pete harrison

Both from early May 2018. This was both the first and the last time I was on my boat whilst it was moving, but now coming towards the end of a 2 year restoration

Yes, I have just read that elsewhere which made me think about the event at Braunston

I am surprised that the ongoing and worsening public health crisis has not yet caused this event to be cancelled, or have I missed something

It was not at all uncommon for boatyards to buy and sell boats, with re-namings taking place as they changed hands. There is little information relating to the detailed operations of most boatyards, and due to their concentration those across the B.C.N. can be particularly problematic - but good luck with your researches

I am not sure some of your statement above is correct, and it was me who originally collated the data that is now published on the B.C.N.S. website. My own database is much more comprehensive and is based upon 4 sets of B.C.N. Gauge Registers along with additional fields of data. There is nothing in the B.C.N. Gauge Registers to state where a boat was built, so are you making assumptions that these were all new boats or do you have additional records to draw upon. On the top of a B.C.N. Gauge Table is a 'Late Number' which when completed denotes a previous B.C.N. gauging - and about 25% of those boats you have listed were not new as they have a recorded 'Late Number', including both RUBY and NEPTUNE. Did you look at the relevant B.C.N. Gauge Registers or have you taken the gauge database at face value

This is the case for most owners of these boats who are keen to keep on top of things, especially if they do not have the skills or health to carry out ongoing maintenance and renovations themselves edit = this gap between maintenance / renovation / restoration and end value has been getting further apart for a while as 'historic' narrow boats have been dropping in price, and I have every confidence this will only get worse in the coming months fuelled by the changing circumstances of potential purchasers. I have had to suspend my plans to acquire a butty (todays viewing cancelled) as the world has changed since making my initial enquiry only a couple of weeks ago.

Erewash Canal Carrying Company Ltd. motors CYPRUS and ELM as well as buttys ASH and CEDAR were designed and built along very similar lines to the G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. small Northwich design, the only difference being was that they are 12'' shorter than a small Northwich edit = the Erewash boats were nominally 70'6'' x 7'0 1/2''

It should be borne in mind that the boats of the G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. were designed to fit the canals of the Grand Union Canal network. I am not at all sure that they pushed the limits on length and width but they were undoubtedly on the larger side of boats constructed at that time (B.C.N. day boats also got bigger in the latter days of construction - excluding Hampton boats). Having a nominal dimension of 71'6'' x 7'0 1/2'' G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. boats could fit on the vast majority of waterways across the midlands, but some boats were a little larger making them more challenging, whilst some were a little smaller making passage of narrower locks un-noticeable. This is still the situation nowadays, although exacerbated by some boats spreading a little and some locks narrowing a bit. My own G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. large Northwich motor has recently been measure at bang on 7'0'', although it was gauged as 7'0 1/2'' in 1936. Again excluding B.C.N. day boats the longest narrow boats were those horse boats converted to counter sterned motors - some of which were several inches more than 72'

Bradshaw's edition of 1904 certainly gives maximum dimensions for vessels as 72'0'' x 13'6'' from Derwent Mouth to Horninglow Wharf. What this publication does not give is the actual dimensions of the locks, so if these vessel dimensions accounted for an inch or two of clearance it is quite feasible that modern narrow boats with a nominal beam of 6'10'' could pass through side by side. The suggestion that 'fly boats were light and perhaps a little narrower' is a sweeping statement. All that 'fly' means is that a boat is allowed to work for 24 hours each day, and many boats worked like this from both small and large carriers including F.M.C. Ltd. and G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. where the boats involved were of standard construction. The lighter built and narrower boats for 'fly' use is often associated to the S.U.R.C.C.o., but in reality these purpose built fast boats represented less than 50% of those working fly' for that company - all a bit misleading really

As mentioned in post number 72 of this thread, but yes worthy of a mention on here again. As a previous owner I am sure you will be aware that CLARA is this boats pleasure boat name, its working name being BRIER 591, and later the No. 8 that you mention when under L.M.S.R.. I last saw CLARA in the weir stream of Kings Lock, Oxford in May 2018

I was wondering what a repaint cost nowadays as my boat should be getting one this year - all being well

Alan Elyard Brown was a dear friend of mine and we visited each others homes on numerous occasions. Alan gave me full access to his extensive collection of notes, files and folders, much of which I have used to fill in the gaps in my own 'research'. Alan was often a point of ridicule at boat rallies and gatherings but his enthusiasm and insistence on correctness was undaunted, and he was usually the first point of contact when specific detail was needed. There is no doubt that Alan was an eccentric, and his writing became unbelievably difficult to read - a bit like deciphering code but for those with patience and respect well worth while. Alan passed away a few years ago with his records going to the Historic Narrow Boat Club archive (he would turn in his grave to know this), with his older photographs and slides remaining within a private collection. Fortunately I have photocopies of arguably Alan's most important documents - his first 'Diary File' from 12 November 1960 to 10 October 1975 which captures the period of change for many boats from commercial to pleasure use and his last 'Diary File' from 13 April 1997 to 04 September 2011. The waterways (and railways) suffered a great loss with the passing of Alan Elyard Brown and I do not think we will see the likes of him again - RIP.

As has been proven numerous times Chris M. Jones has far superior records than me, and is more accurate in his portrayal of this information. It will be interesting to see what comes next on this thread as both of the Barlow companies fall outside of my main field of interest

I understood that the Nurser built HOOD was fleet number 32 both before and after the fleet renumbering, and as HYPERION became 58 it makes sense to me that the S.E. Barlow HOOD became 59 - so Mr Jones reference above is related to Mr Davis' HOOD, and we now know the Parsons Merganser was fitted in 1957 edit = my records are from Bert Dunkley who made transcripts of Samuel Barlow Coal Company Ltd. documents in January 1951 - so the later acquisitions are unfortunately missing. Whether the tabular construction of Mr Dunkley's transcript is exactly as per the original I do not know, but there is loads of interesting information.

Like HOOD, HYPERION was acquired by Samuel Barlow Coal Company Ltd. in February 1957. When HYPERION was re-registered at Daventry in October 1957 it was noted as having a new cabin and engine, and this is undoubtedly when the AS2 (actually a Parsons Merganser) was fitted. BEATTY was similarly re-engine at this time and both of these boats engines have consecutive serial numbers. I wonder what the serial numbers are for the engine in HOOD (they were on a brass plates on both sides of the of the engine - one side being the Armstrong serial number and the other being the Parsons serial number)

A good bit of anecdotal evidence there, you have done well. I have read Ramlin Rose several times but as it was fiction (but based upon conversations with boaters) I would not have accepted that reference as historical evidence. I have only ever known HOOD with the AS2, and it was certainly fitted prior to 1977. I am sure the JP2 reference relates to the Samuel Barlow Coal Company Ltd. motor of the same name, but I am sure you will have already found these two boats have histories that can be difficult to separate

Compared to the costs involved in restoring these boats £45k appears to be good value to me - apart from it being a Josher of course. I have nothing to do with the sale of this boat, but like most 'historic' narrow boats I do know the owner / seller

I have not yet come across a record of what engine was in your HOOD when built so your claim of a Petter S Type is interesting. DORSET has a 12/14hp S Type Petter complete with a reversing gearbox, but OAK also resides at Ellesmere Port nowadays, but you will need to get access to the warehouse down the road to see it

Owners

The B.C.N. gauge number for SEINE was 8360 and was relevant from 01 February 1875 until 01 July 1898 when the boat was re-weighed as B.C.N. 16272

BEECH sold yesterday on Ebay for £6252 - assuming the highest bidder pays up

Small Woolwich motor Works Tug No.2 (Manchester Ship Canal Company Bridgewater Department) but built as CERES. This boat was rebuilt by Ian Kemp at Ellesmere Port in 1991 having passed into private ownership a year or so before. It is still owned by the same person who had it restored back then edit = just beaten to it by archie57 whilst I was writing

Can I assume you are responding to my post in a different thread: Clearly there are wooden boats that receive the correct maintenance and attention as you describe above, and in theory these boats could last forever. In my experience of 'historic' narrow boats (50 years) this is not the case with the majority of wooden hulls, which is why almost all of those wooden narrow boats I remember back in my youth have long since been broken up. You have hit 'the nail on the head' when you discuss the regular dockings and man hours involved, and you are perhaps fortunate to have had the opportunity to learn the required skills to maintain a wooden narrow boat so reduce your costs - but this will never be the case for every owner. I have visited Jem's yard on numerous occasions over the years and it is great to see these wooden narrow boats in their various stages of preservation. I based my 20 to 30 years lifespan for a working wooden narrow boat from documents such as carrying company records and gauge tables, and of course there were exceptions with some lasting longer and some lasting shorter

As the owner / operator of probably the largest private archive relating to 'historic' narrow boats I would be very interested in any further details your parents are prepared to share about V.R. and their canal experiences. It is surprising how these 'write ups' and memories / photographs can be the missing link when compared to other similar documents and a context applied. I knew Jim Marshall but sadly he passed away in 2018

Correct, there being photographic evidence of most if not all of the 'Royalty' motors with visible decked counters. I am pretty sure that these motors were built with moderately low cabins (as the hulls were so deep) and the steerer stepped down from the counter deck to the footboard