Bridgewater Heritage Boat Co

[Fender Phil]

Appreciated, yes still on the Ashby bridge 13,

There will be hopefully be some bulkhead angle ironwork if your still on the Ashby I can take a look if you like.

[fittie]

Can't wait for more on this...better than a soap on the telly.

[Fender Phil]

http://s570.photobucket.com/user/Fender_Phil/library/?view=recent&page=1

[Fender Phil]

Bow and stern images of Castlefield

[TimYoung]

Looks to me from the pictures to be a Braithwaite and Kirk.

Tim

[pete harrison]

I would say the first thing to do is establish exactly who built the original hull by comparing the fore end to other former F.M.C. Ltd. narrow boats.

 

Looks to me from the pictures to be a Braithwaite and Kirk.

Tim

I can not tell from the photographs but clearly the identification of the hull builder remains the first step, followed by identifying whether a fore cabin was originally a feature of this boats construction (which will need to be done from the inside of the hull by looking for framework or corrosion where the framework was).

[Fender Phil]

Thank you tim and Pete, will get some better pictures and post them, the inside of the bow is visible apart from a few shelves so will get some images of inside as well, braithwates would date it between 1912 -14 then if it is the builder

[Fender Phil]

OK FMC Ling has been round and we can say for definite that she did have a fore cabin

Edited September 15, 2015 by Fender Phil

[pete harrison]

OK FMC Ling has been round and we can say for definite that she did have a fore cabin

but who was the builder ?

[Derek R.]

Looks like - but I doubt it. Braithwaite & Kirk top bends were almost vertical, and the fore end shape was long:

 

 

Compare with the top right shot of the top bend on CASTLEFIELD.

[David Mack]

Thank you tim and Pete, will get some better pictures and post them, the inside of the bow is visible apart from a few shelves so will get some images of inside as well, braithwates would date it between 1912 -14 then if it is the builder

 

The distinctive feature of a Braithwaite and Kirk boat that you won't find on any other is that the to bend is part of the same sheet as the lower part of the hull. On all other iron/steel boats these are separate plates riveted together along the line of the guard. If this is a B&K it will be very apparent on the inside, with no overlap between the upper and lower plates.

 

B&K were barrel and tank manufacturers, and they had the equipment to make double-curved plates, which other boat builders couldn't do.

[Fender Phil]

The distinctive feature of a Braithwaite and Kirk boat that you won't find on any other is that the to bend is part of the same sheet as the lower part of the hull. On all other iron/steel boats these are separate plates riveted together along the line of the guard. If this is a B&K it will be very apparent on the inside, with no overlap between the upper and lower plates.

 

B&K were barrel and tank manufacturers, and they had the equipment to make double-curved plates, which other boat builders couldn't do.

 

The plates are overlapped, also the sides of the bow are not straight or the depth of a braithwates as I have now compared with photo FMC Ling showed me, more like a Saltley bow

[FMC Ling 317]

Definitely a Saltley bow and had a bow cabin as the bulkhead angles while removed are still evident. More importantly the hull is almost the complete boat the composite bottom goes all the way to the stearn and the swim has been made from the original butty stearn. The top half cut of and the uxter plate and counter formed also the stem post cut off and a section welded in to create and adequate width for stearn gear. Phil tells me the boat is tight in locks like Hillmorton so I guess she is 72 or maybe more foot long. This must make her easyer to identify as all the converted butties that I know of were cut and counter added to one or both parts not almost all the hull kept.

[pete harrison]

This must make her easyer to identify as all the converted butties that I know of were cut and counter added to one or both parts not almost all the hull kept.

The motor conversion details of this boat were described by Tim Young in post number 18, where he also states that the hull was unidentifiable pre-conversion.

 

Unfortunately I fear the original identity of this boat will be very difficult to prove. In the meantime CASTLEFIELD seems as good a name as any and has a credible connection with its history