Traditional tug style shell

[Ago1000]

I am considering having a tug style shell built with all the bells and whistles...ie: recessed panels, replica rivetts, tug deck (obviously) side hatches, back cabin, and separate engine  room, etc etc...around 60 feet long...shell only as my retirement project...I appreciate there are a multitude of builders out, but as this is a little bit different any advice on who, where, and potential price would be appreciated...thanks Ian...

[Athy]

Mel Davis.

Nottinghamshire.

You get what you pay for.

He built our boat. The one in the photo is not ours but is an example of his work, taken from his web site gallery.

 

Oh, and welcome to CWDF!

Edited February 24, 2019 by Athy

[David Mack]

Rather than ask on here you would do better by looking at boats out there that you like, and asking who built them. That will give you a much better feel for the details that appeal to you and those that are less important.

If you are looking for a fully bespoke boat then you should be talking to the top notch builders, who mostly have full order books and you might be waiting a while. Or you could look for an off the peg shell which is likely to be available sooner, but may not meet all your requirements.

[David Schweizer]

If you want a replica tug that actually looks like a tug,  you would have to go a long way to beat Brinklow Boat services:- http://www.brinklowboatservices.com/

 

 

[plato]

R.W. Davis build great looking tugs. They look a bit more workman like to my eye , but have nice lines. 

Only built in 70ft and 62ft but I believe they may also do a “Northwich ” breaker 

[Laurie Booth]

Don't buy a Springer Tug

[Richard T]

Norton Canes Boatbuilders http://www.nortoncanesboatbuilders.co.uk/home/ Paul Barber at Sheet Stores basin on the Erewash are two builders that spring to mind.

[Movin' on]

If you really want all the bells and whistles for me it would be Brinklow every time BUT these days you will probably have to pay as much for a shell and engine only as a good 5 year old finished boat - there are examples out there that prove my point.

 

I know where there is/was a Brinklow shell that the yard bought for a winter project to fit out a few years ago (i.e. to generate work) they might move it on if you wanted an engine fitted .

 

PM me if you want to know more.

[cuthound]

One of the problems with the new RCD requirements is that they make it almost impossible to put a traditional low revving engine such as a re-conditioned Lister or Gardener into a new shell.

 

As such an engine is for me an intrinsic part of a very traditional boat, so I would be looking at a suitable second-hand tug, rather than new. 

 

Buying second-hand also eliminates the risk of the builder going broke, eliminates "teething troubles" associated with new builds and prevents someone new to boating from specifying a white elephant (although not at all traditional, think Whitefield), thus preventing them losing more than just normal new boat depreciation, when the time comes to sell.

Edited February 24, 2019 by cuthound
Spillung

[Athy]

5 minutes ago, cuthound said:

One of the problems with the new RCD requirements is that they make it almost impossible to put a traditional low revving engine such as a re-conitioned Lister or Gardener into a new shell.

 

As such an engine is for me an intrinsic part of a very traditional boat, so I would be looking at a suitable second-hand tug, rather than new. 

 

 

I think - though others will know better than I do - that you are allowed one if the boat is a replica of an old one. What constitutes a replica is, I suppose, open t debate.

 

...in which case the obvious choice of engine (assuming that, as he wants this boat built, the O.P. is not a poor man, is a Russell Newbery, which are still made in England. Redshaw's also sell a "Listeroid" copy of a Lister CS, imported from India, but I think (hope) tidied up by Redshaw's.

[cuthound]

30 minutes ago, Athy said:

I think - though others will know better than I do - that you are allowed one if the boat is a replica of an old one. What constitutes a replica is, I suppose, open t debate.

 

...in which case the obvious choice of engine (assuming that, as he wants this boat built, the O.P. is not a poor man, is a Russell Newbery, which are still made in England. Redshaw's also sell a "Listeroid" copy of a Lister CS, imported from India, but I think (hope) tidied up by Redshaw's.

 

I agree that the definition of a replica is open to interpretation, but do the RN and Listeroids meet the relevant emission specification (which is why they no longer allow re-conditioned old engines), I very much doubt if they do.

 

Personally I would want to see hard evidence from the builder that a very similar shell had been accepted by the relevant authorities as a replica before placing a firm order.

Edited February 24, 2019 by cuthound
To add the last paragraph

[Athy]

4 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

I agree that the definition of a replica is open to interpretation, but do the RN and Listeroids meet the relevant emission specification (which is why they no longer allow re-conditioned old engines), I very much doubt if they do.

You miss the point. Obviously you did not read my post no.10.

Edited February 24, 2019 by Athy

[cuthound]

4 minutes ago, Athy said:

You miss the point.

 

Please explain why.

[WotEver]

15 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Please explain why.

You don’t need a modern emissions-complying lump if you are building a replica. Therefore an RN, Lister or Bolinder would suffice. 

[cuthound]

28 minutes ago, WotEver said:

You don’t need a modern emissions-complying lump if you are building a replica. Therefore an RN, Lister or Bolinder would suffice. 

 

Which brings us back to the definition of a replica.

 

I doubt whether a modern interpretation of a working tug, such as an R W Davis, or similar would count, but who knows?

[Athy]

37 minutes ago, WotEver said:

You don’t need a modern emissions-complying lump if you are building a replica. Therefore an RN, Lister or Bolinder would suffice. 

Precisely, as I said in post no.10!

7 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Which brings us back to the definition of a replica.

 

 

Precisely, as I said in post no.10!

 

 

 

Aaarrrgghhh....

 

 

Since boats have been sold as replicas of old working designs when they have had a full-length cabin, the term is obviously elastic.

Edited February 24, 2019 by Athy

[cuthound]

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

Precisely, as I said in post no.10!

Precisely, as I said in post no.10!

 

 

 

Aaarrrgghhh....

 

 

Since boats have been sold as replicas of old working designs when they have had a full-length cabin, the term is obviously elastic.

 

That is why i  post #9 i said "almost impossible".

 

According to the OED a replica is "An exact copy or model of something, especially one on a smaller scale."

 

This adds even more confusion because how can it be an exact copy I'd it is smaller?

 

I suspect that a modern exact copy of a traditional working boat would be allowed to use an old engine, but an "interpretation" such as produced by RW Davis would not.

[Athy]

13 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

That is why i  post #9 i said "almost impossible".

 

According to the OED a replica is "An exact copy or model of something, especially one on a smaller scale."

 

This adds even more confusion because how can it be an exact copy I'd it is smaller?

 

I suspect that a modern exact copy of a traditional working boat would be allowed to use an old engine, but an "interpretation" such as produced by RW Davis would not.

The "smaller scale" bit is a ruddy saltwater fish and need not concern us here. Many replicas are in 12" to the foot scale. Pictured is a Frazer Nash Le Mans Replica and, as you can tell, it's full size.

A boatbuilder making such a craft would argue that it WAS a replica - and how would the men from the ministry tell if it wasn't? 

Edited February 24, 2019 by Athy

[dmr]

If money is a not infinite, or the waiting lists too long, then many popular shell builders will be happy to produce a decent trad style shell for you, Colecraft have made many, though not sure that they do the rivets.

Don't worry about all this RCD and regulation stuff, life is too short for that. However assuming life is at least another five years I reckon you can still do whatever you want if you don't plan to sell the boat within five years, and if you do drop dead before that then it is, as they say, somebody else's problem. Probably best to order the shell without the engine, just specify bed layout, then fit the engine "yourself" a little later.

 

..............Dave

[WotEver]

12 minutes ago, cuthound said:

I suspect that a modern exact copy of a traditional working boat would be allowed to use an old engine, but an "interpretation" such as produced by RW Davis would not.

By whose interpretation? And are ‘they’ going to care, particularly after 29th March?

[mark99]

Repaint and tidy up and this will be a great bote.

 

https://narrowboats.apolloduck.com/boat/david-harris/579188

[Athy]

5 minutes ago, mark99 said:

Repaint and tidy up and this will be a great bote.

 

https://narrowboats.apolloduck.com/boat/david-harris/579188

I believe I have  met 'Asia' and she is indeed a turner of heads. Though purists may cavil, I like the idea of the extended back cabin to accommodate wardrobes, not so sure about two control wheels, though no doubt one gets used to that system.

 

If the O.P.'s heart is set upon designing his own boat from the ground up, she won't appeal; if it isn't, he could do much worse than going to have a look.

[cuthound]

47 minutes ago, dmr said:

If money is a not infinite, or the waiting lists too long, then many popular shell builders will be happy to produce a decent trad style shell for you, Colecraft have made many, though not sure that they do the rivets.

Don't worry about all this RCD and regulation stuff, life is too short for that. However assuming life is at least another five years I reckon you can still do whatever you want if you don't plan to sell the boat within five years, and if you do drop dead before that then it is, as they say, somebody else's problem. Probably best to order the shell without the engine, just specify bed layout, then fit the engine "yourself" a little later.

 

..............Dave

 

46 minutes ago, WotEver said:

By whose interpretation? And are ‘they’ going to care, particularly after 29th March?

 

I believe Trading Standards are responsible for policing the RCD, and suspect it is very low on their priorities, assumìng that they new the difference between a Beta 43 and a Bilinder in the first place.

 

I was merely trying to inform the OP of the current legislation and other options available to him.

 

To me the main benefit of having an RCD compliant boat is the comprehensive manual that should come with it and the potentially wider pool of buyers when you come to sell it.

[Iain_S]

27 minutes ago, cuthound said:

(snip)

To me the main benefit of having an RCD compliant boat is the comprehensive manual that should come with it and the potentially wider pool of buyers when you come to sell it.

Emphasis on "should"!

Our boat manual devotes half a page to compliance with the requirement to provide an attachment point for the (non-existent ) liferaft, but neglects to include the useful bits, such as a diagrams or descriptions of water system, electrical system, etc.

[Bee]

1 hour ago, WotEver said:

By whose interpretation? And are ‘they’ going to care, particularly after 29th March?

I agree. Its your money, your boat, your engine. Nobody will police it or tell you to take it out. There is just the faintest chance that some future buyer will prove awkward but if he/she is looking at a nice boat with an ancient engine they will not care less.