Traditionalists, Purists... A Quesion... ?

[carlt]

Simple enough... refer to post one?

 

It takes multiple factors into consideration but seems straight forward enough to me, pre-motor narrowboats being the source of purism and true traditionalism as opposed to how some see it today.

Then you have your answer.

 

There are no "purists" here, merely enthusiasts.

 

Ask Sue Day, she may well be able to answer your question.

[RLWP]

Simple enough... refer to post one?

 

It takes multiple factors into consideration but seems straight forward enough to me, pre-motor narrowboats being the source of purism and true traditionalism as opposed to how some see it today.

 

Ahh, I see. Well I don't but if you want a simple answer, no

 

Richard

 

Or yes, if you want

[The Anonymous Bard]

Oh please what?

 

Surely a motoring "purist" would like to see the Phantom preserved "as built" yet your fanciful kind of "purist" would sneer at it as being inferior to a horse drawn vehicle.

 

I don't actually believe you understand what you are actually asking.

 

There are no "purists" (by your definition) here to answer your question, merely enthusiasts that believe each type of working boat has its own place in history and should be preserved.

 

Well I won't embarrass with multiple quotes those that have but I would disagree with your comments...

[alan_fincher]

Most motors which towed buttys in the early days were originally pre-motor conversions that were horse drawn?

If you believe this to be true, I think you have proved yourself not even qualified to ask the question.

 

(And actually I still have no idea what question you are trying to ask! )

 

 

I have had a couple of drinks tonight, but don't think it would have helped if I hadn't.

[carlt]

Well I won't embarrass with multiple quotes those that have but I would disagree with your comments...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbY9ePebWB8

[The Anonymous Bard]

Seeing that you started the thread, what is your own opinion and ....err... what is the question?

 

Is it <quote> An opinion of yourselves that rides higher in the sky than the pigs which circle awaiting their particular landing time? <unquote> or is that from The Merchant of Venice, Comedy of Errors or Love's Labours Lost? ........... or have you got hold of a really nice single malt tonight?

 

You could have tried getting your head round the initial post or...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbY9ePebWB8

 

Goodnight.

[johnmck]

This discussion reminds me of a sketch some of you may well remember...

 

I look up to him because..

 

Of all the send-up's that appeared on 'The Frost Report', the best remembered, and often held as representative of the shows style was the Marty Feldman/John Law penned sketch about class. This involved 6ft 5inch Cleese standing next to 5ft 8inch Barker who in turn stood next to 5ft 1inch Corbett, and using each man's height to illustrate their standing in society. Middle-Class Barker explains: 'I look up to him (Cleese) because he is upper class but I look down on him (Corbett) because he is lower class.' Corbett: 'I know my place.' The sketch lasted no more than a few minutes but remained in the memory for so long that some thirty or more years later Ronnie Barker came out of retirement to make an updated version for a TV special with Ronnie Corbett (John Cleese was unavailable so Stephen Fry stood in for him).

 

Whatever floats your boat in my opinion.

 

John

[The Anonymous Bard]

If you believe this to be true, I think you have proved yourself not even qualified to ask the question.

 

(And actually I still have no idea what question you are trying to ask! )

 

 

I have had a couple of drinks tonight, but don't think it would have helped if I hadn't.

 

So... discarding that comment and referring to the original post what comment do you have to make on the original subject Alan, drinks or no drinks?

[Guest User]

OK… one question is still niggling away at me.

OK shoot .....

For those that consider themselves purists, traditionalists or whatever they wish to label themselves as with their “true to original drawing” shells and “vintage” engines, exactly how pure are you?

I'm not at all pure

Surely a true purist/traditionalist would have nothing other than a horse drawn boat… no motor conversion or vintage engine and where would that leave you?

erm, well if i was only allowed to have a horse drawn boat I doubt I would bother having a boat at all

An opinion of yourselves that rides higher in the sky than the pigs which circle awaiting their particular landing time?

Huh ? I see no pigs.

Paying a fortune for straw and feeding a passion that you cannot devote the time to?

Sorry, what is the straw for ?

I suspect, with the very odd exception, no purer than the modern day cruiser or semi-trad with “pram hood”!

 

After all… as a serious question, surely those that consider themselves purists due to the fact that they have a boatman’s cabin and “vintage” engine resplendent in its own setting are settling on an era of convenience that has been chosen in conjunction with what suits their particular lifestyle and not traced back to the actual pure origins of boat transport as we refer to as narrowboats?

Or rather there's some people that like the look of a traditional motor even in a modern-build ?

So, mop handle wielding twizzlers… what is it?

No idea ... didn't Jamie Oliver get rid of turkey twizzlers from school dinners ?

Do we re-phrase the purists as “a certain age of boat transport era-ists who are so, through a matter of convenience because that period of time suits them, no more purer than a bag of pork scratchings to a vegetarian“ or does history really extend beyond Tom Rolt and Cressy?

Not at all I; like both pork scratchings and vegetarians

Is your purism really your own personal discovery of boat transportation and not pure at all but just a deluded fantasy which you insist on living out based on an idealistic (to you) era, or is it really traced back to its roots in this context, and would you still consider yourselves a purist/traditionalists considering?

Well, actually I did discover the canals and I invented butties, motors (but not horses)

[carlt]

So... discarding that comment and referring to the original post what comment do you have to make on the original subject Alan, drinks or no drinks?

The original subject is silly because you have a skewed idea of what a traditionalist is.

 

As it differs from what the Traditionalists/Purists, who have so far commented, believe you are not going to get an answer that you will be satisfied with.

 

 

 

Is the true purist the one that will only be satisfied with a horse drawn canal boat?

 

No because carrying craft were bow hauled by men, towed by teams of oxen, or wind powered, before horses were used.

 

As has been already mentioned, to fully satisfy the troll, we must feed him with tales of dug out canoes, Bamboo rafts and papyrus boats.

[The Anonymous Bard]

The original subject is silly because you have a skewed idea of what a traditionalist is.

 

As it differs from what the Traditionalists/Purists, who have so far commented, believe you are not going to get an answer that you will be satisfied with.

 

 

 

Is the true purist the one that will only be satisfied with a horse drawn canal boat?

 

No because carrying craft were bow hauled by men, towed by teams of oxen, or wind powered, before horses were used.

 

As has been already mentioned, to fully satisfy the troll, we must feed him with tales of dug out canoes, Bamboo rafts and papyrus boats.

 

Oh dear...

[carlt]

 

Not at all I; like both pork scratchings and vegetarians

 

Do you use the vegetarian as a post porky scratch toothpick?

 

Oh dear...

Well you certainly have me stumped with that one.

 

Once again your incisive debating skills and biting wit have bettered the best of us.

[The Anonymous Bard]

Or an appetiser... that really is good night and God bless!

 

Do you use the vegetarian as a post porky scratch toothpick?

 

 

Once again your incisive debating skills and biting wit have bettered the best of us.

 

Thanks Carl... that really means something coming from you, after all it's not like you ever steered a discussion in a certain direction instead of concentrating on the original post and letting the "so called" have their say now is it?

[RLWP]

The trouble is, your original post isn't a question. It's a statement of your own position, followed by a whole bunch of questions based on a premise that I for one don't recognise.

 

To be honest, it reads more like a rant, and to me the second post in this thread seems to be a very good one

 

Richard

[alan_fincher]

So... discarding that comment and referring to the original post what comment do you have to make on the original subject Alan, drinks or no drinks?

You keep saying something along the lines of "refer to post 1", but that appears to be an amalgam of your own thoughts with so many questions asked, that I really do have no idea what point you really are trying to investigate.

 

Are you able to reduce it t a single lucid question that people can answer, that is just a question, and isn't flavoured throughout by your slant on things ?

 

I don't know about purists, traditionalists, or whatever, but I do like to see an attempt to restore a boat to some degree of authenticity, whatever it's chequered history to date.....

 

Member "Chertsey" for example is trying to keep as much as she can of her 1930s boat as authentic as she can, without destroying it's more recent history. As such I applaud her decision to keep it equipped with a "1960"s air cooled Petter PD2 diesel. Not an original feature of such boats, but the engine with which these boats got re-equipped, and which most of the British Waterways southern fleet, and latterly Willow Wren boats probably had. As PD2s, once two a penny, seem now close to extinction, what a pleasant change from all the shiny Garners and Kelvins that have little to do with narrow boat history.

 

But equally I am happy to see a Kelvin in a "real" working boat, doing real work, as it is so much better than them being stuffed and mounted, and driven around various rallies.

 

This boat.....

 

Sickle Link

 

is not original, in as much as at some point in it's life it was cut from 71' 6" to 40' to form first an ice-breaker boat, but subsequently used on tug and maintenance duties.

 

The painstaking restoration has returned it to a very respectable authentic condition of around the 1960s / 1970s era, and I remember the boat working in this form then, and photographed it at the time. I think it's transformation back to that state quite remarkable.

 

There is nothing snobbish or elitist about taking something like this, (which BW had reduced to near scrap, and planned to turn into a "flower bed" feature), and returning it to what it once was.

 

I think it is a lovely thing, and if I felt I could make enough use of it, would be negotiating to buy it right now. (I'm actively looking for the "right" old boat for me).

 

(And the rivets put into it when it was rebuilt, just a few years ago, are definitely real ones, holding it together, not just some daft adornment)

 

But I doubt I have answered any of your questions....

 

What I have talked about above has precious little to do with Barry Hawkins, RW Davies, Steve Hudson or even Norton Canes Boatbuilders though, of course, and therein may lie the confusion!

Edited April 12, 2011 by alan_fincher

[carlt]

Thanks Carl... that really means something coming from you, after all it's not like you ever steered a discussion in a certain direction instead of concentrating on the original post and letting the "so called" have their say now is it?

I don't make two word patronising comments, because I can't argue the point, I always have something to say and am happy to point out where someone is being silly or wrong. Your "Oh please" and "Oh dear!" merely suggests you haven't got an answer to my point.

 

If you think my responses, to your question are silly, and warrant patronising, please show me why.

 

Just using two word dismissive and irrelevant posts says more about you, than it does about me.

[The Anonymous Bard]

amalgam

 

Night night Alan.

Edited April 12, 2011 by The Anonymous Bard

[RLWP]

Night night Alan.

 

That's grossly unfair. Alan has taken the time to explore your very unclear OP. You could at least have the decency to be polite

 

Richard

[The Anonymous Bard]

I don't make two word patronising comments, because I can't argue the point, I always have something to say and am happy to point out where someone is being silly or wrong. Your "Oh please" and "Oh dear!" merely suggests you haven't got an answer to my point.

 

If you think my responses, to your question are silly, and warrant patronising, please show me why.

 

Just using two word dismissive and irrelevant posts says more about you, than it does about me.

 

If you care to read the initial post and answer what are quite straight forward questions (if you feel they apply to you and you are capable) we wouldn't be at this stage... beyond that there is little hope.

 

That's grossly unfair. Alan has taken the time to explore your very unclear OP. You could at least have the decency to be polite

 

Richard

 

But by the posters earlier statements and wanting to consider clear, sober opinions...

[RLWP]

If you care to read the initial post and answer what are quite straight forward questions (if you feel they apply to you and you are capable) we wouldn't be at this stage... beyond that there is little hope.

 

 

 

But by the posters earlier statements and wanting to consider clear, sober opinions...

 

OK, when you are sober, perhaps that would be the time for you to post

 

Richard

[carlt]

If you care to read the initial post and answer what are quite straight forward questions (if you feel they apply to you and you are capable) we wouldn't be at this stage... beyond that there is little hope.

I read the original post and answered it.

 

Yes, a "purist" by your definition would be dragging his boat with a team of local peasants or oxen and campaigning for the return of flash locks and someone else will be sneering at him for using rope instead of twined leather, wearing underpants under his sackcloth and not beating the peasants hard enough.

 

What answer are you looking for?....Yes we're all fakes, for wanting to see motors and butties preserved?

 

Okay...

 

We are all fakes for being enthusiasts and enjoying seeing working boats, from whatever era, preserved and we don't have horse drawn boats.

 

[alan_fincher]

If you care to read the initial post and answer what are quite straight forward questions (if you feel they apply to you and you are capable) we wouldn't be at this stage... beyond that there is little hope.

 

 

 

But by the posters earlier statements and wanting to consider clear, sober opinions...

 

You must be feeling terribly clever I guess.

 

You appear to have wanted to post just for the sake of winding people up, so no doubt think you have "a result".

 

Sorry I wasted your my time by assuming you actually wanted to say anything intelligent.

[mykaskin]

This discussion reminds me of a sketch some of you may well remember...

 

I look up to him because..

 

 

I prefer the original boat version:

 

 

Mike

Edited April 12, 2011 by mykaskin

[sociable_hermit]

There cannot be one answer to this, so it's a rather pointless question. However I am bored, so here's an attempt at an answer.

 

There are people with old boats trying to keep them going, and there are people with modern boats that are based on the old ones.

 

For the people with genuinely historic boats there will always be the dilemna of how much to chnage, and which time period to reflect. Boats wear out, so a totally original boat will end up 'stuffed and mounted' in a museum if worn out parts are not replaced. Personally I'd rather see a boat being used as a boat. I don't like seeing cars or steam trains lifeless in museums either.

 

The question of what period of history to reflect depends on a number of things. First and foremost, I suppose, is the historical importance of each vessel. A "one off" or the only survivor of a class has more historical significance than one of thirty survivors. And if you own one of thirty, there's a much better choice of periods in history one could choose to cover, to compliment what everyone else has done.

 

Secondly, what is practical in order for the boat to survive? Some boats have been severely modified in later life, to a form that does not reflect the vast majority of their history. Are they still practical for normal use, and if not, can someone be found who is happy with their idiosyncracies?

 

An interesting line of inquiry is the "what would they do today?" school of thought. If the original boat-builders and operators were trying to fix these boats today, how would they be doing it?

 

You seem to be implying some form of collective thinking when it comes to making these decisions, and I don't think that's true. Some folk will be happy just to see their boat survive another year. Some will be retro-modifying their boats back to a chosen time period, some will be trying to retain as much of their working history as possible, and some will be adding to it with modern additions. Yes, there may well be an element of rose-tinted nostalgia, but so what? It's keeping these boats alive and at the end of the day whoever pays the piper calls the tune.

 

With regard to railways I think Flying Scotsman should be kept in its final condition, with a high pressure boiler, double chimney and German smoke deflectors. Why? Because that was it's ultimate form - the changes were all carried out for a reason, to improve the performance of the locomotive, and to undo those improvements seems foolish to me. Thousands of foamers would disagree, and tbh they'll give more money than I ever would, so that's that. Boats are the same. The only way to guarantee the outcome you want is to get involved by contributing time and/or money. Talking a good debate won't make much difference I'm afraid.

 

As for replica boats, some people like the style of them, and the way they handle, and the way they sound. Fair enough. The debate about fake rivets etc. is an interesting one, but again it's all down to personal choice. Personaly I'd go for Le Corbusier's "form follows function" philosophy and only have rivets if they are real and doing something useful, simply because I couldn't bear to waste money on something pointless. Followers of William Morris might add the washers, or they might not. However I would like a nice traditional hull with curves that swim well, and powered by a Ruston engine. Not because I want to score snob points but just because I have some limited experience of Rustons and they're reliable and make a nice noise. Should I ever get my dream boat I promise not to Lord it up over everyone - for me the variety on the canals is wonderful and these constant tongue-in-cheek debates are the sign of a happy, secure community taking the piss out of itself a bit. I'd never be half as rude to a stranger as I am to my mates.

[twbm]

Short version of the original question, if I've understood it right is 'What's your personal baseline for what is traditional?'

 

In our case it's the period from 1935 when our boats were built through to sometime in the 70's when commercial traffic stopped. We seek to keep the boats looking and feeling like they did during that period whilst continuing to operate them as a working pair in a manner compatible with the current canal environment with real loads being delivered to real people. The boats are not however preserved in aspic and have had adaptions, additions and changes to keep them running, make them more hospitable and keep them up to date with current regulations within the budget we have available. Where we can we adopt traditional methodologies for boat handling etc. I guess that makes us traditionalists. Is that such a bad thing? What's your point?