pete harrison

Mr Moore is of course correct in that PRINCESS ANNE is iron composite, i.e. iron sides and a wooden bottom. The other difference between CONWAY and PRINCESS ANNE was / is in the advertised sale price - about 50 times in difference

I went to Marsh Hill Nursery School followed by Marsh Hill Junior School, which was a couple of hundred yards further up Marsh Hill

I was born on Hunton Hill (off Slade Road), moving to about half way along George Road (opposite Brookvale Park) a year or so later - so I never lived in Stockland Green

I was a few years after you, starting there in 1973, but I am sure many of the teachers would have been the same. I ended up getting expelled for truancy as I was working on canal boats by the time I was fourteen (and a bit earlier if I am honest), but they later took me back and I stayed on for a year or so to make up for lost time. I have seen a Facebook group for Stockland Green School but I do not know whether it is 'yours'. I do remember Banks's, and my dad used to take us to the Plaza cinema on a Saturday afternoon - all a long time ago now

I certainly remember Doug and Anita Lear and their boats back in the late 1970's and early 1980's, their motor being a 60' Hancock and Lane named MAGIC LANTERN and the full length small Northwich butty CARINA - and my notes show them owning CARINA from 1978 to 1983. I am pretty sure they moved their show onto the bank around 1983/84, but both boats still exist with the motor renamed as LEONARD and the butty part of the Canal and River Trust 'heritage fleet' but on long term lease. edit = Your Forum name interests me as I went to Stockland Green School, Birmingham - do we have something in common ?

Times must be harder for me than they are you as I thought 5p was being flippant, even though I knew I was right - but I am not a betting man so it is my loss on this occasion

If I were a betting man I would put 5p on this being Shipton Weir Lock, with the wide expanse at the top of the photograph being the river Cherwell and the photographer standing on the footbridge - the footbridge being a nuisance when going downhill with an empty grand Union motor as the cratch catches if the Cherwell is up a bit

here we go again - ORION on Ebay @ £20k. Previously up for Ebay auction with an end date of 23 February 2020, but the advert was taken down on 17 February 2020. The current seller has a different Ebay name and a different telephone number, and more concerning is the history score of '0' https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/50ft-trad-narrowboat/202970601149?hash=item2f41fd96bd:g:M6AAAOSwedNenxsF

The article in NarrowBoat magazine Spring 2009 states that this lock is on the Nene, but as I have never been on that river I have not got a clue which one

I am not a metallurgist but I can't help thinking all alloy (including brass) windlasses have an inherent weakness as they are comparatively soft so will flex causing stress, and the stress will eventually lead to failure whether that be a bend or a snap. Perhaps there is a marketing opportunity for a Dunton Double made from steel

I think these brass / bronze windlass' are proof that not all shiny 'traditional' items are worth having. They were junk when they were made and they are junk now, if not useless and hazardous if used for drawing a paddle. I have an unused large and an unused small purchased for ornamental use only, and I think there were a couple that came with my boat and both are bent. My windlass of choice is a Dunton Double edit = the only brass windlass I do like are the miniature versions that act as a centre piece amongst hanging plates, and they only cost a fiver. Here is another on Ebay - apparently rare and collectable for £150 !!!!!! https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canal-Narrowboat-old-windlass-Collectable-and-usable-Item/313033162505?hash=item48e23aff09:g:e0gAAOSww7FedBdu

= ACTIS

ACTIS edit = ACTIS in 2004

A pointed stern and large wooden rudder does not make a butty. This is a B.C.N. day boat and has carried the name LILITH for over 40 years. As to the cabin detail these will change on each rebuild, but looking at the hull construction and general construction of the cabin there is no doubt as to its current identity

The butty to KING RHODRI MAWR was PRINCESS MYFANWY. This pair was built by South's, Shrewsbury and it appears that this was a short lived operation lasting only 1975 and 1976 (these boats fall outside my field of research so all of this information is from the book Precious Cargo). Many people, including me, will remember this pair in the late 1970's and 1980's as the re-named ELIJAH and ELISHA, owned and operated by a North American religious group - most infamous for the incompetent manor in which they handled their boats and for several of the occupants poisoning themselves having cleaned their teeth with canal water whilst tied at Kings Norton. edit = Both of these boats are still extant and in private ownership

I do not know what you are using as your terms of reference but the B.C.N. gauge registers state CZAR 21 (BCN1742) was a cabin iron boat and SARDINE 90 (BCN1697) was an open iron boat' As I have already said all of the boats you list above have previous B.C.N. gauge numbers to those you have listed and all are cross referenced within these registers - as are all other previously owned L.M.S.R. boats on these registers. At least three of the boats above are traceable to Pickford and Company, and I suspect the forth is from Pickford as well. At least one of these boats, BRIDE, still exists and its construction is what enthusiasts now call a 'Mk.1 Bantock' - but this is an enthusiast term and I think there is little evidence that Thomas Bantock actually built them. I have carried out a massive amount of research into B.C.N. gauge registers, and I have databased four separate complete sets of remaining tables. I also have a complete set of B.C.N. gauge registers digitally photographed so I can always check for typo's. Because of this I can collate information very quickly and can trace a boat history in minutes. I do not think I can add anything else to this thread, except to say that I hold my ground in that there is no evidence that W.J. Yarwood & Sons Ltd. yard number 397 was ever built

This is certainly no butty, but it is a conversion based upon a B.C.N. day boat - named LILITH and part of the Wooden Canal Boat Society operation

Yard number 397 is particularly interesting for its lack of detail when compared to other boats in the W.J. Yarwood and Sons Ltd. 'Yard Book'. There are 950 yard numbers that span everything that they built - from narrow boats to ocean going tugs, from lock gates to bridges e,t,c,, What is common to every Yard Number is a "Date Commenced" and a "Date Finished", the latter of which is sometimes altered to "Away". Every boat has one or the other or both of these dates regardless of whether the Yard Number was allocated to a single vessel or a batch of vessels (batches have each boat named and dated for completion). Yard Number 397 has neither, the first thing that suggests these 6 boats for the L.M.S.R. were never started and never completed. We have already discussed that there is nothing in the B.C.N. Gauge Registers that captures 6 boats for L.M.S.R. in or around the period Yard Number 397 were allegedly built, in fact all of the L.M.S.R. boats captured within the B.C.N. Gauge Registers can be accounted for as either W.J. Yarwood and Sons Ltd. new builds or acquisitions from other carriers. So this leaves the possibility of the 6 boats of Yard Number 397 being constructed for use on other waterways operated by the L.M.S.R.. Apart from the narrow boats built for Fellows, Morton and Clayton Ltd. and the 2 pairs of 'admirals' all W.J. Yarwood and Sons Ltd. built commercial narrow boats have a common feature - the rolled over stem post, and this includes all of the new build L.M.S.R. day boats. If the 6 boats under Yard Number 397 were built I can see no reason why they would have not had the rolled over stem post, in fact my opinion is that they would have been very similar to the other day boats built for the L.M.S.R. but perhaps scaled up or down to suit their purpose on another canal. I have been around 'historic' narrow boats since before they were historic (50 years), and I have been carrying out detailed research into 'historic' narrow boats for over 30 years - yet I have never come across a oddity that could be attributed to W.J. Yarwood and Sons Ltd.. There is also an army of 'historic' narrow boat owners and enthusiasts the length and breadth of the country who I am sure would highlight a boat that seemed out of the ordinary - but nothing !!!!! There is the possibility that the 6 boats in question could have all of been scrapped, but looking at the survival rate of other metal hulled boats of this period I think this is highly unlikely. I think the above is fairly well balanced and is based upon years of accumulated documents and personal experience. I am no longer looking for the boats from Yard Number 397 as I do not believe they were ever built, and in his later stages of his research Clive Guthrie was of the same opinion

At Clive's funeral / wake the subject of seeing through the publication of his book was discussed, by both his family and quite a number of influential waterways personalities - including me but I am not influential or a personality. Clive's son was keen to lead this, especially as the manuscript was complete and all that was left was to place the photographs and send it to the publisher (Clive's publisher was already in place) - and he had countless offers of help and assistance, including from me. After the funeral / wake we all went our separate ways. I think the great plan unfolded when Clive's son become overwhelmed, both emotionally and because he new nothing of W.J. Yarwood & Sons Ltd. and their work, making placing photographs almost impossible. Unfortunately Clive's son did not reach out for assistance and by the time 'the great and the good' of the canal world started asking questions and renewing their offers of help it was too late. It became apparent that different members of the family retained Clive's computer, documents and photographs and that they were spread across the midlands and south west - and nobody seemed to know who had what. I fear much of Clive's stuff will have been lost now due to house moves, garage clearances, life and the like. Personally I think the important part of Clive's work is the manuscript, which as I have said before has been circulated to three individuals, proof read and corrected. I think if this were to be published as it is it would make a great reference book and be an ongoing testament to Clive. It could even be populated by some photographs as finding images of the boats / ships / bridges e.t.c. built by W.J. Yarwood & Sons Ltd. is not difficult at all, although copyright might be a bigger issue. I would still prefer this to be driven by Clive's family, but with it being 13 years since his passing I just can not see this happening edit = I have been involved with a similar thing over the past 5 years or so as Mike Webb's widow struggles to make sense of his photographs and associated records, mostly dating from the 1950's to the mid 1980's - and although she supported Mike's interest in working narrow boats she knew nothing of the detail so at almost every turn is confusion when her quest is for accuracy. At her request we published a book of Mike's photographs a couple of years ago, but in Mike Webb's name of course.

I agree, Clive Guthrie's work is well worthy of publication - although I fear much of it is now lost

It appears that this thread is a case oh history repeating itself. I wish I had thought to refer to the earlier thread from 2012 on this subject rather than writing all of that stuff in my previous post

I discussed this Yard Number (not Order) at some length with Clive Guthrie and finally managed to convince him that this Yard Number was never fulfilled. If it had these 6 boats would have appeared in the B.C.N. gauge registers along with all of the others built for L.M.S.R. by W.J. Yarwood and Sons Ltd.. Clive never got to publish his works as he passed away whilst the manuscripts were being proof read by three trusted friends, but under Yard Number 397 he wrote: "6 open type narrow boats - L.M.S. Rly?" "The above is as shown in the yard book, including the question mark. There is no evidence that these six boats were ever built. The two Yarwood yard books in existence do not list any names or completion dates for these six boats. Gauging registers for the Birmingham Canal Navigations (B.C.N.) do not list any new boats for the London, Midland & Scottish Railway Co. (L.M.S.) in the 1930's, yet all the previous Yarwood boats for the L.M.S. are listed in the B.C.N. gauge registers" I have a photocopy of the W.J. Yarwood and Sons Ltd. Yard Book held by Cheshire Records Office and I can confirm it reads "397. 6 open type canal boats. L.M.S.Rly Ltd." Clive was a dear friend and is sadly missed, and the work he did regarding all of the builds by W.J. Yarwood and Sons Ltd. and their predecessors warrants great merit. What Clive was not was a canal enthusiast, and by his own admission his knowledge and understanding of 'historic' narrow boats was extremely limited. He could not understand why there was no register for canal boats, like Lloyds established for ships, and found the fact that a boat name could be used countless times very confusing. Some time after starting his research into W.J. Yarwood and Sons Ltd. he came across Malcolm Braine (amongst other) who started putting some of his notes right, and a little while later our paths crossed and the rest is history. During Clive's earlier period of research he made some assumptions, and one of those was that the B.C.N. gaugings for BRIDE (BCN1827 - 28/09/1934), CYCLOPS (BCN1989 - 03/11/1937), CZAR (BCN1742 - 28/09/1932), GAINSBOROUGH (BCN1970 - 14/07/1937), SARDINE (BCN1697 - 21/09/1931) and ? were for those boats mentioned under W.J. Yarwood and Sons Ltd. Yard Number 397 as they were all for the L.M.S.R. (I think he got a printout for all L.M.S.R. boats on the B.W.B. archive gauge database) - hence the association with these boat names and 397. The reality is that the B.C.N. gauge registers tell a very different story as these five were re-gaugings of old boats, so there was never a boat to cover the ?? in your question. What has been unhelpful was Clive's tendency to circulate aspects of his research that was either incomplete or incorrect. These notes are still in circulation and a blooming nuisance

Prior to setting up at Oldbury Les Allen worked at Spencer Abbot and Company, Salford Bridge - ending up as Forman I believe. Spencer Abbott and Company built new boats as well as extensive dockings, mostly if not all in wood. This would mean that the yard established at Oldbury would easily manage maintenance and alterations to wooden hulls, and it was this yard that converted CONWAY to a counter sterned motor pleasure boat in 1968/69. In response to the current advert I have written quite a lot about CONWAY elsewhere, possibly on Facebook

Super sized large Woolwich motor https://www.apolloduck.co.uk/boat/harland-and-wolff-short-boat-town-class/630346

I do not know much about Kelvins but it looks like a P4 to me