damaged joint watertight - a number of things might work, but they are far from guaranteed.

Worth noting for the future that although the D51B looks remarkably like the D61B that replaced it, the D51B doesn't share many of the parts with the later D61Bs. If you need parts many in my experience were obsolete. The flue size is larger on the D61B as well, so if you ever replace one with the other you may well need an adapter.

That's a part synthetic oil - I have a suspicion that the advice is t avoid this in many of the old low-tech engines we use in narrow boats.

Hi Tony. No it is definitely simply only a cover. There is usually two lugs on the pack of the plate that line up with two "notches" on what it attaches to. It is possible (maybe even usual) to have a plate higher up that can rotate to give anything from a totally closed off flue (plate horizontal), to a virtually wide open one, (plate vertical). I have encountered these with no knob attached on the outside, and where it is possible to have it in the position that the flu is closed off, but no obvious way of correcting that.

The ever increasing number of published outages to allow fat boat passage through Blisworth and/or Braunston tunnels is adequate evidence that some of them, at least, do mov from time to time. Even the infamous "container boat" moves, including sometimes though the tunnels.

On a boat we used to own the fabricator torched off the former internal skin tank as part of the exercise of adding a replacement external one on the swim. The result completely cured a previous overheating problem, and allowed us to start using the boat with full confidence.

A problem might be that whilst a few years ago the advice "wait until another boat comes along" would have been a solid suggestion, the inexorable rise in the wide beam population now means the next boat along may well be a "fatty" and hence sharing will not be an option. Sad, and unfortunately true.

For hull and cabin linings a good quality WBP plywood should be more than adequate. You can chose one with a hardwood veneer on one side if you want to end up with a wood finish. Personally I would use ply of at least 9mm thickness. Some will tell you it is too thick/stiff to form a lining to the roof, but I never had a problem achieving the required curvature. As Tony implies there are a whole range of qualities of ply purporting to be "marine". The stuff that is genuine marine ply costs a small fortune, (certainly more than 3 figure sums per sheet). I doubt that even the very top end professional "fitter-outers" use it, as the cost to line a whole boat would be prohibitive to most buyers. they ay use something sold as "marine ply", but which isn't really. Some people use faced MDF in preference to faced plywood. Personally I thing MDH is horrible stuff, with possible heath risks - I wouldn't touch it.

And approaching a third of those are in the main Marsworth flight. Shocking, frankly - CRT really do seem to have lost the plot. On the other hand there are at least lots of nice blue signs.....

That is my experience and FLAMINGO has passed several consecutive BSS examinations, with no complaint by the examiner, (hardly surprising as it was he who advised me I don't need to lag). From what Momac has pasted.... I read it that is only required in cases where the exhaust ifs not located out of harms way - a fairly unusual situation I would say. Certainly it looks like if it is beneath a deck, or surrounded by a "box", then it doesn't need to be lagged.

I think the Thornycroft 80 is a marinisation of the Mitsubishi K4 engine. You may encounter more references to that base engine than the Thornycroft name.

Slightly confusing phrasing though. You have a well deck AND a gas locker, but they are different things. I've assumed he is talking about gas locker, but perhaps it is dangerous to assume. EDIT: Having taken a look at the brokers photos, it seems this is the generation of Stowe Hill boats that has fairly deep cabin sides, and hence rather shallow hull sides; It's not easy to see where the gas locker vents might be, but assuming it uses 13Kg gas cylinders, it is possible the vents could be on the waterline, or possibly even below it. If that were the case, the bottom of the locker will be wet a lot of the time, and this would easily explain the wastage in a boat over 20 years old.

Person (welder) accessibility is probably the least of the issues faced if putting a new bottom in a gas locker. If it is to be achieved with a single piece of steel. then the likelihood is that there is zero chance of that piece of steel being able to pass through the hatch into the locker. I've no experience of how they do this, but suspect the new plate will have to be made up of multiple pieces that need welding together once they are all inside. If I'm missing a more straightforward solution no doubt someone will put me right!