First Step Towards the Cut

[MtB]

1 hour ago, dave moore said:

Potter’s cabin, duck/ swan hatch….what about the coot flaps???😉

 

But worst of all..... the BMC.

 

 

I think all these cutesy terms actually originate from Facebook.

[ditchcrawler]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

But worst of all..... the BMC.

 

 

I think all these cutesy terms actually originate from Facebook.

A good engine in their day 🤑

[cuthound]

28 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

But worst of all..... the BMC.

 

 

I think all these cutesy terms actually originate from Facebook.

 

I often wondered where his wife slept?... 😂

[IanD]

3 hours ago, MtB said:

 

But worst of all..... the BMC.

 

I think all these cutesy terms actually originate from Facebook.

 

"Potter's cabin" is what Finesse, Jonathan Wilson and Tim Tyler all called it, so I'm not going to tell them they're wrong -- after all they've built far more boats than me, or anyone else posting on CWDF... 😉

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

"Potter's cabin" is what Finesse, Jonathan Wilson and Tim Tyler all called it, so I'm not going to tell them they're wrong -- after all they've built far more boats than me, or anyone else posting on CWDF... 😉

 

There you go again.....and again.....and again...

[Captain Pegg]

47 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

"Potter's cabin" is what Finesse, Jonathan Wilson and Tim Tyler all called it, so I'm not going to tell them they're wrong -- after all they've built far more boats than me, or anyone else posting on CWDF... 😉

 

If they've built it they can describe it to their customer's how they wish. It's not something I've ever heard in a historical sense but the thread MtB linked to suggested it may have been, at least in the Potteries. The one on your boat isn't the same as a forecabin so perhaps they are actually trying to avoid criticism associated with 'incorrectly' describing something.

 

At least with your design you can't be under the pretence you have a cratch board.

 

[Stroudwater1]

7 hours ago, Goliath said:

Yes, I was pondering over that earlier today, how much more room there’d be by having a square front?

It’d be a significant gain.

And the guests could bring more clothes 👍, sorted

Been done square for years, or at least till the 80s as you know. Great additional space 😎. Each one was rather ugly and had poor propulsion though 😉

 

https://tompuddinggoole.co.uk/About-Us/
 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Been done square for years, or at least till the 80s as you know. Great additional space 😎. Each one was rather ugly and had poor propulsion though 😉

 

https://tompuddinggoole.co.uk/About-Us/
 

 

Dunno, quite like them. 
And with a Potters Cabin on the front they’d be very desirable. 
 

Maybe 😉 

[PeterF]

14 hours ago, Tonka said:

When we were out boating for a month there seemed to be a shortage of coots. Only saw 2. Lots of Kingfishers, moorhens and even some voles

There were loads of Coots on the L&L from Wigan round to Liverpool in May, most with 3-5 chicks and a lot on the BCN old main line this last month.

[IanD]

11 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

If they've built it they can describe it to their customer's how they wish. It's not something I've ever heard in a historical sense but the thread MtB linked to suggested it may have been, at least in the Potteries. The one on your boat isn't the same as a forecabin so perhaps they are actually trying to avoid criticism associated with 'incorrectly' describing something.

 

At least with your design you can't be under the pretence you have a cratch board.

 

 

I did float the idea past them of building -- in steel as part of the cabin -- something that looked like a cratch board with a cratch cover attached. We gave up on the idea because this would have been difficult to build (the 3D curved sides of the "cratch cover"), we all thought that the "potters cabin" would look better (don't forget that the twisted "cratch cover" to a full width cabin is a modern invention, boats with a cratch would have been sheeted up to top planks behind it) and give more useful storage space inside, and they had experience with building these.

 

Other opinions are available... 😉

Edited July 20, 2022 by IanD

[Captain Pegg]

21 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I did float the idea past them of building -- in steel as part of the cabin -- something that looked like a cratch board with a cratch cover attached. We gave up on the idea because this would have been difficult to build (the 3D curved sides of the "cratch cover"), we all thought that the "potters cabin" would look better (don't forget that the twisted "cratch cover" to a full width cabin is a modern invention, boats with a cratch would have been sheeted up to top planks behind it) and give more useful storage space inside, and they had experience with building these.

 

Other opinions are available... 😉

The point of my comment was that I haven’t forgotten what the cratch is and isn’t. The modern descriptions of “cratch” and “cratch board” are different from that of working boats. The board at the front of the hold is traditionally a deckboard and the cratch is a wooden structure that sits atop the hold in exactly the same place as your potter’s cabin.

 

Anyway, a wise choice I think. I find it hard to imagine that someone that doesn’t like the fake working boat front of hold arrangement would ever contemplate a fake cratch cover.

Edited July 20, 2022 by Captain Pegg

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

The point of my comment was that I haven’t forgotten what the cratch is and isn’t. The modern descriptions of “cratch” and “cratch board” are different from that of working boats. The board at the front of the hold is traditionally a deckboard and the cratch is a wooden structure that sits atop the hold in exactly the same place as your potter’s cabin.

 

Anyway, a wise choice I think. I find it hard to imagine that someone that doesn’t like the fake working boat front of hold arrangement would ever contemplate a fake cratch cover.

 

I know about cratch and deckboards, my point was that a cratch cover -- if used -- was traditionally a triangular profile to match the cratch and sheeting to the top planks, and this works visually -- what doesn't is a cover between a triangular cratch board (usually taller than the cabin to get enough headroom over the water tank) with the cover filling in the gap to a full-width gabin, it looks like a twisted mess. The fact that lots of boats do this as a practical way of using space in the bows doesn't make it look any less horrible. In my opinion... 😉

 

I was looking for a way to make use of the space above what would be a shortish front tug deck, which with no front doors is essentially useless -- no doors because these leave you with tiny wardrobes either side, in exchange for rarely-needed access to the tug deck -- and thought that having something that looked like most of the other boats on the canals (cratch between cratch board and full-width cabin) was one way to go. I was persuaded that the potter's cabin was a better idea, and am now glad I went this way.

 

Looking at the other boats under construction at TT and Finesse (and ones built recently), it seems that more and more people are coming to the same conclusion. I've no doubt that some will say it's a horrible new-fangled modern feature for boutique boats; I'd respond that -- in my view -- it's more "traditional" (and less ugly and leaky) than the cratch covers that many of them have got... 😉

Edited July 20, 2022 by IanD

[noddyboater]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

I did float the idea past them of building -- in steel as part of the cabin -- something that looked like a cratch board with a cratch cover attached. We gave up on the idea because this would have been difficult to build (the 3D curved sides of the "cratch cover")

That's funny 😉

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, noddyboater said:

That's funny 😉

Hilarious. But the main reason was it looking crap... 😉

[Tonka]

If only you had gone for a square front. You could have had a square cratch board and then the cover wouldn't look like a twisted mess. 

 

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

I know about cratch and deckboards, my point was that a cratch cover -- if used -- was traditionally a triangular profile to match the cratch and sheeting to the top planks, and this works visually -- what doesn't is a cover between a triangular cratch board (usually taller than the cabin to get enough headroom over the water tank) with the cover filling in the gap to a full-width gabin, it looks like a twisted mess. The fact that lots of boats do this as a practical way of using space in the bows doesn't make it look any less horrible. In my opinion... 😉

 

I was looking for a way to make use of the space above what would be a shortish front tug deck, which with no front doors is essentially useless -- no doors because these leave you with tiny wardrobes either side, in exchange for rarely-needed access to the tug deck -- and thought that having something that looked like most of the other boats on the canals (cratch between cratch board and full-width cabin) was one way to go. I was persuaded that the potter's cabin was a better idea, and am now glad I went this way.

 

Looking at the other boats under construction at TT and Finesse (and ones built recently), it seems that more and more people are coming to the same conclusion. I've no doubt that some will say it's a horrible new-fangled modern feature for boutique boats; I'd respond that -- in my view -- it's more "traditional" (and less ugly and leaky) than the cratch covers that many of them have got... 😉

You could have moved the bedroom backwards and put it in the space above the engine. Much better use for that space than a semi-trad stern.

 

I’ll differ in opinion on cratch covers. They pretty universally look awful to me.  I would though have like to have seen how a steel facsimile would have recreated the natural ill fitting style.

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

You could have moved the bedroom backwards and put it in the space above the engine. Much better use for that space than a semi-trad stern.

 

I’ll differ in opinion on cratch covers. They pretty universally look awful to me.  I would though have like to have seen how a steel facsimile would have recreated the natural ill fitting style.

Except I wanted the semi-trad stern for social cruising with guests, and the locker space is usefully employed. The bed can't move forwards because then it gets into the taper of the hull. The cabin rear can't move backwards because all the "engineering" that makes any noise heat or mess (generator, silencer, skin tanks, motor, controller, inverter, diesel boiler, calorifier, isolation transformer, fuel tank) is there under the deck, and needs that much space, which puts the steps down inside the cabin in between the wet cupboards...

 

I think a steel cratch cover could have been built which was indistinguishable from the canvas ones, except for not leaking -- but just as ugly, so we agree there... 😉

[PD1964]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

I think a steel cratch cover could have been built which was indistinguishable from the canvas ones, except for not leaking -- but just as ugly, so we agree there... 😉

 I think your Potters cabin looks ok, as you say your optimising storage inside which I can picture. The downside is if you have to get on the front to rope the T stud or even getting into the Bow thruster locker, there’s no good hand grip, should you loose balance, a finger grip on the potters top handrail or small Northwich type rail, like on the RW Davies would of been a bit safer should you need to work the front.

Below another twist on a small cabin front end from the same builder.

Edited July 20, 2022 by PD1964

[cuthound]

I think your Potter's Cabin looks wizard... 😂🤣

[IanD]

1 hour ago, PD1964 said:

 I think your Potters cabin looks ok, as you say your optimising storage inside which I can picture. The downside is if you have to get on the front to rope the T stud or even getting into the Bow thruster locker, there’s no good hand grip, should you loose balance, a finger grip on the potters top handrail or small Northwich type rail, like on the RW Davies would of been a bit safer should you need to work the front.

Below another twist on a small cabin front end from the same builder.

 

It might not be clear from the picture, but (as in your picture) there is a handrail round both sides and front of the potter's cabin, like along the edges (and front) of the main cabin.

[PD1964]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

It might not be clear from the picture, but (as in your picture) there is a handrail round both sides and front of the potter's cabin, like along the edges (and front) of the main cabin.

  Thought you might of went for his finger grip rail, a bit better IMO when moving on the gunwale or front should you need it.

 

Edited July 20, 2022 by PD1964

[IanD]

1 minute ago, PD1964 said:

  Thought you might of went for his finger grip rail, a bit better IMO when moving on the gunwale or front.

 

 

I don't think it's got that, but it's 150 miles away and I don't have a remote camera... 😉

 

For the number of times I anticipate needing to use it (not many, based on multiple trips on reverse-layout semi-trad boats), I think the plain handrail is fine.

[PD1964]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I don't think it's got that, but it's 150 miles away and I don't have a remote camera... 😉

 

For the number of times I anticipate needing to use it (not many, based on multiple trips on reverse-layout semi-trad boats), I think the plain handrail is fine.

That’s it really, being single handed I sort of look at thing’s differently, as I move a lot down the gunwale’s so that grip is always handy. Always easier with two. Good luck and look forward to seeing it finished👍

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, PD1964 said:

That’s it really, being single handed I sort of look at thing’s differently, as I move a lot down the gunwale’s so that grip is always handy. Always easier with two. Good luck and look forward to seeing it finished👍

If I was planning on single-handed cruising -- or more than four on the boat -- there would probably be lots of things I'd change. But you can't cover all possibilities because they need different things, you have to pick whatever is right for your circumstances. I did a lot of agonising about many aspects of the design for about a year before settling on what I ended up with, everything has advantages and disadvantages, you have to decide what matters most to you -- and other people would probably make different choices.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing it finished too, but it'll be a long wait ("1Q2023") and there are lots of internal details to work out before then. Oh yes, and there's the name to decide on...

[ditchcrawler]

16 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Been done square for years, or at least till the 80s as you know. Great additional space 😎. Each one was rather ugly and had poor propulsion though 😉

 

https://tompuddinggoole.co.uk/About-Us/
 

 

Or for leisure use 

34 minutes ago, PD1964 said:

  Thought you might of went for his finger grip rail, a bit better IMO when moving on the gunwale or front should you need it.

 

I haven't got them and don't find it a problem, I often go down the gunwales as does the wife, I have lost my footing once but didn't fall in. Althought there are two of us on flights we are not normally together.