Drake - Motorised butty ?

[grahoom]

hello,

 

I was cycling along the Oxford Canal this morning and I saw an old looking boat called Drake - doing a search on Jim Sheads the only one that seems to fit it is

 

DRAKE Built by ISAAC PIMBLOTT - Length 21.65 metres (71 feet ) - Beam 2.1 metres (6 feet 11 inches ) - Draft 0.76 metres (2 feet 6 inches ) Metal hull, power of 30BHP. Registered with British Waterways number 60373 as a Powered. Last registration recorded on 19-May-09.

 

only saying this is the only one that seems to fit it as it's 71 foot long.... and that seems about right length... So I did a bit more searching and found a listing here.

 

http://www.spurstow.com/rogerfuller/historic/bwb.htm

 

Anyone have any other info on this boat?

[alan_fincher]

The Admiral Class working boats were built by BW in the early 1960s to replace or supplement older working boats. Used mainly in the North west fleet, when new.

 

They were deliberately built narrow enough to pass "tricky locks", used a lightweight construction, to keep the weight down, (to allow more cargo for the same draught), and had several unusual features. They were not sheeted up in the usual way over stands and planks, but instead used a type of hoop construction.

 

They were built either by Yarwoods or Pimbolts, I think, each type being distinguisable by a different shape where stem joins fore-deck.

 

The light construction often gives the sides a corrugated effect.

 

Here is a borrowed picture of Pimbolt built motor "Collingwood", which should look similar at the front to "Drake", to allow you to compare.

 

 

As you will see they are pretty distinctive, but distinctly not pretty, (unless you own one, I guess!).

 

The River class boats built around the same time are probably even less like an older working boat, (and were apparently pigs to handle).

[Smelly]

The Admiral Class working boats were built by BW in the early 1960s to replace or supplement older working boats. Used mainly in the North west fleet, when new.

 

 

The River class boats built around the same time are probably even less like an older working boat, (and were apparently pigs to handle).

 

I was told that the Admirals were simply an amended bow shape as the bows on the River class boats had a habit of lifting gates off their hinges if you weren't careful.

[grahoom]

cheers Alan.

[Chertsey]

Having seen one out of the water for the first time, at Braunston, it's easy to see why they swam so badly, but impossible to imagine how B(T?)W could have commissioned them without realising this. Could it have been a deliberate nail in the coffin?

 

(PS Collingwood is confusing because it's an Admiral but with River type blue top covers.... I'll get my anorak)

Edited July 7, 2009 by WarriorWoman

[Tim Lewis]

Last time I saw Drake was on the GU in April 2007:

 

 

Tim

[alan_fincher]

Last time I saw Drake was on the GU in April 2007:

What's the strange skeg like thing under the front, Tim, (if it's actually part of the boat!).

 

My understanding is that the Admirals swam rather better than the Rivers, but looking at that picture, it's not easy to see why.

 

I can't see that would be any less likely to get mixed up with a gate than a River, but it's certainly true that the Admirals built elsewhere had a kind of turned-over nose that was probably less likely to lift a gate along with itself.

 

The least likely looking Admiral might be Frobisher, which hangs around near us. It was completely "Malcolm Brained", (in the 1970s, IIRC), and has a far more conventional front and back. Only the corrugated 60 feet in the middle really says "Admiral".

[frangar]

Drake is moored here with us at Debdale Wharf Marina on the Leics section of the GU which is where that picture was taken....I will ask the owner next time if it was him on the Oxford! (and what the bit on the front is for.....!!)

 

HTH

 

Gareth

[grahoom]

then it must be a different Drake .... As it looks nothing like that.

 

I'll try and get a picture this weekend (if possible).

[alan_fincher]

then it must be a different Drake .... As it looks nothing like that.

 

I'll try and get a picture this weekend (if possible).

You need to get a BW number, and try it out on the "snitch line, then !

 

If we believe Jim Shead's site, "your" one might not be licensed!

[grahoom]

You need to get a BW number, and try it out on the "snitch line, then !

 

If we believe Jim Shead's site, "your" one might not be licensed!

 

I can't use the snitch line, it's against my beliefs!!!!

[alan_fincher]

I can't use the snitch line, it's against my beliefs!!!!

Yes, sorry - I couldn't find the "tongue in cheek" smiley.

 

The Drake pictured, is definitely the Jim Shead one, though, but I'm sure there were others.

 

It wasn't a wooden boat, was it ? :lol:

[grahoom]

It wasn't a wooden boat, was it ? :lol:

 

Come to think of it - I think it is - that's something I noticed this morning when I cycled passed - the hull does look to be wooded. It's def. in the 70 odd foot range, it's in what looks to be a bit of a tatty condition. I'll have a proper look when I cycle home tonight. ( am pretty clueless regarding historical boats - and boats in general... - still learning)

Edited July 9, 2009 by grahoom

[alan_fincher]

Come to think of it - I think it is - that's something I noticed this morning when I cycled passed - the hull does look to be wooded. It's def. in the 70 odd foot range, it's in what looks to be a bit of a tatty condition. I'll have a proper look when I cycle home tonight. ( am pretty clueless regarding historical boats - and boats in general... - still learning)

Barlows had, I believe at least two boats called Drake - I think both were buttys.

 

I know bu**er all about the survival rate of wooden working boats, but I bet Carl would be able to tell you if any of them are a Drake.

 

See if you can post a picture, though, it would help enormously.

[Timleech]

What's the strange skeg like thing under the front, Tim, (if it's actually part of the boat!).

 

My understanding is that the Admirals swam rather better than the Rivers, but looking at that picture, it's not easy to see why.

 

I can't see that would be any less likely to get mixed up with a gate than a River, but it's certainly true that the Admirals built elsewhere had a kind of turned-over nose that was probably less likely to lift a gate along with itself.

 

There were AFAIR three distinct styles of Admiral class fore-end, the Pimblotts as per the picture, the early Yarwoods and the later Yarwoods, these being the ones with a bit of rake to the stem and a radiused plate at the top (your 'turned over nose').

The fore end shape has very little bearing on how well a boat swims, at normal canal speeds. The stern shape is far more important.

I think they were built in the late 1950s except for the last one or two pairs which might have been commisioned in 1960.

 

Tim

[grahoom]

Barlows had, I believe at least two boats called Drake - I think both were buttys.

 

I know bu**er all about the survival rate of wooden working boats, but I bet Carl would be able to tell you if any of them are a Drake.

 

See if you can post a picture, though, it would help enormously.

 

Yeah, a picture would help wouldn't it!!! my phone doesn't have a camera, so will have to do cycle down on saturday.

[Pluto]

There were AFAIR three distinct styles of Admiral class fore-end, the Pimblotts as per the picture, the early Yarwoods and the later Yarwoods, these being the ones with a bit of rake to the stem and a radiused plate at the top (your 'turned over nose').

The fore end shape has very little bearing on how well a boat swims, at normal canal speeds. The stern shape is far more important.

I think they were built in the late 1950s except for the last one or two pairs which might have been commisioned in 1960.

 

Tim

I had always been led to believe that the third type was the result of complaints by boatmen about the earlier ones.

[Paul H]

Barlows had, I believe at least two boats called Drake - I think both were buttys.

 

I know bu**er all about the survival rate of wooden working boats, but I bet Carl would be able to tell you if any of them are a Drake.

 

See if you can post a picture, though, it would help enormously.

 

There was another wooden Drake - the old GU big Ricky butty Taunton renamed Drake by Willow Wren. It used to be around on the Oxford Canal late 70s/early 80s and I would be pleasantly surprised if it has survived.

 

Paul H

[Wren's Camper]

In reply to Paul, I think I might be able to pleasantly surpise you. I pass this boat regularly on the Oxford and have noticed a couple of things. Firstly it isn't motorised or if it is the conversion is well hidden and for the last few years it has been towed between it's different mooring places. Secondly, the remains of the Willow Wren livery can be clearly seen on the back cabin sides (at least from the canal side) not sure about the towpath.

 

She's certainly seen better days and sits very high in the water, just as well considering the number of holes and ill-fitting planks.

[Laurence Hogg]

I was told that the Admirals were simply an amended bow shape as the bows on the River class boats had a habit of lifting gates off their hinges if you weren't careful.

 

Definatly mo.

The Admirals were built before the River class and are to a design evolved at the docks & inland waterways research station based at Bulls Bridge.

The bow was a "hydroconic" curve, the idea was to get the maximum load shifted efficently on a badly maintained canal. Hence the theory was to form a wave which travelled down the side of the boat into a fine swim which in the final design boats had a concave uxterplate (like FMC Steamers) and thus get the water away efficently. The Pimblotts boats had two main butty variants, one being a semi swim with intended motor conversion possible at a later date, the other conventional. The Pimblott motors had a vertical stem except for one which has a raked stem, there were too minor construction differences notably on the counter top. Yarwoods built only four boats which were to an entirly different drawing but having the basic same ides and layout, they modified the top of the stems to turn over in a curve so stopping bows getting trapped.

 

These boats heralded the much daunted 6ft 10" beam into existence, this was only to pass through bulging locks where beam was reduced, they were a fraction under 6ft 10". The design worked well but was too late in the day to change the outcome for traffics, the later River class and Harbourmaster boats were the last gasp.

[zenataomm]

21 hours ago, Frankiesidle said:

 

Possibly, I don't remember.

Why is it relevant?

Edited June 19, 2020 by NB Lola

[Athy]

Frankie, why would you sidle on to the forum to ask such a question in a thread which has been dormant for eight years? Your explanation had better be good.

[mrsmelly]

21 hours ago, Frankiesidle said:

May be wrong!!!!!! WTF

Not a serious accusation then so never mind any consequence of it. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by NB Lola

[magnetman]

Archimedes and Ara 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DHutch]

Thank you all.

 

As you where....