Who are you kidding?

[Speedwheel]

It was my understanding that FMC, themselves, differentiated between Yarwoods(and other builders) boats from "true" Joshers, built by FMC, at Uxbridge and Saltley.

 

This distinction may have been lost, over time, though.

 

You are probably correct. I only have heard it from old boatmen, sorry boatpersons!!!, so that was my reference.

[Derek R.]

Well, I think some people make up their own ideas about what a "true" Josher is, some of which might be a bit pedantic.

 

As it is generally accepted that the name is an aberration of the name Joshua Fellows, and as the company known as FMC demanded boats with fine lines, any boat yard that fulfilled these requirements and built boats for FMC became known as Joshers. If some say a 'true' Josher was only built BY FMC at Uxbridge, Saltley, or Toll End - what does that make all the other boats built for FMC at Sephtons, Braithwaite and Kirk, Harris, Costin's, Nurser's, Lees & Atkins, A.J. Ashm or the five wide boats built by Rudkins - all built FOR FMC? (Though Ash was a Director, and built at Uxbridge dock). Surely you can have a boat built FOR Fellows specific use and requirements and have it be a Josher, without the specific need for it to have been built BY Fellows at one of their own docks, or for that matter at ONE specific dock.

 

Honda make cars in Japan, they are also built in England. They are all Hondas.

 

Having said that, a compromise might be to say: "that's a Yarwood's Josher" or a "Braithwaite Josher", and perhaps some do - I certainly did - and when tied up at Banbury with Yarmouth in '83, we were spoken to by an elderly couple on the towpath who had no hesitation about recognising a 'Josher'! "Used to work them we did". As a loose generalisation, any boat built for Fellows might well be called a 'Josher'.

 

What we can say without any argument (though some might due to it being post 1948!) is that there were no more Joshers built after Gorse in '51. So perhaps the last XX Josher was built up to the companies dissolution in '48. After which came look-a-likes, replicas, and stylising.

 

Good 'ere innit.

 

Edit: And bu**er boatperson and all that politically correct cr*p - boatmen and boatwomen is (are) correct!

 

Derek

Edited March 12, 2009 by Derek R.

[carlt]

What about boats built by FMC, for other companies?

 

I would regard an Uxbridge Tar Boat (for example) as more of a "Josher" than a Yarwoods boat, built for FMC, just as I would regard a car, built by Honda, for Rover, as more of a Honda, than a Vauxhall (for example), with a Honda badge stuck on.

 

I think the correct distinction is lost in time and we probably pick the one that favours our particular area of interest.

 

For me the boat building aspect is the main thing therefore the distinction between builders is more important than the distinction between carriers so I pick the bits of history that favour my bias.

[Hairy-Neil]

All of the boats with the impressive replica Josher fore end simply have an under water profile of any other boat... as in slab sided. I'm not sure of the correct word for the profile to not only 'bend' in but 'up' aswell (if you get what I mean) but it sure does look good and would very much improve the water flow to the prop.

 

But what do I know

 

Nothing it would seem....

 

Liam, that statement is just not true.

 

The underwater profile of boats built by the likes of Simon Wain, Steve Priest, Ian Kemp, Roger Fuller etc have the full double curvature on the bows. I've seen Simon Wain and Roger Fuller boats with the concave counter plate and uxters. The actual shape is limited only by the depth of the pockets of the purchaser. These are talented guys capable of building you a true replica if you could afford it.

 

I've read somewhere of (but never seen) a Josher built by Garry Ward about 15 years ago at Warwick that was allegedly a fully riveted replica. IIRC it was named St Christopher. Anyone know more?

[Liam]

Neil,

 

I must have posted that last one in a rush as I appeared to have missed words out of the sentence... I was referring to boat builders who replicate Josher bows. As far as I can tell some do a very good job and some should be ashamed. When I mentioned the under water profile to be the same as any other boat I meant that the boats I have seen. The swims under the counter at the arse end, not the double curvature under the waterline at the fore end.

 

Apologies for the confusion.

[Speedwheel]

I would agree with Carl. A boat built by FMC (for themselves or anyone else) would be a Josher where as a boat built for them by A.N.Other would not be.

It seems to stand to reason that a boat built by FMC would have been termed a Josher because of Joshua Fellows. Where as a boat purchased from another company wouldn't have been.

 

I have to say that I do tend to call all FMC boats Joshers though.

[Derek R.]

Yes that is impressive, I have actually seen a couple like that over the years, and as almost the only boats I see on chocks are in Roger Farringdon's shed, they must either have been ones that he was repairing or building. I will be on the lookout in future.

 

On a separate note, a swim shape like that must make the back cabin very cramped below the Uxter plate. My boat has very long tapered swims, but even without the steep tumblehome things are a bit tight.

 

Here's a look on the inside. Not such a common shot as all is mostly covered in woodwork. As you can see, most of the curved sections are beneath floor level (just above prop-shaft), so the reduction in space only affects down there. But then - the more space you have - the more tat that gets collected!

 

This is Yarwoods Josher Adder being worked on in '85/'86:

 

 

 

 

The swim at the chine will start half way along the engine room, whereas at uxter plate level it will start farther back.

 

Have a look at Matts Sickle website in the restoration section to see more Yarwoods work on swims.

[1-Cylinder Wonder]

The most pronounced and in my opinion most beautifull were the motors built at Saltley. The swim is incredible. Very long and rather bulbous with the accentuated flick up to accomodate the large prop when they were steamers. The double curve on the Saltley bow is also more exagerated. I think the Yarwoods Joshers, especially the later ones were more production line and the lines became a little more diluted. The Saltley boats do of course have the downside of being very deep draughted.

 

As for the term Josher being missappropriated? possibly, but does it really matter. If you look at a boat that is Josher style and obviously is not (wrong curve, guard irons in the wrong place, rivets like pebble dash and always the wrong size) and still believe it to be you could arge you must be stupid, partially sighted, ignorant or all three. All of which should probably be pittied and not mocked. Ignorance is generally down to a lack of knowledge and with time will be put right. I know things are bad with the way we treat our historic boats as they get butchered left, right and centre with little regard for how they were originally constructed. Things are not so bad though that people try to pass off a poor copy as a historic craft and a long way from anybody falling for it - I hope!!!

 

John

[alan_fincher]

For anybody who really must have a "Josha" Bow (sic), there is one on e-Bay right now!

 

 

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Narrowboat-30ft-Full...%3A1|240%3A1318

 

Looks spot on to me!

[Liam]

Another one...

 

[carlt]

For anybody who really must have a "Josha" Bow (sic), there is one on e-Bay right now!

 

 

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Narrowboat-30ft-Full...%3A1|240%3A1318

 

Looks spot on to me!

Sorry but the windows, in the cabin door, don't look right. They are at least an inch too narrow.

[Phil Speight]

Alan t'was me !

No. T`was I.

Cheers

Phil

[Liam]

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php...st&p=280105

[alan_fincher]

I thought those of you who are unhappy with a "Josher Bow" on a steel boat might be pleased to find that there is an aluminium option.

 

This was spotted at Napton.

 

 

It was also my first experience of seeing "twin thrusters" at work, (bow thruster AND stern thruster).

 

The steerer appeared to make no attempt to place it near a side - just pulled up mid-cut in reverse, then put it into "sideways" mode.

 

In fairness, it did half move quickly sideways, and the resulting "swirl" was most impressive.

 

But those bows ? Why, oh why ? Surely the standard Sea Otter is rather "prettier" ?

[carlt]

Edited April 22, 2009 by carlt

[RLWP]

Right, now this thread had bobbed to the surface again...

 

So the original steel bows were made from sheet formed to shape. Are there any pictures of how this was done? Were they hammered over a former? Drop forged? Lovingly crafted by giant silversmiths with pear shaped mallets and planishing hammers?

 

Does anyone have a description and preferably pictures? I guess that the builders would have been proud of using a new technology and would have wanted to record it.

 

Richard

[Lady Muck]

For anybody who really must have a "Josha" Bow (sic), there is one on e-Bay right now!

 

 

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Narrowboat-30ft-Full...%3A1|240%3A1318

 

Looks spot on to me!

 

 

Double egg.

[Derek R.]

Double egg.

 

And how many rashers would you like Sir?

 

 

Sentinel, (next the bank - don't know what that other thing is) amongst five built in the seventies, now 70'. Was used to carry barrels I believe to 'The Steamboat' pub.

And No - not a 'Josher'.

 

She was out the water at Cassio over Easter for a blacking - and me without the camera.

 

Derek

[Speedwheel]

Sentinel - Tiz very fast!!!

[riverbargeman]

Right, now this thread had bobbed to the surface again...

 

So the original steel bows were made from sheet formed to shape. Are there any pictures of how this was done? Were they hammered over a former? Drop forged? Lovingly crafted by giant silversmiths with pear shaped mallets and planishing hammers?

 

Does anyone have a description and preferably pictures? I guess that the builders would have been proud of using a new technology and would have wanted to record it.

 

Richard

 

I understand that like many shaped plates in shipbuilding the Iron and then steel sheets were warmed and beaten into shape over formers with the process being repeated until the desired shape was achieved. With the Yarwoods Josher bows I am told that there were iron formers were cast up specifically for the job. For the steamer stern swims I believe there was no former used and the plate was laid on a bed of dry sand.

[bag 'o' bones]

Makes we wonder whether just having a 'normal' front end is the way to go at least then you don't have to fend off the smart alec remarks along the lines of 'its not a proper josher'!

[Phil Speight]

I would agree with Carl. A boat built by FMC (for themselves or anyone else) would be a Josher where as a boat built for them by A.N.Other would not be.

It seems to stand to reason that a boat built by FMC would have been termed a Josher because of Joshua Fellows. Where as a boat purchased from another company wouldn't have been.

 

I have to say that I do tend to call all FMC boats Joshers though.

In amongst all this considerable scholarship may I suggest, from behind the settee , that many boaters of old regarded any boat that WORKED for FMC to be a Josher. This led to comments like " I used to work for Joshers ." Something I heard quite some time ago now. I think , and I am well prepared to be entirely wrong , that calling boats of the now famous shape ( fore and aft both ) "joshers" is not the earliest usage of the term.

The reference to the stern end is refreshing - but it is more than the swim that a good replica has to have correct. Some otherwise very excellent modern interpretations miss the fact that , I think in all cases ( where we take " Josher " as a type of boat ) the hull started to taper inwards from the engine room back.

The first relatively acurate replica was , as I remember , built by Dave Harris and was called Duteous .

It was said to be the first with a steel planked bow - which remains , it seems ( I`m not a boatbuilder ) to remain the bestway of doing it. Apart from Roger Farringdon , good replicas have been built regularly by Dave Harris, Ian Kemp and Simon Wain and I think Keith Ball may have done a new one or two as well. How many get the taper from the engine room right though I don`t know - although I do know that at least three of those I mention do so.

I`ll now duck under cover to avoid the flak !

Phil

[Speedwheel]

In amongst all this considerable scholarship may I suggest, from behind the settee , that many boaters of old regarded any boat that WORKED for FMC to be a Josher. This led to comments like " I used to work for Joshers ." Something I heard quite some time ago now.

 

I'm sure your right Phil. And I'm sure that for every working boatman that would say one thing, another would say something different. That seems to be the way with eveything in history. There are no right answers, only the right answer to that certain individual who hears if from what they believe to be the most credible source (in their opinion!)

 

I will be seeing Henry and Phyllis Johnstone tomorrow who often talk of Joshering so I shall ask them what their opinion is.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Satellite

[RLWP]

I understand that like many shaped plates in shipbuilding the Iron and then steel sheets were warmed and beaten into shape over formers with the process being repeated until the desired shape was achieved. With the Yarwoods Josher bows I am told that there were iron formers were cast up specifically for the job. For the steamer stern swims I believe there was no former used and the plate was laid on a bed of dry sand.

 

Thanks for this RBM. Do you know of any images recording the process? It's the kind of thing that companies were keen to show off.

 

Richard

[riverbargeman]

Thanks for this RBM. Do you know of any images recording the process? It's the kind of thing that companies were keen to show off.

 

Richard

 

Sorry no pictures but reports were/are from folk who used to work at Yarwoods. Any pictures that are in being are no doubt within the collection of papers that the late Clive Guthrie had amassed, alas there whereabouts is now not known!

 

I also agree with Phil regarding craft in the fleet being Joshers, as a child I remember that some of the remaining boatmen would refer to "....when i was Josherin'..." as a reference to when they worked for the company rather than on a particular craft.

Edited May 4, 2009 by riverbargeman