saturn

[dor]

Just watched a bit on "Waterworld" about the 'restored' Shroppie fly boat Saturn.

 

Now I don't want to detract from the hard work of the people in the restoration society, but at what point does a restoration become a replica?

 

About the only thing that is original about this wooden narrowboat is the iron knees. So is the new Saturn a restoration or a replica?

 

I have to admit to being a bit irritated every time I hear a reference to the "restored" boat. It's a bit like that old racing Bentley that is proudly displayed at vintage meetings. Just about the only thing from the original car is a small brass plaque on the bulkhead. Is this really what we mean by restoration.

 

 

 

It's a damn good broom this; I've had it ten years now and it's only on its third handle and fourth head.

[tony collins]

 

 

About the only thing that is original about this wooden narrowboat is the iron knees. So is the new Saturn a restoration or a replica?

 

 

 

Much the same method was used to "rebuild" the Raymond, the las timber boat to be built at Nurser's Yard at Braunston. What is the alternative? Let the boats rot away and never to be seen by generations to come, or rebuild using as much as possible of the original boat?

 

If you go to any event involving old/rebuilt machinery there has to be an element of new materials used. So does it become a question of degree?

 

Personally I don't see a lot wrong with it as it does something to preserve our history. I suspect that the likes of Arthur Bray would have a more prosaic view however.

 

If someone is prepared to make the effort to show how things were in the past, don't knock 'em.

 

Tony

[alan_fincher]

Just watched a bit on "Waterworld" about the 'restored' Shroppie fly boat Saturn.

 

Now I don't want to detract from the hard work of the people in the restoration society, but at what point does a restoration become a replica?

 

About the only thing that is original about this wooden narrowboat is the iron knees. So is the new Saturn a restoration or a replica?

 

I have to admit to being a bit irritated every time I hear a reference to the "restored" boat. It's a bit like that old racing Bentley that is proudly displayed at vintage meetings. Just about the only thing from the original car is a small brass plaque on the bulkhead. Is this really what we mean by restoration.

It's a damn good broom this; I've had it ten years now and it's only on its third handle and fourth head.

This debate comes up in just about every form of preservation.....

 

Most "preserved" steam locomotives are inevitably now a substantially different collection of bits from what they were when they left British Railways service, (let alone when built!....)

 

But if you study the form, even when under original ownership, they were constantly changing. Most contain bits from a whole variety of other original builds, and boilers were freely interchanged with some kept as spares. (Just like the Russell Newbery or National Engines fitted to the GUCC carrying fleet, and no doubt the Petters with which BW replaced them.....).

 

A debate is currently raging about whether it can possibly be justified to spend MORE to rebuild Flying Scotsman's boiler, probably retaining not a lot of the original, that to have a brand new one built. (For the record, I believe the one it has carried for years in "preservation" actually comes from a different class of locomotive entirely, that just happens to use almost the same type of boiler....)

 

When the Ffestiniog Railway built a replica of a long extinct class of locomotive, they found they still had the gear lever from an original, which was used. But to be fair, they called it a replica, not a rebuild!.......

 

Personally I'm very happy to see any bit of our history still able to operate, rather than stuffed and put in a museum behind glass. Generally this means it will continue to have all the won out bits relaced, just as it always would have done.....

[John Orentas]

Yes this is a very common dilema, though in the case of timber structures there is no real decision to be made you have no choice but to replace timbers as the originals gradually deteriorate. I used to go quite often to Blackpool Pleasure Beach on business I was told that there is very little of the original timber left in the structure of the two original Big Dipper rides. Lumps of them rain down as you stand below.

 

They say there is not a lot left of the HMS Victory.

 

I was watching in the last in the series of Locks & Quays, Saturn was shown at the 200th aniversary of the Ponty-thingy aqueduct, it gets around.

[Smelly]

with boats I think it depends how you "restore" them.

 

You can either take them apart wholesale, then, based on detailed plans rebuild out of new materials, i.e. "Raymond", which, I'm told differs quite a lot from the original boat. Or you can spile the pattern whereby you replace each plank by cutting one out and using the gap to fashion an identical plank. Doing this means you always maintain a "boat" of some fashion, and as long as you use similar techniques and materials you're likley to keep pretty close to the original... I'd certainly argue "restoration" in this case.

 

I'm not sure how "Saturn" was rebuilt, but I did see her at Lostock Gralam on hard standing before she was re-launched, suggestng the first method was used, but having seen her before and after I'm sure it's a pretty damn good job so well done Roger!

[Phil Speight]

Saturn was built by Malcolm Webster using the same materials and methods as on the original . The only exception being , as I understand it , the use of galvanized nails and spikes instead of plain ones in the interests of longevity . The society responsible chose effectively to build a new boat using the iron work and

100% accurate measurements and ( wherever possible ) methods of a real one , because there were no survivors capable of being restored .

This decision was made on the grounds that the "shroppie flyboats " were sufficiently important historically

for their absence to be significant . It was therefore the only choice and the Society has never tried to disguise the case . The boat , like Gifford about which the same argument has raged , is also intended to be a working exhibit of horse boating techniques which is at least equally important from a heritage point of view .

Neither I nor Craftmaster Paints ( my " other line of work " ) are members of the Society - but we did supply all the paint used on Saturn as a contribution to the project . Raymond was built the same way , by Phil Babb , although there are those who think the shape is not quite accurate in places .

Cheers

Phil Speight

[khaffra]

In the old days the wooden working boats were completely stripped and rebuilt or the ironwork from one used to build another so it is surely only the same as that, in fact Raymonds ironwork almost certainly came from another boat that was being scrapped at Braunston at the time when it was first built in 1958.

My grandad bought a boat from Braunston in Dec 1957 and my dad made some drawings and notes in his school diary of a boat being stripped down at the time, when they went back in Jan 1958 to collect it a new boat was being built around the old ironwork from the boat that was scrapped. I believe Raymond was the only wooden boat built at Braunston that year.

I standby for being proved wrong

[Hairy-Neil]

Much the same method was used to "rebuild" the Raymond, the las timber boat to be built at Nurser's Yard at Braunston.

 

Tony

 

I disagree. Raymond was broken up at the Black Country Museum, the ironwork saved and later transported to Tardebigge where a brand new boat called Raymond was built incorporating the salvaged parts. I understand they were not even marked as to where in the boat they came from.

 

Give Malcolm Webster his due, the Saturn was at least built using the old boat as a reference.....

 

 

with boats I think it depends how you "restore" them.

.....Or you can spile the pattern whereby you replace each plank by cutting one out and using the gap to fashion an identical plank. Doing this means you always maintain a "boat" of some fashion, and as long as you use similar techniques and materials you're likley to keep pretty close to the original... I'd certainly argue "restoration" in this case.

 

 

The "Roger" was rebuilt at Batchworth using this method, the problem is it takes far longer and wastes expensive materials if an original plank is copied rather than using the wood available to its best advantage. The end result is virtually the same but the costs go up accordingly.

 

 

...... The only exception being , as I understand it , the use of galvanized nails and spikes instead of plain ones in the interests of longevity .

On the occasion I visited he was using a modern mastic pumped from a plastic tube......

[Phil Speight]

I disagree. Raymond was broken up at the Black Country Museum, the ironwork saved and later transported to Tardebigge where a brand new boat called Raymond was built incorporating the salvaged parts. I understand they were not even marked as to where in the boat they came from.

 

Give Malcolm Webster his due, the Saturn was at least built using the old boat as a reference.....

The "Roger" was rebuilt at Batchworth using this method, the problem is it takes far longer and wastes expensive materials if an original plank is copied rather than using the wood available to its best advantage. The end result is virtually the same but the costs go up accordingly.

On the occasion I visited he was using a modern mastic pumped from a plastic tube......

 

I just wrote a long reply and lost it ! So this will be shorter in case I do it again . I did mention the comment that Raymond`s shape has caused . Wether it`s fair or not I don`t know . I do know Phil Babb though - so whatever else may be the case Raymond should be well enough put together . No one has , as yet , cast doubts over Saturn`s accuracy . As far as I know !

As to Malcolm`s mastic - it was probably a pragmatic choice . When Gifford was restored it was agreed that , where it would not detract from the overall authenticity of the boat , discreet improvements would be made for ease of preservation . Mastic could well be one such , and I`m sure the same was agreed with Saturn . My fault anyway . I should have claimed that the boat was as accurate as was sensibly and practicably possible - so I take your point , fair enough .

The thing is - I`ve got either an immaculate 35 year old car or I`ve got 25% of a 35 year old car and 75% of modern bits that look the same as the items they replaced . If I`m asked when it was built I say 1971,

not 1971/1998/2005 and 2006 . The Saturn Project on the other hand would , I`m sure , be entirely honest about both the age and the provenance of their boat .

Let`s just be pleased they took it on , and that it came out so well .

Have a good weekend

Phil

[Hairy-Neil]

I just wrote a long reply and lost it ! So this will be shorter in case I do it again . I did mention the comment that Raymond`s shape has caused . Wether it`s fair or not I don`t know . I do know Phil Babb though - so whatever else may be the case Raymond should be well enough put together . No one has , as yet , cast doubts over Saturn`s accuracy . As far as I know !

As to Malcolm`s mastic - it was probably a pragmatic choice . When Gifford was restored it was agreed that , where it would not detract from the overall authenticity of the boat , discreet improvements would be made for ease of preservation . Mastic could well be one such , and I`m sure the same was agreed with Saturn . My fault anyway . I should have claimed that the boat was as accurate as was sensibly and practicably possible - so I take your point , fair enough .

The thing is - I`ve got either an immaculate 35 year old car or I`ve got 25% of a 35 year old car and 75% of modern bits that look the same as the items they replaced . If I`m asked when it was built I say 1971,

not 1971/1998/2005 and 2006 . The Saturn Project on the other hand would , I`m sure , be entirely honest about both the age and the provenance of their boat .

Let`s just be pleased they took it on , and that it came out so well .

Have a good weekend

Phil

 

Hi Phill,

Further to your point, "using the same materials and methods as on the original". Raymond used opepe rather than elm for the botton and kelson. I'm guessing Malcolm Webster also used power tools to shape and assemble tha Saturn. I can be a real pedant at times..... I'm not knocking you personally and I have insuficient knowledge of old wooden boats to critisise the accuracy or otherwise of the rebuilt Raymond. My gripe is with those that claim its still "the" Raymond. Ok, when launched in spring 2000 it was the last wooden canal carrying boat built and it carries the name Raymond. In my mind that is where the similarity ends. From what you say those involved with the Saturn are taking a different view on the status of their boat.

 

Canal boats are not alone with this predicament as you mentioned with classic cars. Brand new bodyshells can be brought for classic Jaguar, MG and Triumph sports cars and the vehicle retain its original identity.

 

The railway preservation movement too has groups building replicas such as the broad guage Firefly, others converting parts of existing ex Barry scrapyard locomotives into replicas of extinct classes (Lady of Legend, Betton Grange) some to carry the next in class number others are replicating an actual scrapped loco (County of Glamorgan). Further, conversion of tank engines into fictional might have been tender locomotives and add to that at least two completely new build to original design locos are under construction make for a lot of controversy and discussion. The canalboat world has it easy by comparison.

 

I have had a long felt urge to build a fully riveted replica of Town Class Woolwich butty Ayr to replace the one scrapped by BW. It will no more be the original boat than either of these two wooden rebuilds.

Edited March 18, 2006 by Hairy-Neil

[John Orentas]

An obsessive adherence to traditional methods can be very counter-productive, who cares if electroplated iron or even steel components are used, if silicone mastics had been around 150 years ago they would not have been slopping about with their weired concoctions and if band-saws had been available they would have used them. The armchair critics would not be so voluble if they had to spend ten hour working days wielding an adds.

 

Even in the restoration of the canals themselves I have heard people assert that as the canals were built with shovels and wheelbarrows they should be restored the same way, I for one couldn't care less if the original masonry of a lock chamber has been rebuilt inside a concrete box.

 

Many historic buildings have been lost because some do-gooder heritage person has made impossible demands and refused to allow modern materials to be used to save the structure, often they preferred to let it fall down.

Edited March 18, 2006 by John Orentas

[Hairy-Neil]

An obsessive adherence to traditional methods can be very counter-productive, who cares if electroplated iron or even steel components are used, if silicone mastics had been around 150 years ago they would not have been slopping about with their weired concoctions and if band-saws had been available they would have used them. The armchair critics would not be so voluble if they had to spend ten hour working days wielding an adds.

 

.

 

I totally agree with you......... but remember it wasn't me that claimed the rebuild was going to be "using the same materials and methods as on the original". As I mentioned earlier I don't have a problem with replicas. just those people that try to pass them off as something they are not.

 

Far from being an armchair critic I've done my fair share for the canal heritage movement. Actual restoration work on the hulls of both Nuneaton and Brighton, crewing for both NBT and the Working Boats Project as well as work party organiser with the local canal society plus countless outings with waterway recovery group.

 

And by the way you've jumped to the wrong conclusion. It wasn't silicon mastic that I saw Malcolm Webster using but an old fasioned oil based product supplied in a modern propulsion medium.

[DHutch]

I also do a bit of the railway loco restoration thing, and some of the stuff that goes on is a little bit silly.

 

When they where working, it was common place for boilers etc to be swaped, infact big loco works would often have an spare boiler for the common locos, so if a boiler came in needing a lot of work, they would simply swap it for the spare, get the loco back into operation, and work on the boiler afterwards.

 

Dont get me wrong, i think its important to make an effort to preserve them (boat or train) how they where, and there had been some crimminal things done.

- But its hard to know what best, and and it is hard to know where to draw the line.

 

Like the huge row about the guy who took the steam engine out of monark, which blow up out of nowwhere, mainly due to large numbers poorly informed arm-chair steam enthuests.

- Personaly, while im slightly sorry that there one less steam narrowboat on the cut at the moment, no long-term hard has been done, and not one of the people complaining where willing to buy her when she was up for sale!!

 

 

Daniel

[David Schweizer]

When they where working, it was common place for boilers etc to be swaped, infact big loco works would often have an spare boiler for the common locos, so if a boiler came in needing a lot of work, they would simply swap it for the spare, get the loco back into operation, and work on the boiler afterwards.

 

 

Daniel

 

Dan is absolutely correct, The GWR regularly swapped bits from other Locos, in fact their whole maintenance practice was based upon major components being interchangeable. They even changed complete Locos, there is a story ( which I assume is true) that on one occassion when the Royal Train was called for to take King George V to Windsor, the loco of the same name was not available, being at Swindon undergoing repairs, so another Loco from the same class was rostered and the plates and famous Brass Bell were transferred onto the substitute Loco. There is no record as to whether the King noticed

Edited March 19, 2006 by David Schweizer

[alan_fincher]

Dan is absolutely correct, The GWR regularly swapped bits from other Locos, in fact their whole maintenance practice was based upon major components being interchangeable. They even changed complete Locos, there is a story ( which I assume is true) that on one occassion when the Royal Train was called for to take King George V to Windsor, the loco of the same name was not available, being at Swindon undergoing repairs, so another Loco from the same class was rostered and the plates and famous Brass Bell were transferred onto the substitute Loco. There is no record as to whether the King noticed

Absolutely, a practice that was perpetuated under British Railways.

 

The now preseved locomotive 4965, Rood Ashton Hall was actually purchased from Barry scrapyard under the identity of 4983, Albert Hall.

 

It was only when they came to restore it after many years, they found they didn't have what they thought they had....

 

Story here....

 

Link to Vintage Trains page.

 

Also I'm reasonably convinced I actually saw the "Battle of Britain" class locomotive "Winston Churchill" being cut up. But one of that name pulled its namesakes funeral train, and is now preserved. I may well be wrong, or was a similar stunt pulled there ?

 

Another very famous locomotive name swap was the LMS steamlined "Duchess" class loco that toured the USA. The actual locomotive sent was the (now preserved), "Duchess of Hamilton", masquerading as the first of the class "Coronation". Meanwhile "Coronation" doubled for "Duchess of Hamilton" back in the UK. That situation lasted much longer than expected, as the outbreak of WW2 meant the US visitor was stranded there for some considerable time before it was considered safe to return her.

Edited March 19, 2006 by alan_fincher

[Hairy-Neil]

 

........and and it is hard to know where to draw the line.

 

 

From Dictionary.com........replica

 

n : copy that is not the original

[Phil Speight]

Hi Phill,

Further to your point, "using the same materials and methods as on the original". Raymond used opepe rather than elm for the botton and kelson. I'm guessing Malcolm Webster also used power tools to shape and assemble tha Saturn. I can be a real pedant at times..... I'm not knocking you personally and I have insuficient knowledge of old wooden boats to critisise the accuracy or otherwise of the rebuilt Raymond. My gripe is with those that claim its still "the" Raymond. Ok, when launched in spring 2000 it was the last wooden canal carrying boat built and it carries the name Raymond. In my mind that is where the similarity ends. From what you say those involved with the Saturn are taking a different view on the status of their boat.

 

Canal boats are not alone with this predicament as you mentioned with classic cars. Brand new bodyshells can be brought for classic Jaguar, MG and Triumph sports cars and the vehicle retain its original identity.

 

The railway preservation movement too has groups building replicas such as the broad guage Firefly, others converting parts of existing ex Barry scrapyard locomotives into replicas of extinct classes (Lady of Legend, Betton Grange) some to carry the next in class number others are replicating an actual scrapped loco (County of Glamorgan). Further, conversion of tank engines into fictional might have been tender locomotives and add to that at least two completely new build to original design locos are under construction make for a lot of controversy and discussion. The canalboat world has it easy by comparison.

 

I have had a long felt urge to build a fully riveted replica of Town Class Woolwich butty Ayr to replace the one scrapped by BW. It will no more be the original boat than either of these two wooden rebuilds.

Basically I absolutely agree with you . Raymond , Gifford Saturn et al are at best recreations . Thank goodness somebody bothered !

As to power tools and timber choices - elm is almost impossible because of supply problems . Power tools ? No doubt - but I also saw

Malcolm shaping stem and stern posts with an adze . Give these people credit for their stunning achievements - without them our hopes of accurately presenting our heriage boats would be that much less.

Cheers

Phil

[ChrisPy]

 

They say there is not a lot left of the HMS Victory.

 

reminds me of a week in 1950-something that I spent on the training ship Foudroyant in Portsmouth harbour. She was actually the Trincomalee from 1817, but had been renamed when Nelson's earlier flagship Foudroyant was lost. Now restored in Hartlepool as Trincomalee, I believe.

 

Anyway the water boat came alongside to fill up her tanks and threw out a large round rope fender. It embedded itself completely in the side of the ship, so presumably that 'good' 12" thick oak planking was absolutely rotten.

 

So yes, I can well believe that almost everything on the Victory has been renewed. Same to a great extent for the Cutty Sark and to some extent the Great Britain.

[Hairy-Neil]

...... and to some extent the Great Britain.

 

The hull of the Great Britain has been largely "restored" with glass fibre materials. I can't speak for today but when I visited in the eighties much of the interior had been lined with domestic plasterboard.......

[John Orentas]

I totally agree with you......... but remember it wasn't me that claimed the rebuild was going to be "using the same materials and methods as on the original". As I mentioned earlier I don't have a problem with replicas. just those people that try to pass them off as something they are not.

 

Far from being an armchair critic I've done my fair share for the canal heritage movement. Actual restoration work on the hulls of both Nuneaton and Brighton, crewing for both NBT and the Working Boats Project as well as work party organiser with the local canal society plus countless outings with waterway recovery group.

 

And by the way you've jumped to the wrong conclusion. It wasn't silicon mastic that I saw Malcolm Webster using but an old fasioned oil based product supplied in a modern propulsion medium.

 

 

Hi Neil.

 

My comment weren't aimed at yourself or anybody else, I was simply making a general point.

[Hairy-Neil]

Basically I absolutely agree with you . Raymond , Gifford Saturn et al are at best recreations . Thank goodness somebody bothered !

As to power tools and timber choices - elm is almost impossible because of supply problems . Power tools ? No doubt - but I also saw

Malcolm shaping stem and stern posts with an adze . Give these people credit for their stunning achievements - without them our hopes of accurately presenting our heriage boats would be that much less.

Cheers

Phil

 

The only alternative way of preserving/presenting old wooden boats past their prime is stuffed and mounted as with the friendship. Heaven forbid that further boats come to this, and Fomalhaut's demise following similar treatment.

 

There are those that think old wooden boats are an eyesore and should be removed and burnt wholesale. Personally I'm in awe of Malcolm's work, I dream of being half as talented(a local carpenter once said of me that I was to joinery what Dr Crippen was to surgery... ). I understand he's largely self taught too.

 

Credit too to Jem Bates for his restoration work on our wooden heritage boats over the last 10 or so years and for his recreation of the "Severn".

Edited March 21, 2006 by Hairy-Neil

[Phil Speight]

I`ve read through this thread again - and like it less the second time . Let`s understand this - there are very many people either restoring boats or helping as volunteers . As a result we have a number of very badly restored boats and a much smaller number of excellent ones . Malcolm Webster has produced two of impeccable

quality in Saturn and Gifford . He is an expert professional working for , and with , a number of other expert professionals with guidance ( should he need it ) from the most eminent historians in the field - who would also help when difficult decisions were to be made . Choices will have been made that , without his experience and knowledge of what is and what is not both practicable and possible , people who know rather less may find worth arguing about . I`d rather have one recreation ( a better word than replica ) that is right in all but one or two sensible and possibly enforced deviations in material than any number of misguided , half-assed and badly presented alternatives that appear at rally`s every summer ! I guess I`ll leave this to others now - I`ve said all I should .

Cheers

Phil

[Christine]

Yes this is a very common dilema, though in the case of timber structures there is no real decision to be made you have no choice but to replace timbers as the originals gradually deteriorate. I used to go quite often to Blackpool Pleasure Beach on business I was told that there is very little of the original timber left in the structure of the two original Big Dipper rides. Lumps of them rain down as you stand below.

 

They say there is not a lot left of the HMS Victory.

 

I was watching in the last in the series of Locks & Quays, Saturn was shown at the 200th aniversary of the Ponty-thingy aqueduct, it gets around.

 

When I lived in Portsmouth everyone seemed to have something made out of wood from HMS Victory - the saying was that there was more wood from the Victory than relics from the 'True Cross' of Christ

[dor]

Don't think I disagree with most of what has been said in this thread, but what prompted my original post was the way Saturn is usually referred to as a restoration.

 

I have no problem with replicas (or "recreations"), but let's accept them for what they are, not try and give people the idea that they are something they are not.

[Phil Speight]

Sorry - I got a bit wound up earlier ! I`ve been trying to work out why and have decided it is thus ;

go to any rally where ex-working boats are featured . You`ll find people who who present themselves as "working boatmen" ( and women ) , dressed in the "appropriate" uniform presiding over boats restored and otherwise with holds full of rubbish , with green strings and grey ash strips , cloths all slack and `orrible , bootprints and soot and grime all over the place who will , given half a chance tell you that Gifford/Saturn/Raymond is "only a replica really " and " they didn`t use elm you know ." Understand , I`m not for one moment saying that this applies to anyone who has contributed to this thread , but the people I describe are a far less authentic and respectful image of the working canal people and their boats than the supposed replicas we`re discussing . If anyone really cares about how our heritage is presented there are targets far more worthy of their comments . I know we`ve come a long way from the question that started this - so , for my part in this digression , I can only apologies .

Cheers

Phil

Please look at my next contribution - it will come in as a new topic and some of you may find interesting - and it involves the offer of something free from a Yorkshireman .

Phil