Working Boat Widths

[alan_fincher]

Chatting to my brother, who had GUCCCo "Bilster" for a while, he reckoned he had had the original gauging sheets for it.

 

Despite a design width of (I think), seven foot and half an inch, he reckons Bilster was actually recorded as measured at a full one and three quarter inches over the seven feet.

 

It seems the boat involved in the recent court case is pretty narrow by comparison !

 

Can anybody else who has, or has had, give evidence of a measured width, (properly pulled in), that was significantly above what should have resulted from the build.

 

It's hardly surprising these things get stuck in locks for which they were never designed !

[dove]

On our drawing it states "breadth over convex 7'-1" ( not to be exeeded)

Breadth over plating 7'-0", and that's what Dove is.

 

Andrew

[bristol & argo]

It's hardly surprising these things get stuck in locks for which they were never designed !

 

Yes but BW should have rebuilt to at least the original design, not the new 6' 10" standard....

[magpie patrick]

Yes but BW should have rebuilt to at least the original design, not the new 6' 10" standard....

 

If you are on the GU or it's branches, and some other narrow canals, yes,

 

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT

 

There were narrow locks that were narrower than these. The stated width for what is now the Llangollen Canal in 1918 (rather before BW got hold of it) was 6 feet 10, and for the montgomery 6 feet 9, the standard on many of the early north western narrow canals was a bare seven feet, your s feet half an inch would not have been excpected to go through these locks.

[pete harrison]

Chatting to my brother, who had GUCCCo "Bilster" for a while, he reckoned he had had the original gauging sheets for it.

 

Despite a design width of (I think), seven foot and half an inch, he reckons Bilster was actually recorded as measured at a full one and three quarter inches over the seven feet.

 

It seems the boat involved in the recent court case is pretty narrow by comparison !

 

Can anybody else who has, or has had, give evidence of a measured width, (properly pulled in), that was significantly above what should have resulted from the build.

 

It's hardly surprising these things get stuck in locks for which they were never designed !

 

I have the gauge details for BILSTER which give its length as 70'7'' and its beam as 7'0 1/8'', so it is in fact a comparetively small boat when compared to the G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. standard of 71'6 X 7'0 1/2 ''.

 

The widest boats of the G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. fleet according to their Grand Union Canal gauge tables are:-

 

STIRLING - 71'9 x 7'2 (motor)

ADVANCE - 70'6½ x 7'2 (motor)

 

The longest boat of the G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. fleet according to its Grand Union Canal gauge table is:-

 

ALEXANDRA - 72'5¾ x 7'0 (butty)

[alan_fincher]

I have the gauge details for BILSTER which give its length as 70'7'' and its beam as 7'0 1/8'', so it is in fact a comparetively small boat when compared to the G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. standard of 71'6 X 7'0 1/2 ''.

Curious,

 

I got the impression my brother still has a gauging sheet, so I'll have to ask him if he can find it.

 

Mind you, I rather fear his filing skills are worse than mine!

[pete harrison]

Curious,

 

I got the impression my brother still has a gauging sheet, so I'll have to ask him if he can find it.

 

Mind you, I rather fear his filing skills are worse than mine!

 

I heard a tale a few years ago that the Fincher brothers had several volumes, if not a complete set of Grand Union Canal gauge tables. Is there any truth in that tale ?

[alan_fincher]

I heard a tale a few years ago that the Fincher brothers had several volumes, if not a complete set of Grand Union Canal gauge tables. Is there any truth in that tale ?

EDIT:

 

Removed post, because after I talked to my brother, I have got a more accurate statement of things.

 

Please see below:

Edited July 24, 2009 by alan_fincher

[alan_fincher]

Can I change the heading of this topic please - I have been misinformed.

 

Having spoken to Mike, he and Peter never held a collection of gauge sheets, but a certain forum member apparently did!

 

The sheets were in possession of Tam Murrell, and Mike assumed that the origins were Bulls Bridge. Tam also had empty original forms, and copied the details from the originals in best handwriting for Mike and Pete's Bilster and Angel.

 

Mike is sure they were copied correctly, but has now found the Bilster one and finds it was slightly narrow, rather than wide, as he thought he remembered.

 

The width agrees with what Pete has, but the length does not.

 

Mike has just given me, (I hope I scribbled it down right).

 

Bilster

Built Feb 1936

Gauge Sheet 22 Feb 1937

Length 71' 7"

Beam 7' 0 1/8"

Draught (light - average) 17.65"

Draught (39 tons load - average) 57'07" ( :lol: )

 

Amendment Mar 1938 - Deduct 2 cwt

Amendment Oct 1941 - Add 3 cwt.

 

So a foot longer than your number, Pete - but not wide after all

 

It sounds like Tam Murrell is the man to ask more about where these sheets came from (and went)

 

 

I also asked Mike about a number of other goings on at the time.

 

He intimately remembers the Ayr / Berkhampstead debate, and saw Berkhampstead being taken down to Bulls Bridge shortly before the cutting of butties happened.

 

He says the "mix up" story emerged very quickly, and was much debated at the time. He firmly believes Berkhampstead was cut by mistake, and the boat now so named is Ayr, (a new name being speedily applied).

 

Apparently much comparing of the surviving boat to pictures of Ayr and Berkhamstead showed the dents to be where Ayr had them, not where they would have been if it were Berkhampstead.

 

He has no photographic evidence now, but I suspect he is right.

[Laurence Hogg]

Can I change the heading of this topic please - I have been misinformed.

 

Having spoken to Mike, he and Peter never held a collection of gauge sheets, but a certain forum member apparently did!

 

The sheets were in possession of Tam Murrell, and Mike assumed that the origins were Bulls Bridge. Tam also had empty original forms, and copied the details from the originals in best handwriting for Mike and Pete's Bilster and Angel.

 

Mike is sure they were copied correctly, but has now found the Bilster one and finds it was slightly narrow, rather than wide, as he thought he remembered.

 

The width agrees with what Pete has, but the length does not.

 

Mike has just given me, (I hope I scribbled it down right).

 

Bilster

Built Feb 1936

Gauge Sheet 22 Feb 1937

Length 71' 7"

Beam 7' 0 1/8"

Draught (light - average) 17.65"

Draught (39 tons load - average) 57'07" ( :lol: )

 

Amendment Mar 1938 - Deduct 2 cwt

Amendment Oct 1941 - Add 3 cwt.

 

So a foot longer than your number, Pete - but not wide after all

 

It sounds like Tam Murrell is the man to ask more about where these sheets came from (and went)

 

 

I also asked Mike about a number of other goings on at the time.

 

He intimately remembers the Ayr / Berkhampstead debate, and saw Berkhampstead being taken down to Bulls Bridge shortly before the cutting of butties happened.

 

He says the "mix up" story emerged very quickly, and was much debated at the time. He firmly believes Berkhampstead was cut by mistake, and the boat now so named is Ayr, (a new name being speedily applied).

 

Apparently much comparing of the surviving boat to pictures of Ayr and Berkhamstead showed the dents to be where Ayr had them, not where they would have been if it were Berkhampstead.

 

He has no photographic evidence now, but I suspect he is right.

 

 

I have photcopies of the sheets from Brentford. Joe Safe lent them to me before he left. They were along with other priceless information heaped into a rubbish boat when BW cleared the offices out, I have always undersood Tam and Di rescued a lot of what was there.

On Widths, many working boats exceeded 7ft, 7ft 1" was common and a quick glance through BCN / Oxford registrations confirms that, Rupert Cravens "Coombe Abbey" is 7ft 1 1/4". The BW 6ft 10" relates back to the Admiral Class build which were actually 6ft 9 and a bit!!

[pete harrison]

Can I change the heading of this topic please - I have been misinformed.

 

Having spoken to Mike, he and Peter never held a collection of gauge sheets, but a certain forum member apparently did!

 

The sheets were in possession of Tam Murrell, and Mike assumed that the origins were Bulls Bridge. Tam also had empty original forms, and copied the details from the originals in best handwriting for Mike and Pete's Bilster and Angel.

 

Mike is sure they were copied correctly, but has now found the Bilster one and finds it was slightly narrow, rather than wide, as he thought he remembered.

 

The width agrees with what Pete has, but the length does not.

 

Mike has just given me, (I hope I scribbled it down right).

 

Bilster

Built Feb 1936

Gauge Sheet 22 Feb 1937

Length 71' 7"

Beam 7' 0 1/8"

Draught (light - average) 17.65"

Draught (39 tons load - average) 57'07" ( :lol: )

Amendment Mar 1938 - Deduct 2 cwt

Amendment Oct 1941 - Add 3 cwt.

 

So a foot longer than your number, Pete - but not wide after all

 

It sounds like Tam Murrell is the man to ask more about where these sheets came from (and went)

 

 

I also asked Mike about a number of other goings on at the time.

 

He intimately remembers the Ayr / Berkhampstead debate, and saw Berkhampstead being taken down to Bulls Bridge shortly before the cutting of butties happened.

 

He says the "mix up" story emerged very quickly, and was much debated at the time. He firmly believes Berkhampstead was cut by mistake, and the boat now so named is Ayr, (a new name being speedily applied).

 

Apparently much comparing of the surviving boat to pictures of Ayr and Berkhamstead showed the dents to be where Ayr had them, not where they would have been if it were Berkhampstead.

 

He has no photographic evidence now, but I suspect he is right.

 

I have not yet been able to inspect a copy of the Grand Union Canal gauge table 12679 (BILSTER) as I have not been able to locate a register containing this table (register of tables numbered 12601 to 12700). I have however had access to two other sources, one being a transcript made by another researcher in the 1960's who works to very high standards of accuracy and the other is the original Grand Union Canal tables relevant to the G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. narrow boats transcribed by the B.C.N. Company into their own gauge registers (2 registers), of which I have digitally photographed. Both of these sources list the length as 71'7 so clearly I made a mistake - sorry !

 

The build date quoted on several of the Grand Union Canal gauge tables usually relates to the date of health registration rather than the true build date. The B.C.N. Company did not tranfer this date but the transcript I have lists 02/1936 and 03/11/1936. I do not know what 02/1936 relates to as BILSTER was not delivered until 30/10/1936, but 03/11/1936 is the date BILSTER was actually inspected by the Sanitary Inspector prior to its registration being approved on 09/12/1936. The other details I have agree with yours.

 

I agree with your brother regarding BERKHAMSTEAD / AYR but I think this is a problem that is now impossible to resolve as the facts have been clouded by too many stories and opinions over the years.

[alan_fincher]

OK, Pete, thanks.

 

 

I apologise for my inconsistency about the spellings of BERKHAMPSTEAD, (the spelling on the boat in the 1970s).

 

There are allegedly 50 spellings of the town over the years - I live there and the modern spelling is BERKHAMSTED.

 

In family history research any of the spellings BERKHAMSTED/BERKHAMSTEAD/BERKHAMPSTED/BERKHAMPSTEAD regularly appear, but with the first and last the most common.

 

As Herts also has a LITTLE BERKHAMPSTEAD, technically for many years ours was GREAT BERKHAMPSTEAD.

[antarmike]

I have the gauge details for BILSTER which give its length as 70'7'' and its beam as 7'0 1/8'', so it is in fact a comparetively small boat when compared to the G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. standard of 71'6 X 7'0 1/2 ''.

 

The widest boats of the G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. fleet according to their Grand Union Canal gauge tables are:-

 

STIRLING - 71'9 x 7'2 (motor)

ADVANCE - 70'6½ x 7'2 (motor)

 

The longest boat of the G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. fleet according to its Grand Union Canal gauge table is:-

 

ALEXANDRA - 72'5¾ x 7'0 (butty)

Each gauging station had a copy of the gaugeing table, so several people probably have a copy of Bilsters Table

 

Can I change the heading of this topic please - I have been misinformed.

 

Having spoken to Mike, he and Peter never held a collection of gauge sheets, but a certain forum member apparently did!

 

The sheets were in possession of Tam Murrell, and Mike assumed that the origins were Bulls Bridge. Tam also had empty original forms, and copied the details from the originals in best handwriting for Mike and Pete's Bilster and Angel.

 

Mike is sure they were copied correctly, but has now found the Bilster one and finds it was slightly narrow, rather than wide, as he thought he remembered.

 

The width agrees with what Pete has, but the length does not.

 

Mike has just given me, (I hope I scribbled it down right).

 

Bilster

Built Feb 1936

Gauge Sheet 22 Feb 1937

Length 71' 7"

Beam 7' 0 1/8"

Draught (light - average) 17.65"

Draught (39 tons load - average) 57'07" ( :lol: )

 

Amendment Mar 1938 - Deduct 2 cwt

Amendment Oct 1941 - Add 3 cwt.

 

So a foot longer than your number, Pete - but not wide after all

 

It sounds like Tam Murrell is the man to ask more about where these sheets came from (and went)

 

 

I also asked Mike about a number of other goings on at the time.

 

He intimately remembers the Ayr / Berkhampstead debate, and saw Berkhampstead being taken down to Bulls Bridge shortly before the cutting of butties happened.

 

He says the "mix up" story emerged very quickly, and was much debated at the time. He firmly believes Berkhampstead was cut by mistake, and the boat now so named is Ayr, (a new name being speedily applied).

 

Apparently much comparing of the surviving boat to pictures of Ayr and Berkhamstead showed the dents to be where Ayr had them, not where they would have been if it were Berkhampstead.

 

He has no photographic evidence now, but I suspect he is right.

The GUCCco Gauge sheets were NOT at Cowroast lock Office when Pete worked there. There were some FMC and some other carriers gauging sheets, just not the GUCCco ones. Pete was looking after those that where there for some time, but where they ended up I do not know. There were blank gauge sheets and the copy I have for Bilster was copied By Tam from the Bulls Bridge sheets onto a genuineform from the Cowroast Toll office.

 

Re Ayr / Berkhamstead. I have no doubt that Berkhamstead is in reality Ayr. I was on the scene, knew the people, and the rumour was around within a week of Berkhamstead being cut up.

 

At the time there was much disgruntlement that the die blocks Harland and Woolfe had used to shape the bows, sterns and swims of the Woolwich boats were at Bulls Bridge at this time, and they all got weighed in for scrap. It is a pity that the chance to re-manufacture woolwich's from the original tooling was lost.

Edited February 7, 2010 by antarmike

[Keeping Up]

Interesting to see how closely it matches the rule of thumb, 1" displacement per ton

[David Schweizer]

We measured Pisces after she got stuck hard in a lock on the Southern Stratford, and I seem to remember it being something close to 73 1/2" in the centre at the gunwales.

 

At the time our Captain reckoned it had "stretched in the middle as a result of a bodged re-bottoming when she was on lease to the London Fire Brigade, but I have no evidence that is true.

 

Since then, I believe she has has had a steel bottom welded on by Dave Thomas, who I guess would have corrected any oversizing.

Edited February 7, 2010 by David Schweizer

[Pluto]

There were narrow locks that were narrower than these. The stated width for what is now the Llangollen Canal in 1918 (rather before BW got hold of it) was 6 feet 10, and for the montgomery 6 feet 9, the standard on many of the early north western narrow canals was a bare seven feet, your s feet half an inch would not have been excpected to go through these locks.

It is important to remember that there were no easy standards for measurement when canals were built. I have always wondered how they were able to keep lock sizes as close to standard as they did. Presumably each canal had its own set of gauges for measuring things like lock width. On length, early narrow canals seem to have locks around 72 feet in length, those from the canal mania are slightly shorter, possibly to keep costs down, then subsequent narrow canals had locks around 74 feet in length. For the pedantics, I am generalising! I do have details for all the locks on the L&LC and it is surprising how they vary, even individual chambers in a set of riser locks.

[antarmike]

It is important to remember that there were no easy standards for measurement when canals were built. I have always wondered how they were able to keep lock sizes as close to standard as they did. Presumably each canal had its own set of gauges for measuring things like lock width. On length, early narrow canals seem to have locks around 72 feet in length, those from the canal mania are slightly shorter, possibly to keep costs down, then subsequent narrow canals had locks around 74 feet in length. For the pedantics, I am generalising! I do have details for all the locks on the L&LC and it is surprising how they vary, even individual chambers in a set of riser locks.

There is one lock on the Soar, below loughborough, you can't get through with pair of Grand Union boats, The bottom gates hit the stem bars, when you try to open them. You have to lock though individually, and have the boat diagonally across the lock when the bottom gate opens. There is only one lock like this, so yes, locks do vary in length.

Edited February 7, 2010 by antarmike

[Hairy-Neil]

There is one lock on the Soar, below loughborough, you can't get through with pair of Grand Union boats,

 

I know the lock you mean, you can go uphill with a GU pair as the stem posts overhang the top cill just enough to get the bottom gates to shut, but perhaps not down. There's a couple of locks on the Lower Avon Navigation the same. Evesham lock will apparently only pass a GU boat uphill and singled out. To descend the lock they must wind above the lock and go down backwards, then wind again in the river below. Again I've only ever taken a GU pair uphill here.

 

The Kennet & Avon also has 'short' 70ft locks. Most will pass a GU pair, but the motor's bottom gate will not open, so it's necessary to open the butty's gate, bow haul it out, then push the motor across and exit the same gate. It becomes a bit of a chore after a while. Burghfield Lock IIRC is much deeper, so you don't have the benefit of the stem posts overhanging the cill and I've had to go down singled out here too, after finding out the hard way and having to refill the lock.....

 

 

Many GU boats have had their worn rubbing strakes at the bows 'repaired' by welding another strip of guard rail over the top of the worn existing one. This can add 1/2 inch to the beam.

[Richard T]

There is one lock on the Soar, below loughborough, you can't get through with pair of Grand Union boats, The bottom gates hit the stem bars, when you try to open them. You have to lock though individually, and have the boat diagonally across the lock when the bottom gate opens. There is only one lock like this, so yes, locks do vary in length.

Which one? Kegworth Deep & Ratcliffe were rebuit as part of the 80s flood works. Zouch and Bishops Meadow are as original. Redhill became a flood lock at the same time, the fall was only from memory about 18inches depending on the river Trent level. When river levels are low I gather that Zouch can be a problem for deep draughted boats, getting out is not too difficult with a flush of water, but getting in more problematic.

[Hairy-Neil]

Think it's Bishops Meadow, but it's 14 years ago that I was there, so may be wrong.....

[antarmike]

Think it's Bishops Meadow, but it's 14 years ago that I was there, so may be wrong.....

Rings a bell with me too , and that is years and Years ago with Halsall and butty when I briefly worked for threefellows carrying!

[Max Sinclair]

It is important to remember that there were no easy standards for measurement when canals were built. I have always wondered how they were able to keep lock sizes as close to standard as they did. Presumably each canal had its own set of gauges for measuring things like lock width. On length, early narrow canals seem to have locks around 72 feet in length, those from the canal mania are slightly shorter, possibly to keep costs down, then subsequent narrow canals had locks around 74 feet in length. For the pedantics, I am generalising! I do have details for all the locks on the L&LC and it is surprising how they vary, even individual chambers in a set of riser locks.

 

Yes there is considerable variation on the Droitwich Barge Canal on the Cill depth.In the records they had to send a man to Newcastle for the level suggesting such a device was a rarity.There must have been a lot of guesswork on these early canals. One of the first purchases was a ball of twine, presumably to lay out the navies digging route. A few weeks later they bought a larger ball of twine and then a ball of Bedlam Twine which I assume came from Ironbridge coated in tar from the tar tunnel at Bedlam.Men were employed night and day pumping water out of the Lock One chamber on to the Severn which was rising and falling five feet with the tide.How did they get the lime mortar to set? No wonder Brindley said this was the canal of which he was most proud.And so am I!.come and look at it.

[Keeping Up]

Rings a bell with me too , and that is years and Years ago with Halsall and butty when I briefly worked for threefellows carrying!

Yes I agree, you cannot get two full-length boats down Bishop Meadow together.