Blasted sweary curse!

[Gary Peacock]

Being very honest the construction methods used in the ditch crawling world even by the best ditch crawler builders would reduce proper boat/ship builders to fits of tears.

 

The reality is that ditch crawler building is far nearer to oil storage tank building than ship building regardless of the welded on rivets and pretend working boats looks.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Gary Peacock

[KevTheWelder]

Ditch crawlers being....?I'm guessing you mean narrowboats,Gary?Or anything more specific?

[carlt]

Ditch crawlers being....?I'm guessing you mean narrowboats,Gary?Or anything more specific?

Narrowboats are, and always have been, long boxes with pointy bits at either end.

 

Perfectly suited for their job but not exactly the cutting edge of boat design.

[KevTheWelder]

Hmm.I get the point there re the nickname.Sounds a bit of a pretentious point,though,to say that any,ahem,'ditchcrawlers'building methods would'reduce proper boat/ship builders to tears'though.Of course there's a big difference between a narrowboat&a great big ship,but that seems an overly unfair,sweeping comment to make,in my opinion,as there's not really a comparison.

[carlt]

Hmm.I get the point there re the nickname.Sounds a bit of a pretentious point,though,to say that any,ahem,'ditchcrawlers'building methods would'reduce proper boat/ship builders to tears'though.Of course there's a big difference between a narrowboat&a great big ship,but that seems an overly unfair,sweeping comment to make,in my opinion,as there's not really a comparison.

But, as the comment came from a builder of narrowboats (among other types) it must carry weight.

 

I'm sure the narrowboat builders who also build and restore seagoing boats, RW Davis and Pete Nicholls are two that spring to mind, regard the narrow boat side of their business as akin to dug-out canoe building compared to building "proper" boats.

[Gary Peacock]

Hmm.I get the point there re the nickname.Sounds a bit of a pretentious point,though,to say that any,ahem,'ditchcrawlers'building methods would'reduce proper boat/ship builders to tears'though.Of course there's a big difference between a narrowboat&a great big ship,but that seems an overly unfair,sweeping comment to make,in my opinion,as there's not really a comparison.

 

In the real boatbuilding world it usually involves a lot of engineering design and modelling, since 1998 in theory even ditch crawlers needed to demonstrate this legally but the reality is nearly all ditch crawler builders can't!

 

However you paint it modern ditch crawlers could be built perfectly well by a skip fabricator and some of those might do a better job then the average boatbuilder being better equipped and probably working to higher quality requirements.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Gary Peacock

[KevTheWelder]

But,as I said,there's not much comparison between a narrowboat and a seagoing ship,other than they float-well,so does a duck-so it still seemed a silly point to make.I take on board,carlt,that Gary is a builder of both the above types of boat,but nonetheless,it was still a silly statement,no different to comparing a car built by,say,Ford,to a car built by Ferrari.Both serve their purposes as intended,but you can't compare the two really can you.A Ferrari man wouldn't be impressed with the Ford,but it's not to say there's anything wrong with it.Not trying to pick fights here,but I don't like sweeping generalisations being made,nor my trade being belittled by any cocky character,whoever they may be.Gary is obviously a well respected chap on here,and rightly so it seems,but I still stand by my comments here.

Edited December 24, 2008 by KevTheWelder

[Denis R]

But, as the comment came from a builder of narrowboats (among other types) it must carry weight.

 

I'm sure the narrowboat builders who also build and restore seagoing boats, RW Davis and Pete Nicholls are two that spring to mind, regard the narrow boat side of their business as akin to dug-out canoe building compared to building "proper" boats.

*lol* Good one Carl! My "dug-out canoe" is a Peter Nicholls, and when I spoke to him about building it for me back in 2005, I think he thought it would be a great crack.... a bit of a 'hobby job'. "my God, I've not built one of those for years - I've still got the set of drawings up in my loft at home somewhere. That would be fun."

Having spent a few years in the fabrication industry many moons ago, it was great to talk to him about steel grades, welding rod specs, edge preparations and other sundry 'anorak' stuff. But at the end of the day, set alongside one of his Cat A blue water boats, it's still only a tin can in a ditch....

[Timleech]

*lol* Good one Carl! My "dug-out canoe" is a Peter Nicholls, and when I spoke to him about building it for me back in 2005, I think he thought it would be a great crack.... a bit of a 'hobby job'. "my God, I've not built one of those for years - I've still got the set of drawings up in my loft at home somewhere. That would be fun."

Having spent a few years in the fabrication industry many moons ago, it was great to talk to him about steel grades, welding rod specs, edge preparations and other sundry 'anorak' stuff. But at the end of the day, set alongside one of his Cat A blue water boats, it's still only a tin can in a ditch....

 

There's another side to this, though.

 

Look at some of the 'narrow boats' built by Cammell Lairds, (once) real shipbuilders. They are truly awful.

Some of those 'respected names' which have been mentioned are not people I would go to if I were looking for a new narrowboat, though I have no doubts about the technical quality of their work.

 

Tim

[Liam]

Such as the "Waterworks" which can be seen passing our moorings now and again. As a boat, yeah it does it's job but it's not the best narrowboat. Actually, in all fairness it's damn ugly!

 

Built by the apprentices at Cammell Lairds over a number of years, apparently.

[David Schweizer]

There's another side to this, though.

 

Look at some of the 'narrow boats' built by Cammell Lairds, (once) real shipbuilders. They are truly awful.

Some of those 'respected names' which have been mentioned are not people I would go to if I were looking for a new narrowboat, though I have no doubts about the technical quality of their work.

 

Tim

The Ship Builders Harland and Wolfe built some pretty good narrowboats, nearly all of them are still around seventy years later.

 

Mind you they did build the Titanic as well!

Edited December 24, 2008 by David Schweizer

[Timleech]

The Ship Builders Harland and Wolfe built some pretty good narrowboats, nearly all of them are still around seventy years later.

 

Agreed, I've owned two of them at different times, I rate the Small Woolwich as the best narrow boat built, from the handling viewpoint.

 

They did practice with some wooden boats first, though!

 

I think it was Wolff, btw

 

Mind you they did build the Titanic as well!

 

Not at the same yard, though.

 

Tim

[alan_fincher]

Agreed, I've owned two of them at different times, I rate the Small Woolwich as the best narrow boat built, from the handling viewpoint.

Interesting.

 

A lot of people seem to rate the Northwich boats over the Woolwich ones, at least in terms of how much of the original metal has surviveg not needing repair or replacement.

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you particularly rate the Woolwichs, Tim.

[blackrose]

We moor on a marina in Rufford on the Leeds/Liverppol and quite often new boats are craned into the water here. To date, two boats have leaked water, both sourced from a fairly local well known boatbuilder in Liverpool.

 

We have spent more than 12 months researching the market, before finally placing our new boat order with a builder of 20 years experience. Hopefully, our research will pay off, realistically though, we worked on the age old maxim of "once cheap, twice bought"! In my experience, I've found that this principle applies to everything worth buying.

 

Good luck,

 

Mike

 

As has been mentioned on this thread, they're not the only builder who has launched a boat which has leaked - sometimes it even happens to apparently high-end boats too. One also needs to keep things in perspective - we are of course much more likely to hear a disproportionate number of stories about a builder who has (or had), a disproportionately large share of the boat market. Conversely, I suspect that the same builder also launched more boats that didn't leak than any other builder.

Edited December 25, 2008 by blackrose

[David Schweizer]

Interesting.

 

A lot of people seem to rate the Northwich boats over the Woolwich ones, at least in terms of how much of the original metal has surviveg not needing repair or replacement.

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you particularly rate the Woolwichs, Tim.

Yes I prefer the Northwich boats, particularly the Small Northwich's but mainly because they just seem to be a little better proportioned. As far as metal replacement is concerned, I have always understood this to be because the Northwich Boats were built of Iron which is less prone to rusting and impact damage than steel. Of course the bottoms being of elm had to be replaced fairly frequently.

[carlt]

Of course the bottoms being of elm had to be replaced fairly frequently.

Does anyone know how often, if ever, boats with wooden bottoms were rebottomed, during their working lives?

 

Usks were renewed, I understand for the first time, in 1984 and they are regarded, still, as "new".

 

Taplow's, which were renewed in 1958, measured 3.5" over her whole length, when we docked her, in 2001.

[KevTheWelder]

Blackrose-nice to see someone with a sensible perspective on this subject.Happy Christmas!

[carlt]

Blackrose-nice to see someone with a sensible perspective on this subject.Happy Christmas!

So none of the other comments in this thread are sensible?

[KevTheWelder]

Didn't say that,carlt,did I.I particularly agreed with Blackrose's comment,that's all.Why do some people jump the gun so often without thinking about what's actually been said?

[carlt]

Why do some people jump the gun so often without thinking about what's actually been said?

I don't know.

 

If you read your post again you may see that it could be interpreted as the other posts aren't so sensible.

 

I wasn't "jumping the gun" merely asking a question.

 

Sorry if my post was open to misinterpretation, too.

[KevTheWelder]

I don't know.

 

If you read your post again you may see that it could be interpreted as the other posts aren't so sensible.

 

I wasn't "jumping the gun" merely asking a question.

 

Sorry if my post was open to misinterpretation, too.

 

I guess so.Kind of!I dunno,it seems hard work on forums sometimes.I always try so hard to make my point clearly&politely.No need to apologise carlt,appreciated though.

[Timleech]

Does anyone know how often, if ever, boats with wooden bottoms were rebottomed, during their working lives?

 

Usks were renewed, I understand for the first time, in 1984 and they are regarded, still, as "new".

 

Taplow's, which were renewed in 1958, measured 3.5" over her whole length, when we docked her, in 2001.

 

I got properly involved with maintaining Peter Froud's Hotel Boats from about 1970 onwards (until they finished, about 20 years ago). At that time IIRC Jupiter (ex-Hawk) had had a new 3.5" bottom courtesy of BW not long prior to its disposal. On Hotel Boat duties the bottoms at the stern had a hard life and were replaced two or three times in that period. Saturn (fly boat from 1906) still had some original 2" bottom boards (not 3" as fitted to the 'new' Saturn ), we renewed the whole bottom round about 1980. Mabel & Forget-me-not both had 2.5" bottoms, large areas of those would have been original in 1970 but all replaced by the end AFAIR.

Replacement often needed because of internal rot as well as wear & tear.

 

Tim

 

 

Interesting.

 

A lot of people seem to rate the Northwich boats over the Woolwich ones, at least in terms of how much of the original metal has surviveg not needing repair or replacement.

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you particularly rate the Woolwichs, Tim.

 

Maybe I'm just biased, having owned one small Woolwich motor & spent a lot of time boating with another

I haven't spent an equivalent time on small Northwich boats I have to admit, though I have some experience of them and various other Northwich-built boats.

There's something about the small Woolwich which just 'feels right' to me.

Of course each boat will behave and respond to some degree individually, according to how it is set up.

 

Edited to add that maybe some are biased towards the Northwich boats because they are 'prettier'

 

Tim

Edited December 25, 2008 by Timleech

[blackrose]

Blackrose-nice to see someone with a sensible perspective on this subject.Happy Christmas!

And to you too Kev. In fact Merry Christmas to you all!

 

Mike

[madcat]

The first narrow boat I ever encountered was a big Northwich and I had no Idea what it really was but definatly not a ship or a fishing boat.I just accepted it as some kind of trip boat.As an adult I had a better idea of what these things were and I bought one but would have been happy with either a big woolwich or northwich. Joshers were the big thing round Ellesmere port at the time but I wanted a town or a Royalty [a minature ship] and had to have a proper engine room .

[Smelly]

Does anyone know how often, if ever, boats with wooden bottoms were rebottomed, during their working lives?

 

Usks were renewed, I understand for the first time, in 1984 and they are regarded, still, as "new".

 

Taplow's, which were renewed in 1958, measured 3.5" over her whole length, when we docked her, in 2001.

 

I think Chris replced Lilth's bottoms in about 1986, so 85 years or so in those.

 

I must say though that Southam's bottoms were nearly the end of her as someone had let blocks in; Dutch Elm disease had taken hold with the decent timber. Hence the "big hole" comment below.