Buying a Sailaway

[callumrexreid]

Size wise I would stick around 11' much more and the price will begin to jump quite a lot due to not being able to get or transport the baseplate in a suitable size making for a lot more work.

 

We will go up to 11' 6" based on a 15,8,5,5 spec with coach roof built to a structural deck standard but from there up to 16' construction methods change and the price soars.

 

I don't have a price for a sail away (Actually I aren't in theory doing anything to do with boats at the moment although I didn't escape completely! ) but I will get some one to work one out and P/M it to you.

 

I very much doubt we will be competitive in the budget market because that's not really the market aimed at, also in the DIY market we did a lot of "Ready to go range" boats where the greater majority of the work along with CE marking and RCD documentation was completed leaving only the few final simple jobs to complete.

 

I will def consider, tbh. 15mm base plate does sound a hell of a lot more solid compared to 10mm baseplate... does this mean I should be wary of a widebeam that merely have a 10mm baseplate? Anyway thanks for all the info Gary, this is a real help.

 

All the best

 

Cal

[Gary Peacock]

I will def consider, tbh. 15mm base plate does sound a hell of a lot more solid compared to 10mm baseplate... does this mean I should be wary of a widebeam that merely have a 10mm baseplate? Anyway thanks for all the info Gary, this is a real help.

 

All the best

 

Cal

 

15mm along with 8mm hull sides is a simple solution to increasing overall strength and rigidity along with this the floor bearers roof bars are also increased in proportion while the panel sizes reduce.

 

10mm built along the lines of a narrowboat is OK up to about 8' but more than that and other things need to change to compensate for this obviously the more you push out the beam the more complications you will encounter.

 

This approach is very much related to inland waterways boat building where the technology and practises often rub shoulders with the building of fuel storage tanks or even skips and have very little in common with traditional boat or ship building.

 

A good example is to look at a real Dutch barge the hull might have only being 5mm or so when newly built, but strip away that "skin" and you would be left with a fairly significant skeleton that forms the boats structure.

 

A narrowboat is entirely the opposite the skin is the strength remove that and you might only have something resembling a bed frame or even less. On a narrowboat by its nature that is long and thin this actually works very well but mess with the ratio of beam to length and it gets messy.

 

One fairly well known builder built quite a few broad boats on 10mm base plates without even paying lip service to scantlings etc the few floor bearers actually fitted were just that not even being attached to the hull sides, this would be very bad practise even on a narrowboat but some of these were 12' beam!

[callumrexreid]

15mm along with 8mm hull sides is a simple solution to increasing overall strength and rigidity along with this the floor bearers roof bars are also increased in proportion while the panel sizes reduce.

 

10mm built along the lines of a narrowboat is OK up to about 8' but more than that and other things need to change to compensate for this obviously the more you push out the beam the more complications you will encounter.

 

This approach is very much related to inland waterways boat building where the technology and practises often rub shoulders with the building of fuel storage tanks or even skips and have very little in common with traditional boat or ship building.

 

A good example is to look at a real Dutch barge the hull might have only being 5mm or so when newly built, but strip away that "skin" and you would be left with a fairly significant skeleton that forms the boats structure.

 

A narrowboat is entirely the opposite the skin is the strength remove that and you might only have something resembling a bed frame or even less. On a narrowboat by its nature that is long and thin this actually works very well but mess with the ratio of beam to length and it gets messy.

 

One fairly well known builder built quite a few broad boats on 10mm base plates without even paying lip service to scantlings etc the few floor bearers actually fitted were just that not even being attached to the hull sides, this would be very bad practise even on a narrowboat but some of these were 12' beam!

 

This is really good to know, and makes a lot of sense... what kind of questions can I ask a builder that would uncover a lack of regard toward this issue? And does that mean that I should be completely wary of all 10mm base plate widebeams? or are there exceptions? thanks again for your attention

 

Cal

[blackrose]

Thanks Black Rose, will def look into that.

 

In the hopeful event that I do manage to get a sailaway of similar design and size to yours, are their any pointers you could give me, problems or benefits that having a boat such as Back Rose has given you. I read your breakdown on barging.co.uk and found it very interesting. I would be fascinated to hear first hand how you are finding living day to day life on a boat that I believe would be

exactly what I am after. A couple of my questions specifically revolve around whether you cruise with her regularly? if so how do you find the mooring situation with that size boat? And if you could would you of done anything different when fitting her out or choosing her size?

 

Thank you for replying to my previous post, I would be really grateful if you do find the time to respond to this one...

 

All the best

 

Cal

 

P.S

if you can't tell already.... love the boat!

 

Thanks.

 

I don't cruise as much as I'd like to due to work and the fact that when I've got free time I've been fitting out which has taken an awfully long time. On the Thames I've taken the boat from Reading to London, been on the tidal part to Limehouse & back to Brentford and last summer I went up the GU for 2 months to Tring which isn't that far but quite a lot of locks (56 each way I think).

 

The size of my boat is perfect for me. It handles well, turns easily, but it's probably at the maximum limits of what I'd want to be handling on my own.

 

Apart form tidal Thames, I've done most of that cruising single-handed, which isn't a problem on the canal but is a bit of an issue on the Thames where some lockkeepers insist you use bow and stern ropes. Most of them will lend a hand if they have an assistant.

 

I haven't had any problems mooring - at 2'2" my boat draws no more than many narrow boats, and less than some. Obviously you don't moor a 12' wide boat on a narrow stretch of canal or near a bridgehole, but apart from that it's not really an issue. In terms of moving I try not to move on weekends if I can help it - there's just too much traffic. I did the same when I had a narrow boat, so that's just me. When I went through the Tring Cutting (a particularly narrow stretch through the Chilterns) last summer I left at 5am so as not to meet anyone coming the other way. You're wise to think ahead a bit on a boat of this size.

 

My boat only has a 55hp engine and although I've never felt short of power it's a lot of boat to move. On the canal it's not an issue, but my mooring's in Brentford and being so close to the tidal Thames I really should have gone for a bigger engine. I've punched the tide for short periods and done the turn into Limehouse, but I don't have much left in reserve. If I were doing it again I'd opt for at least a 70hp engine, perhaps even 90hp. The only trouble with that (and I'm no expert here), is that on a fat narrow boat I think you're restricted on the diameter of prop you can fit in between your counter (uxter plate) and skeg, and without an adequately sized prop all that extra engine power would be wasted anyway.

 

The other thing I'd have done differently is pay a bit more to have my boat lined in solid wood rather than oak-faced ply. I know it's sort of standard in budget/mid-range boats but I don't like it much.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Mike

 

Edit: On the scantlings issue, I can't remember the dimensions of the steel members themselves but on my boat they are laid out at 60cm centres and then about 2/3 of the way in from each side they are connected by members running down the entire length of the boat, so in effect the scantlings are based on a grid pattern. As far as baseplates go, if the scantlings are correct then you shouldn't worry about 10mm (most original barges only ever had a 6mm thick baseplate), but obviously the thicker the better. The Amber one I saw had a 14mm baseplate which was impressive considering they were offering a high spec fully-fitted 60' x 10' boat for about £100K

 

The other thing I forgot to mention was that although you will get some criticism from the traditionalists (and others who secretly want one!), if you are thinking of handling a big boat on your own a bow thruster comes in very handy.

Edited March 3, 2009 by blackrose

[callumrexreid]

Thanks.

 

I don't cruise as much as I'd like to due to work and the fact that when I've got free time I've been fitting out which has taken an awfully long time. On the Thames I've taken the boat from Reading to London, been on the tidal part to Limehouse & back to Brentford and last summer I went up the GU for 2 months to Tring which isn't that far but quite a lot of locks (56 each way I think).

 

The size of my boat is perfect for me. It handles well, turns easily, but it's probably at the maximum limits of what I'd want to be handling on my own.

 

Apart form tidal Thames, I've done most of that cruising single-handed, which isn't a problem on the canal but is a bit of an issue on the Thames where some lockkeepers insist you use bow and stern ropes. Most of them will lend a hand if they have an assistant.

 

I haven't had any problems mooring - at 2'2" my boat draws no more than many narrow boats, and less than some. Obviously you don't moor a 12' wide boat on a narrow stretch of canal or near a bridgehole, but apart from that it's not really an issue. In terms of moving I try not to move on weekends if I can help it - there's just too much traffic. I did the same when I had a narrow boat, so that's just me. When I went through the Tring Cutting (a particularly narrow stretch through the Chilterns) last summer I left at 5am so as not to meet anyone coming the other way. You're wise to think ahead a bit on a boat of this size.

 

My boat only has a 55hp engine and although I've never felt short of power it's a lot of boat to move. On the canal it's not an issue, but my mooring's in Brentford and being so close to the tidal Thames I really should have gone for a bigger engine. I've punched the tide for short periods and done the turn into Limehouse, but I don't have much left in reserve. If I were doing it again I'd opt for at least a 70hp engine, perhaps even 90hp. The only trouble with that (and I'm no expert here), is that on a fat narrow boat I think you're restricted on the diameter of prop you can fit in between your counter (uxter plate) and skeg, and without an adequately sized prop all that extra engine power would be wasted anyway.

 

The other thing I'd have done differently is pay a bit more to have my boat lined in solid wood rather than oak-faced ply. I know it's sort of standard in budget/mid-range boats but I don't like it much.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Mike

 

It really does... thanks again

[Colin Smith]

15mm along with 8mm hull sides is a simple solution to increasing overall strength and rigidity along with this the floor bearers roof bars are also increased in proportion while the panel sizes reduce.

 

10mm built along the lines of a narrowboat is OK up to about 8' but more than that and other things need to change to compensate for this obviously the more you push out the beam the more complications you will encounter.

 

This approach is very much related to inland waterways boat building where the technology and practises often rub shoulders with the building of fuel storage tanks or even skips and have very little in common with traditional boat or ship building.

 

A good example is to look at a real Dutch barge the hull might have only being 5mm or so when newly built, but strip away that "skin" and you would be left with a fairly significant skeleton that forms the boats structure.

 

A narrowboat is entirely the opposite the skin is the strength remove that and you might only have something resembling a bed frame or even less. On a narrowboat by its nature that is long and thin this actually works very well but mess with the ratio of beam to length and it gets messy.

 

One fairly well known builder built quite a few broad boats on 10mm base plates without even paying lip service to scantlings etc the few floor bearers actually fitted were just that not even being attached to the hull sides, this would be very bad practise even on a narrowboat but some of these were 12' beam!

 

In my (very) humble opinion - and I'm not a marine engineer, Gary is abaolutely correct. I've seen widebeam shells that look like they'd been made from Meccano! If we'd have had the budget then I'd have gone with a single-chine design similar to boats produced by Ledgard Bridge. Our builder offered a similar design and a full 'dutch barge' style solution but the additional cost was prohibitive for us. By the way, I made an error with our specs - we have a 12mm baseplate not 10mm!

 

The solution for us was a flat-bottom shell properly designed for the job. There was a lot of attention paid to the internal structure with quite closely spaced and substantial scantlings. The hull sides were folded at the gunwhale and mostly one-piece steel, extending almost the full length of the hull. The deckhead (roof) bearers are rolled box steel and also closely spaced. I wanted something with just a shallow curve to it so we can party up there when the weathers good! I have a book of calculations and full RCD compliance list supplied and signed by the builder together with the cad drawings etc.

 

I'd recommend anyone thinking about buying to concentrate on the detail - the welding, testing, hydostatics, steel quality etc. For example, look very closely at the rubbing strakes - are they fully welded top and bottom? how substantial is the skeg/rudder mounting? What is the spacing of the scantlings? Check out the thickness of the steel used for the scantlings, roof supports, engine beds and bulkheads etc.

 

It's easy to get carried away with a nice looking, painted and fitted boat but get into the grubby bits and look at a shell in production first. I think you'll find that there are probably less than 5 or 6 boat builders who could produce a well designed and excecuted widebeam at a sensible price - at least that's what I found after 5 years of looking!

 

Colin

[Gary Peacock]

This is really good to know, and makes a lot of sense... what kind of questions can I ask a builder that would uncover a lack of regard toward this issue? And does that mean that I should be completely wary of all 10mm base plate widebeams? or are there exceptions? thanks again for your attention

 

Cal

 

Well you could ask them "What method do you use to satisfy Essential Requirement 3.1 of the Recreation Craft Directive HULL STRUCTURE?"

 

If they look at you blank then they are blagging it! (You could also ask to look at a copy of The RCD Annex IIIa declaration they issue with their boats because this will tell you how they legally claim to do it even if they don't know! )

 

If they can give you an answer then ask if they can show you a technical construction file for a previously built boat to demonstrate this. (There is a legal requirement to maintain these documents.)

 

I would be wary of 10mm base plates on anything over 10' without the builder was very convincing that they know what they are doing.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Gary Peacock

[Mick_B]

I haven't heard much bad about Northwich boats and was seriously considering this until the housing market went bust.

 

Marston widebeam sailaway

[bargemast]

My boat only has a 55hp engine and although I've never felt short of power it's a lot of boat to move. On the canal it's not an issue, but my mooring's in Brentford and being so close to the tidal Thames I really should have gone for a bigger engine. I've punched the tide for short periods and done the turn into Limehouse, but I don't have much left in reserve. If I were doing it again I'd opt for at least a 70hp engine, perhaps even 90hp. The only trouble with that (and I'm no expert here), is that on a fat narrow boat I think you're restricted on the diameter of prop you can fit in between your counter (uxter plate) and skeg, and without an adequately sized prop all that extra engine power would be wasted anyway.

 

If your 55hp engine does the job that it's supposed to do then in my opinion you shouldn't put in a more powerful one, it's depending on where you are cruising most, like on the canals, I'm sure you never have to run on full revs, so a more powerful engine would work even less, and by not working hard enough glace the bores, diesel engines have to work.

 

If you haven't got the room to swing a bigger prop, you can get a 4, 5 or even more bladed prop to get the desired power transmitted in the restricted diameter, but they are quite expensive.

 

Edit: On the scantlings issue, I can't remember the dimensions of the steel members themselves but on my boat they are laid out at 60cm centres and then about 2/3 of the way in from each side they are connected by members running down the entire length of the boat, so in effect the scantlings are based on a grid pattern. As far as baseplates go, if the scantlings are correct then you shouldn't worry about 10mm (most original barges only ever had a 6mm thick baseplate), but obviously the thicker the better. The Amber one I saw had a 14mm baseplate which was impressive considering they were offering a high spec fully-fitted 60' x 10' boat for about £100K

 

10 mm for a bottom plate should be ample, many French build 38 m working barges were built with a 6 mm bottom, and we (the Dutch) would always criticize their light construction, as ours were 7 or 8 mm with higher ribs etc. so much stronger (read heavier) then theirs. Because their barges were light they didn't rub the canal bottom with their less then 1m80 draft carrying 250 tons of cargo, and the Dutch and Belgium barges would have a draft of closer to 2m00 with the same tonnages, so constantly rub the bottom. Many of those French barges built in the late 50ties until late 60ties still have their original 6mm bottom plates, which they only have to replace if it's worn to less then 3.9mm. So with your 10mm if she's well maintained good for many years.

 

The other thing I forgot to mention was that although you will get some criticism from the traditionalists (and others who secretly want one!), if you are thinking of handling a big boat on your own a bow thruster comes in very handy.

 

Don't worry about the "traditionalists" if you have a BT you don't have to use her in normal circumstances, but if there is an occasion where you can avoid damage if you have, and use your BT then smile at those "traditionalists.

 

Cheers, Peter.

[callumrexreid]

In my (very) humble opinion - and I'm not a marine engineer, Gary is abaolutely correct. I've seen widebeam shells that look like they'd been made from Meccano! If we'd have had the budget then I'd have gone with a single-chine design similar to boats produced by Ledgard Bridge. Our builder offered a similar design and a full 'dutch barge' style solution but the additional cost was prohibitive for us. By the way, I made an error with our specs - we have a 12mm baseplate not 10mm!

 

The solution for us was a flat-bottom shell properly designed for the job. There was a lot of attention paid to the internal structure with quite closely spaced and substantial scantlings. The hull sides were folded at the gunwhale and mostly one-piece steel, extending almost the full length of the hull. The deckhead (roof) bearers are rolled box steel and also closely spaced. I wanted something with just a shallow curve to it so we can party up there when the weathers good! I have a book of calculations and full RCD compliance list supplied and signed by the builder together with the cad drawings etc.

 

I'd recommend anyone thinking about buying to concentrate on the detail - the welding, testing, hydostatics, steel quality etc. For example, look very closely at the rubbing strakes - are they fully welded top and bottom? how substantial is the skeg/rudder mounting? What is the spacing of the scantlings? Check out the thickness of the steel used for the scantlings, roof supports, engine beds and bulkheads etc.

 

It's easy to get carried away with a nice looking, painted and fitted boat but get into the grubby bits and look at a shell in production first. I think you'll find that there are probably less than 5 or 6 boat builders who could produce a well designed and excecuted widebeam at a sensible price - at least that's what I found after 5 years of looking!

 

Colin

 

Colin, this is all really helpful, and exactly what I needed to know. This is the beginning of my research and it feels like its coming on in leaps and bounds thanks to this forum... so big thanks to everyone who has responded so far.

 

Cal

 

P.S

could you PM me the 5 companies you found to be quite serious contenders, and if I may ask how much did you pay for your sailaway, of course you don't have to answer.

 

thanks again

[Colin Smith]

Colin, this is all really helpful, and exactly what I needed to know. This is the beginning of my research and it feels like its coming on in leaps and bounds thanks to this forum... so big thanks to everyone who has responded so far.

 

Cal

 

P.S

could you PM me the 5 companies you found to be quite serious contenders, and if I may ask how much did you pay for your sailaway, of course you don't have to answer.

 

thanks again

 

Have PM'd you as requested!

 

Colin

[Gary Peacock]

OK just for fun a small experiment!

 

For Sale

 

Brand new 57' x 11' broad beam narrowboat.

 

• Quality 10,6,4,4 hull from long established fabrication company
  
• Beta 50 engine
  
• Professional electrical installation
  
• Quality fit out
  
• Solid fuel heating
  
• Full RCD documentation
  

Available now £89,000.00 including VAT

 

Build pictures below-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A real bargain of a boat isn't it?

 

So who out there would be reaching for the cheque book?

 

Or wouldn't it be the boat for you?

 

Looks a good build?

 

So is it a bargain?

 

 

Have a think then we will have a closer look.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Gary Peacock

[alan_fincher]

I'm going with 'No!"

 

Or at least "Wasn't a good buy!"

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php...ost&p=41854

[Gary Peacock]

Well yes but it did look nicely put together didn't it?

 

Nice welds and looked straight.

 

Seemed a bargain?

 

Three years later it looked like-

 

THIS!

Edited March 4, 2009 by Gary Peacock

[david and julie]

When I look at the build shots of Floaters boat(build blogs) - compared to most of the fat Narrowboats I've seen - I can also clearly see why some are much costlier than others. I doubt most people would be prepared to pay the premium though for something that is largely hidden under the water.

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php...=14300&st=0

[Gary Peacock]

When I look at the build shots of Floaters boat(build blogs) - compared to most of the fat Narrowboats I've seen - I can also clearly see why some are much costlier than others. I doubt most people would be prepared to pay the premium though for something that is largely hidden under the water.

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php...=14300&st=0

 

 

It really depends what you are trying to achieve on a floating houseboat with a token amount of usability on all but still water it's a waste of money, if however you are going to use it on serious rivers in Europe then the fat narrowboat concept becomes a bit amusing.

 

I had great fun at the IWA one year asking the various builders of the things how suitable they would be for use on serious rivers in the greater Europe or what upgrades they would recommend.

 

A small upgrade to an Isuzu 70 was all that's needed, now that's a lot cheaper than messing with the hull isn't it?

 

 

The two uses result in different things and costs but the reality still is that some broad beam boats are being built very wrong for various reasons that aren't often exposed.

[blackrose]

It really depends what you are trying to achieve on a floating houseboat with a token amount of usability on all but still water it's a waste of money, if however you are going to use it on serious rivers in Europe then the fat narrowboat concept becomes a bit amusing.

 

How so Gary?

 

I've met several owners of fat narrowboats in France, one with only a 55hp engine, and none had any problems on the Rhone & Saone. The couple with the smaller engine told me they were planning to use a tug service to travel back up one of the rivers against the current. Apparently this is perfectly normal practice over there.

 

Of course there's probably a lot of difference between those French rivers and something like the Rhine.

Edited March 4, 2009 by blackrose

[Gary Peacock]

How so Gary?

 

I've met several owners of fat narrowboats in France, one with only a 55hp engine, and none had any problems on the Rhone & Saone. The couple with the smaller engine told me they were planning to use a tug service to travel back up one of the rivers against the current. Apparently this is perfectly normal practice over there.

 

Of course there's probably a lot of difference between those French rivers and something like the Rhine.

 

It depends how serious you want to look at cruising Europe we have a few with small engines that can manage, but if you want independence a bit more serious power is better.

The thing I don't get is why more builders don't look into offering a bit more flexibility in the design moving from standard narrowboat formats to a slightly better format to swing a bit bigger prop along with a bit more engine grunt is peanuts in the bigger picture without resorting to the full blown £20K worth of extra work you can spend.

 

 

 

Lea Crests only got a little 45hp engine but she manages OK with care, the biggest problem they reported was having to get out of the way of commercial traffic that often takes the attitude that the bigger boat always as the right of way and that pleasure craft are always quick enough to move out of the way!

 

 

At the other end of the spectrum this beast's got a turbo charged 135hp engine and a large prop to match and although having a rather restrictive cruising area of about one mile of the Calder is rather impressive power wise.

 

The thing is it's a lot easier to build what you need than live with what you are given.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Gary Peacock

[blackrose]

It depends how serious you want to look at cruising Europe we have a few with small engines that can manage, but if you want independence a bit more serious power is better.

The thing I don't get is why more builders don't look into offering a bit more flexibility in the design moving from standard narrowboat formats to a slightly better format to swing a bit bigger prop along with a bit more engine grunt is peanuts in the bigger picture without resorting to the full blown £20K worth of extra work you can spend.

 

 

Not sure about a bigger engine - these people look like they might be better off finding someone to teach them how to steer!

[bargemast]

It depends how serious you want to look at cruising Europe we have a few with small engines that can manage, but if you want independence a bit more serious power is better.

 

If you can manage with a small (low hp engine) for almost all the cruising you do, that's fine. Most people on those boats are holidaying and/or retired, and don't really HAVE to navigate when the rivers are flooding, which very rarely happens in the summer, only after several days of torencial rain, and the floods only last for a couple of days after the rain has stopped. If you study the rivers a bit and don't stay in mid stream, you don't need all that much power to get up. And there's always the alternative of paying a barge some money to tow you to the next canal entrance, where the low hp will be plenty.

I've taken other boats in tow several times, and I didn't go all that much faster then they could have done themselfs, but they felt safer with a tow-line attached.

 

Lea Crests only got a little 45hp engine but she manages OK with care, the biggest problem they reported was having to get out of the way of commercial traffic that often takes the attitude that the bigger boat always as the right of way and that pleasure craft are always quick enough to move out of the way!

 

I have the impression that they are a danger on the rivers, if they have to get out of the way of the commercial traffic, the rivers are fairly to very wide, and those little boats don't have a deep draft, so they can easely leave plenty of space to the commercials, without getting into dangerous situations themselfs. If they look regulairy behind them, they will see a commercial barge arriving, as they don't all of a sudden arrive from nowhere, and will have time to give them a wide passage. There is room for everybody !

 

At the other end of the spectrum this beast's got a turbo charged 135hp engine and a large prop to match and although having a rather restrictive cruising area of about one mile of the Calder is rather impressive power wise.

 

This 135hp boat will not need a tow, but how often will the power really be needed, and for the rest of the time they will cruise mainly on the canals, where the powerful turbo has nothing to do, and will be on fast idle at the most to get to the maximum allowed canal speed, without distroying the canalbanks.

 

Personally, I think you're better of with a non turbo for inland navigation, also what you don't have (or need) can't go wrong.

 

The thing is it's a lot easier to build what you need than live with what you are given.

[Roger Gunkel]

for starters I went to look at your gallery and I found 3D anaglyph pictures....All I had to do was reach behind my computer for my anaglyph glasses that are always ready by my side, I am a massive 3D fan I have an old 1897 3D stereo viewer and fantastic pictures from the period to go with, as my previous post explains I currently work in the world of TV but this is merely a bi product of my fascination with image whether it be painting photography or film, one of my main passions is 3D so much appreciated from me..

 

Anyway thank you for your reply, do you think you may of preferred a 12ft wide craft or do you feel that 10ft meant that it was that bit easier to navigate. I guess what I mean to say is do you feel that the 2ft less beam gives you more in terms of comfort if talking about the experience as a whole i.e: both living and moving around within the limited amount of canals available to broadbeams?

 

thanks again to everyone for all their replies, very much appreciated.

 

Cal

 

Hi Cal,

 

The 10ft beam was just within our price range, so we didn't look at anything wider. Over 4 years down the road, we are vey happy with our home, but don't believe that having a 12ft beam would add any more difficulty to the handling and the extra width would always be useful, but then so would 14ft or 16ft The criteria for us, was to be able to have enough width to be able to use domestic loose furniture, rather than the dinette table and more restricted seating typical of most narrowboats. We wanted a large high backed 3 seater couch for general lounging, a couple of armchairs opposite for social seating and dining table and separate chairs, so a wide beam was essential.

 

The moving about for us, was never going to be a problem, as we are on the River Cam and Fens waterways which are comparatively wide with few locks.

 

Your anaglyph comments were very interesting, so I thought I would PM you, rather than going off topic here.

 

Regards,

 

Roger

[Gary Peacock]

 

It depends how serious you want to look at cruising Europe we have a few with small engines that can manage, but if you want independence a bit more serious power is better.

 

If you can manage with a small (low hp engine) for almost all the cruising you do, that's fine. Most people on those boats are holidaying and/or retired, and don't really HAVE to navigate when the rivers are flooding, which very rarely happens in the summer, only after several days of torencial rain, and the floods only last for a couple of days after the rain has stopped. If you study the rivers a bit and don't stay in mid stream, you don't need all that much power to get up. And there's always the alternative of paying a barge some money to tow you to the next canal entrance, where the low hp will be plenty.

I've taken other boats in tow several times, and I didn't go all that much faster then they could have done themselfs, but they felt safer with a tow-line attached.

 

Lea Crests only got a little 45hp engine but she manages OK with care, the biggest problem they reported was having to get out of the way of commercial traffic that often takes the attitude that the bigger boat always as the right of way and that pleasure craft are always quick enough to move out of the way!

 

I have the impression that they are a danger on the rivers, if they have to get out of the way of the commercial traffic, the rivers are fairly to very wide, and those little boats don't have a deep draft, so they can easely leave plenty of space to the commercials, without getting into dangerous situations themselfs. If they look regulairy behind them, they will see a commercial barge arriving, as they don't all of a sudden arrive from nowhere, and will have time to give them a wide passage. There is room for everybody !

 

Maybe they should use their rear view mirrors more?

I tend to agree with your thoughts on turbos but this customer requested that engine because of some plans he had for taking the boat home to Guernsey.

 

 

This ones got the same engine without the blower giving a bit calmer 90hp.

 

 

Edited March 5, 2009 by Gary Peacock

[bargemast]

 

Maybe they should use their rear view mirrors more?

 

Exactly, it's the same as driving a car on a busy motorway, where lots of accidents could be avoided if the drivers would use their (rear view) mirrors

 

I tend to agree with your thoughts on turbos but this customer requested that engine because of some plans he had for taking the boat home to Guernsey.

 

If the boat is mainly used for the sea, then his choice is good for him, but I would still prefer the choice of the non-turbo 90hp and let it work hard for a while, which the engines are made for.

 

In my opinion there's lots of unnecessary over powering going on. In my family I had an uncle and his sun that were both coaster owner/captains, there coasters were only small but they went eveywhere in Europe (France, UK and Scandinavian countries mainly) times were hard in the 50ties for them.

My uncle had a twin cylinder Brons engine of 60hp, and he went mad when his sun bought one with a 3 cylinder 90hp, as he could not see the point why his sun wanted so much power.

 

If I will be in good enough shape again to continue the conversion of my bunker barge, I will replace the 125hp turbo engine with a non turbo Perkins 4-238, with only 72hp at 2800n that will be plenty for this barge that has a beautiful underwater shape

 

This ones got the same engine without the blower giving a bit calmer 90hp

 

A much better choice, but for you it's a different matter as you have to adapt to your clients wishes, it's them that pay and keep your business going, so you have to keep (make) them happy.

 

By the way, I'm always enjoying your series of pictures on the forum, when a new boat is built. Thanks for that

 

Cheers, Peter[

[Naughty Cal]

Suppose it depends what you want to use the engine for.

 

Someone plodding along at 4mph all day wont need a turbo, someone planning on a sea journey may well find a benefit.

 

Our Volvo Penta Kad-32 is a fantastic engine for what we need. "Plods" along under its own steam until 1400-1500rpm, then the supercharger kicks in, then the turbo takes over at around 2500rpm. Makes a fantastic noise and really gets the little boat shifting. Dont think it would be much use in a narrowboat though. It would never do any work. We get the oppurtunity to open her up on the bigger rivers and give her a work out or take her to sea and give her a proper job to do.

[bargemast]

Suppose it depends what you want to use the engine for.

 

Someone plodding along at 4mph all day wont need a turbo, someone planning on a sea journey may well find a benefit.

 

Our Volvo Penta Kad-32 is a fantastic engine for what we need. "Plods" along under its own steam until 1400-1500rpm, then the supercharger kicks in, then the turbo takes over at around 2500rpm. Makes a fantastic noise and really gets the little boat shifting. Dont think it would be much use in a narrowboat though. It would never do any work. We get the oppurtunity to open her up on the bigger rivers and give her a work out or take her to sea and give her a proper job to do.

 

If your engine is able to do most of the time what it was designed for on bigger rivers and even more at sea, then it's alright and will make your engine happy. But an engine like that will not be happy at at the most fast idling on the canals, where your boat wasn't built for anyway. People with NB's and canal barges are not so much into having to go fast, life itself is going fast enough already.