Gardner 2LW - Ribble Link

[nealeST]

Will a Gardner 2LW do the Ribble link? To expand the question, which vintage engines probably won't? I have seen 2LW's on the Leeds to Liverpool Rufford Branch. I'm aware folk use them on the tidal Thames. I don't own a boat yet but I really want something with a vintage engine. I am from the North West, I see myself venturing mostly in that corner of the world. Getting on the Lancaster would be desirable. Whilst I'm at it, another question...How deep does the draught/draft (both seem accepted) have to be for a vintage engine? I am aware of 2LW's fitted to boats with 2'9" draught which seems compatible with most canals. Can you have a vintage engine and avoid the draft? I should imagine those giant Kelvins require the maximum.

[David Mack]

A Gardner 2LW is a 24hp engine. Whether it is capable of doing the Ribble Link depends far more on the gearbox ratio and propeller size of the boat in which it is fitted, and the prop diameter may in turn be constrained by hull draught. 

The Ribble Link passage can involve operating at higher engine power than is normal for narrow boats for an extended period. Boaters with higher powered engines than a 2LW have found their performance limited by inadequate engine cooling (undersized skin tank), rather than the available engine power.

[frangar]

We have a Lister JP2M and did the link with another boat that had a Gardner 2L2. They let us out first infront of all the boats with modern engines and warnings that we should have booked the tug...we'd miss the window and end up in preston docks for the night etc....

 

In the end we kept well ahead of the rest of the boats and made it with ease. It was the hardest Id worked the engine,...harder than on the Severn or Thames or even the Yorkshire Ouse but there was no drama...the main thing is a decent cooling system...I had the pump on the Alde running to use the rads as another heatsink and ran off the hot water in the calorifier half way across...I also disconnected the alternator belt just as a precaution to ensure it didnt load the engine.

 

We draw 2ft 9in and swing a crowthers compensated prop...travelled most of the system with no issues from deep tidal water to shallow canals such as the Ashby and upper llangollen.

 

[___]

Is the OP thinking of the draught constraints on the Savick Brook?

 

I doubt I'd ever attempt the Ribble link with my 15hp Petter PW2 and 24" static draught boat. That's combined with a 2:1 reduction box and 19x13" prop. But that's nothing to do with the capabilities of the engine; it can produce plenty of force to move the boat. It's a combination of the cooling and the relatively slow cruising speed that I think would be limiting.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2022 by Captain Pegg

[agg221]

To an extent it depends on the hull as well - both lines and draught and various other factors.

 

Funnily enough, I was talking to @tom_c about a related subject last weekend. Tom reckoned that it's mostly about .cc of the engine. I think he reckoned you need about 3l capacity for an engine to work well in a canal boat, assuming reasonable lines. I reckoned that was about right for the days of trade, so was fine on deep water, but when the bottom is nearer the top than it should be you probably want a bit more - for a standard canal boat shape at near full length it would be more comfortable with 4.5l. Vintage engines want a bigger prop, which is whey the deeper draught is needed. Prop size comes from rpm and hp, which relates to torque. If you look at early semi-diesel engines such as a Bolinder BM9 it's a 3l engine (the BM15 is 6l). The later full-diesel engines, both those originally used such as the National and Russell Newbery versions of the DM2, Lister JP2 and the various Dorman, Petter and Ruston alternatives they all hover around the 3l, as does the Kelvin J2 (not the K which is the larger size one you are probably thinking of). Being higher speed (1000-1200rpm) they have higher rated hp, typically 18-25, so run a smaller prop. This means you don't need quite so much draught which helps. The Gardner 2L2 and 2LW sit in the same general bracket.

 

Having steered The King, which is a former FMC steamer now fitted with a 2LW, on the southern GU on deep water, I can say that if I wanted to take a full sized boat out onto faster flowing waters or shallower canals I would probably want something a little larger as an engine. The engine is perfectly capable of taking it anywhere a canal boat would historically have gone, including the Thames and the Severn, but it would be slow against the flow and I would rather have had a bit more to play with. We had it wound right up and it wasn't that fast. It used to have a 4LW fitted which was reputed to be over-powered. Personally, on a boat that size I think a 3LW would be my choice.

 

At the other extreme, our boat is round-bottomed and 38' long with fairly fine lines (being a former ice boat). It is deep-draughted (around 3'1" stationary) because of the design, but that means it has space for a large prop - it was first motorised with a Bolinder BM15 and I am guessing the prop is a legacy from that. Most boats can only be engaged in forwards or reverse and have a straight through mechanical drive, so the prop has to be small enough that the engine will drive it whilst stationary at low revs when setting out, which means a bit of a compromise on prop size. We have an infinitely adjustable hydraulic drive so get away with being severely over-propped. The engine is a Kelvin J2 so comparable to the other 3l engines mentioned above (although not historically used on canal boats) and because we can slowly step up the fluid pressure, we can gradually increase engagement without labouring/stalling the engine. This allows the boat to punch ice or flowing current in a way that would not otherwise be possible. In summary, I would take ours on the Ribble Link but would not take The King on it, despite the slightly larger engine, as the combination would not give me the confidence to keep the speed up to get through with the tide.

 

Alec

Edited December 18, 2022 by agg221

[nealeST]

Thank you for the replies. So cooling is king. I would hope that the prop was best suited to the engine but something to be cautious about? Food for thought. Would love to hear about more experiences as above. Really interesting and enlightening...

[David Mack]

3 minutes ago, agg221 said:

I would take ours on the Ribble Link but would not take The King on it,

Academic really, since The King is too long for the locks on the Rufford Branch anyway.

[agg221]

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

Academic really, since The King is too long for the locks on the Rufford Branch anyway.

True - could always shorten it...

 

Alec

[magnetman]

I had a 55ft narrow boat with a Russell Newbery DM2 in it in which I traveled a bit more than half of the system over a ten year period. I like the Thames so did a lot of boating there and still do on a different boat.

 

I would have preferred to have the 3 cylinder. Mainly because it would have been nice to have more power  but also because the 2 cylinder sound (to me) is not as relaxing as a 3  cylinder engine sound and one does spend quite a lot of time listening to it.

 

I don't think my boat was that well propped, it probably could have been better. My mum had a 55ft narrow with a Beta marine 1505 in it and she could get a slightly higher top speed than me.

[nealeST]

Ah, strange coincidence. My use of the word king wasn't in reference to your boat 'The King'....my reply crossed your answer. How odd? Wow, much to pick through here. Amazing stuff. 

Edited December 18, 2022 by nealeST

[matty40s]

My 2L2 has easily coped with lots of river including in flood, and indeed tidal stuff. The boat seems to move far better with some deep water underneath.

This was going up the Trent on amber, you can see the difference between my 2 pot and the unloaded 3 pot passing...

 

Theres an old RN DM2 in a 60 footer here that has done the Ribble Link, Wash, Tidal Thames to barrier and Nene(along with a severe flood..1998)

Edited December 18, 2022 by matty40s

[Bee]

There are a lot of variables in this. Most, if not all, boats are quicker in wide deep water, longer boats are quicker than short boats, boats with the correct prop are quite rare (and quite what the correct prop is a conversation that can last several pints in the pub) and our boat is slower than it should be because it is carrying a thick coating of mussels. Most narrowboats have enough power to cope with most needs but some are a poor shape at either end and that is something that a few extra horse power can't do much about. best thing is to try a measured mile, see how quick it is and then do a bit of arithmetic

[Tony Brooks]

1 hour ago, agg221 said:

Funnily enough, I was talking to @tom_c about a related subject last weekend. Tom reckoned that it's mostly about .cc of the engine. I think he reckoned you need about 3l capacity for an engine to work well in a canal boat, assuming reasonable lines. I reckoned that was about right for the days of trade, so was fine on deep water, but when the bottom is nearer the top than it should be you probably want a bit mor

 

I am not sure if he is talking wide beams but for a narrow boat, even a full length one, that sounds excessive. There must be many hundreds of such boats with an engine of half that power operating perfectly satisfactorily.  However I agree about the correct prop and gearbox reduction.

[Up-Side-Down]

2 hours ago, frangar said:

We have a Lister JP2M and did the link with another boat that had a Gardner 2L2. They let us out first infront of all the boats with modern engines and warnings that we should have booked the tug...we'd miss the window and end up in preston docks for the night etc....

 

In the end we kept well ahead of the rest of the boats and made it with ease. It was the hardest Id worked the engine,...harder than on the Severn or Thames or even the Yorkshire Ouse but there was no drama...the main thing is a decent cooling system...I had the pump on the Alde running to use the rads as another heatsink and ran off the hot water in the calorifier half way across...I also disconnected the alternator belt just as a precaution to ensure it didnt load the engine.

 

We draw 2ft 9in and swing a crowthers compensated prop...travelled most of the system with no issues from deep tidal water to shallow canals such as the Ashby and upper llangollen.

 

Hi Frangar, sounds like you might just be able to help me with some detail by expanding on the specification of a Crowther's "Compensated Prop".

 

A few years back I was looking at something slightly larger than a 22 x 22 prop as my boat was clearly underpropped and there wasn't really space to swing a 24 x 22 one. Keith came up with something with a similar moniker (I seem to remember he called it a 'Crowther's High Performance Propeller') but was somewhat coy about giving away its specification and any further detail. Suffice it to say that he being Keith, and Crowther's being Crowther's, it's spot on and does the job perfectly with the engine now correctly loaded. But I'd love to know a wee bit more about its detailed specification, especially as I might be getting an electric motor to swing it in the not too distant future!

[Tony Brooks]

10 minutes ago, Up-Side-Down said:

Hi Frangar, sounds like you might just be able to help me with some detail by expanding on the specification of a Crowther's "Compensated Prop".

 

A few years back I was looking at something slightly larger than a 22 x 22 prop as my boat was clearly underpropped and there wasn't really space to swing a 24 x 22 one. Keith came up with something with a similar moniker (I seem to remember he called it a 'Crowther's High Performance Propeller') but was somewhat coy about giving away its specification and any further detail. Suffice it to say that he being Keith, and Crowther's being Crowther's, it's spot on and does the job perfectly with the engine now correctly loaded. But I'd love to know a wee bit more about its detailed specification, especially as I might be getting an electric motor to swing it in the not too distant future!

 

I think it is just a larger blade area to save going for a four blade prop, but then I think all prop stuff is close to black magic.

[Up-Side-Down]

Thanks Tony. I'll second that observation!!

[nealeST]

I’m going to print these replies out for future reference. I hadn’t given much thought to props until reading through here. Yes many variables. I’ve have noted a number of boats listed for sale these past months with RN DM 2 + 3’s, Lister JP2’s and Gardners 2 + 3. I like that lots of people don’t fancy a vintage engine. I love engine rooms. That is my starting point. I have a strong liking for tug style. I’m in my early 50’s so fingers crossed I can scrabble about sleeping under a front deck for many years ahead. If it’s got the right engine I can sleep anywhere….

[ditchcrawler]

34 minutes ago, nealeST said:

. I’m in my early 50’s so fingers crossed I can scrabble about sleeping under a front deck for many years ahead. If it’s got the right engine I can sleep anywhere….

Thats what the back cabin is for

[___]

9 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Thats what the back cabin is for

Unless converted from a full length carrying boat many tugs aren’t built like that. The cabin is mostly housing for a big engine.

[john6767]

The Ribble Link is different to other tidal passages in that you will be going against the tide for much of the trip.  On the up you go down the Douglas while the tide is coming in and then up the Ribble after the tide has turned and is going out.  You therefore push harder than on the Tidal Thames or Tidal Trent for example, therefore the most important thing is that the engine has a cooling system that can cope with high power for 3 hours or so.

 

A draft of 33” would make life difficult, but I don’t have experience to say if it would make it impractical. The problem areas would be Savick Brook, particularly on the down, where with a 25” draft we were dragging the bottom, and on the main canal mooring would be very difficult as it is very shallow at the sides.  The other issue that you may find with that draft is that the CRT system does not allow you to book the Ribble Link as you are out of spec on the draft, you may need to update the boat details and put in a lower draft to make the system allow the booking.

[noddyboater]

6 hours ago, nealeST said:

I’m going to print these replies out for future reference. I hadn’t given much thought to props until reading through here. Yes many variables. I’ve have noted a number of boats listed for sale these past months with RN DM 2 + 3’s, Lister JP2’s and Gardners 2 + 3. I like that lots of people don’t fancy a vintage engine. I love engine rooms. That is my starting point. I have a strong liking for tug style. I’m in my early 50’s so fingers crossed I can scrabble about sleeping under a front deck for many years ahead. If it’s got the right engine I can sleep anywhere….

One variable that isn't easy to change is the hull shape,  which is just as important as cc's or BHP.  You can have a Kelvin K4 with 16 litres and 80 bhp, but coupled to a poor hull design you're going nowhere fast.

Short rear swims are common, and need to be avoided.  Unfortunately many builders who were fitting vintage engines in the 80's - 2000's were still using them, not all, but several well known builders certainly did. 

You might not notice so much on shallow canals but it makes a huge difference on a river.

[Tony Brooks]

Howeve,r there is a maximum speed that you can drive a displacement boat through the water that is related to the hull length and the hull constant, not that anyone will have done the constant calculations while designing a narrow boat hull. In open water a 72 ft narrow boat will peak out at about a maximum of 11 knots or less. Install enough power to drive it faster and it will just make larger waves and dig its stern down - that is unless by some miracle you can make it plane. That is the through the water speed so against a good flow it will be that minus the speed of flow. In restricted waters like a canal other forces come into play, probably further reducing the maximum speed.

[Mike Hurley]

 

[LEO]

16 hours ago, David Mack said:

A Gardner 2LW is a 24hp engine. Whether it is capable of doing the Ribble Link depends far more on the gearbox ratio and propeller size of the boat in which it is fitted, and the prop diameter may in turn be constrained by hull draught. 

The Ribble Link passage can involve operating at higher engine power than is normal for narrow boats for an extended period. Boaters with higher powered engines than a 2LW have found their performance limited by inadequate engine cooling (undersized skin tank), rather than the available engine power.

I thought it was rated at 28 HP...............

[___]

4 hours ago, LEO said:

I thought it was rated at 28 HP...............

It can be both.

 

I quoted my engine at 15hp because if I recall correctly it has a plate on it that says 15hp at 1800rpm.

 

The workshop manual however says it has a maximum of 18hp at 2200rpm.

 

I’m not going to rev it to either of those values so it’s a little immaterial. And in any case if I did it wouldn’t have the capability to sustain that level for very long.

 

Hence the true available power (a measure of how long a level of force can be sustained) for an extended cruise is somewhat less than both figures.