Seeking a part of a boat, but not knowing its name!

[Timleech]

Other varieties are available - RW Davis Northwich Traders have them too.

 

Steve

 

Are they also upside down?

 

Tim

[carlt]

 

And (referring to other comments) I'm still not convinced that the downward facing brackets were simply intended for convenience when mooring. That usage would not require them to be angled downwards, or to be as strong. It could well be that they were designed for another purpose but were used as convenient mooring points.

They may look strong but, if you'd used them to try and lift the Thomas Clayton tar boats, that had them fitted, you would have just ended up with the engine room in mid air and the rest of the boat sinking rapidly, probably snapped in half.

 

Tying up or bow hauling, was their intended use.

[alan_fincher]

I must say I find it incomprehensible why the same people who paint their boats in more than red oxide (purely for decoration), roll around on the floor frothing at the mouth and wailing at the very thought of other types of decoration such a false rivets and rings. I can only think it's jealousy.

As that comment seems to be aimed at me, (because it was me you quoted!), I can assure you that I have absolutely no envy of any fake rivets, fake rings, or fake anything elses.......

 

Here is one of our boats where every rivet and ring is very real.

 

You can also see a "back end rail" complete with ring, with a rope attached when cruising for exactly the types of uses already described.

 

[Guest wanted]

They may look strong but, if you'd used them to try and lift the Thomas Clayton tar boats, that had them fitted, you would have just ended up with the engine room in mid air and the rest of the boat sinking rapidly, probably snapped in half.

 

Tying up or bow hauling, was their intended use.

 

 

Off topic slightly, but how was a horse attached to a boat, I would have thought that a rein from about the same height as these thingys would be about the right height. But, really, i have no idea!

 

ETA, that they probably wouldn't have been there on a working boat with no front cabin would they! (off to google)

Edited August 21, 2011 by wanted

[alan_fincher]

Off topic slightly, but how was a horse attached to a boat, I would have thought that a rein from about the same height as these thingys would be about the right height. But, really, i have no idea!

 

ETA, that they probably wouldn't have been there on a working boat with no front cabin would they! (off to google)

Narrow boats normally have a mast about 1/3 of the way back through the hold. It passes up through the top planks, (if fitted), and has an extending section allowing it to be further raised. At the very top is a pin, known as a "luby". Generally horse or mule drawn boats would be towed from that.

 

If you look at the picture just posted of Sickle, (which is true working boat layout at the back, just missing 31' 6" of hold, from when it was turned into a tug), then the arrangements on the front of the engine room are very normal for a motor narrow boat.

 

The continuos "back end rail" with a ring on is not absolutely universal, but is by far the most common arrangement.

 

Contrary to previous comment, working boatmen would have made much use of them, and people owning such boats still do.

[Guest wanted]

Off topic slightly, but how was a horse attached to a boat, I would have thought that a rein from about the same height as these thingys would be about the right height. But, really, i have no idea!

 

ETA, that they probably wouldn't have been there on a working boat with no front cabin would they! (off to google)

 

 

I got it!

 

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

Narrow boats normally have a mast about 1/3 of the way back through the hold. It passes up through the top planks, (if fitted), and has an extending section allowing it to be further raised. At the very top is a pin, known as a "luby". Generally horse or mule drawn boats would be towed from that.

 

If you look at the picture just posted of Sickle, (which is true working boat layout at the back, just missing 31' 6" of hold, from when it was turned into a tug), then the arrangements on the front of the engine room are very normal for a motor narrow boat.

 

The continuos "back end rail" with a ring on is not absolutely universal, but is by far the most common arrangement.

 

Contrary to previous comment, working boatmen would have made much use of them, and people owning such boats still do.

 

Cheers, the rail looks quite practical to me, Sickle looking smart as ever, whilst I appriciate working boats I know little about them but Sickle deffinatly does it for me!

[alan_fincher]

Sickle looking smart as ever, whilst I appriciate working boats I know little about them but Sickle deffinatly does it for me!

Well she is definitely NOT a shiny boat, (largely monocolour BW blue), and doesn't really even have a "vintage" engine, (although what she does have is correct for part of her working life).

 

We are genuinely staggered at the amount of interest she attracts. People who are in no way canal enthusiasts constantly engage us in conversation at locks, and want it explained what she is.

 

A journey where we engage everybody who asks can take a lot longer than with Chalice, just doing the information bit.

 

Goodness knows what it is like trying to boat with a truly "blinged up" full length working boat with a Bollinder!

 

I suspect Sickle gets far more admiring glances than most £100K to £150K modern "replica" boats - we simply were not prepared for that.

[PhilR]

Rails and rings on traditional boats are much more practical than centre line fixings on the roof of a modern boat.

To have just stern dollies, T stud and a centre-line fixing on the roof is not the most convenient, or practical, arrangement IMHO.

[nicknorman]

As that comment seems to be aimed at me, (because it was me you quoted!), I can assure you that I have absolutely no envy of any fake rivets, fake rings, or fake anything elses.......

 

Yes Alan, it was aimed at you for your insertion of the denigrating and sniping word "frivolous" before "decoration". Painting your boat blue is frivolous. In fact boating at all is a frivolous activity. Even wearing coloured clothes is frivolous etc etc. My objection is to your self appointed superiority because you perceive the frivolousness of you running some old lump of a boat to be so much better than the frivolous deoration of new boats with so called replica items. As far as I am concerned you can run whatever boat you like, but if you are going to play superior and snipe at others with modern boats, I am going to snipe at you.

[carlt]

but if you are going to play superior and snipe at others with modern boats, I am going to snipe at you.

I don't understand how saying...

 

On a Hudson-like boat with a massive long cabin, in my view they are nothing more than a bit of frivolous decoration, (like the false rivets).

 

...is either 'superior' or 'sniping'.

 

Alan clearly stated that it was no more than his opinion, leaving the door wide open for debate with those who do not share his view.

 

Just my opinion, of course.

 

Oh and if they are on the front of a SH cabin, serving no practical purpose, then isn't 'frivolous decoration' an appropriate description?

[nicknorman]

 

Oh and if they are on the front of a SH cabin, serving no practical purpose, then isn't 'frivolous decoration' an appropriate description?

I think you have missed my point. Nearly everything (if not everything) about leisure boating could be described as frivolous. Picking on one particular frivolous element of the whole frivolous thing Is just a pointless "put down". In my view/opinion, such put downs tend to be made by people who are trying to sound superior - though who actually have deep seated insecurities. Some people like old boats and Morris Minors, some like modern boats and modern cars. No-one is right or wrong, but to put down those from the other camp is plain bad manners.

[carlt]

I think you have missed my point......No-one is right or wrong, but to put down those from the other camp is plain bad manners.

No I got your point but I think you're missing mine.

 

To express an opinion, on a discussion forum, that others may disagree with is just plain normal.

 

I think Alan was merely expressing an (on topic) opinion.

 

I assume you are in 'the other camp' but you haven't actually declared sides, merely made an off-topic 'put down' of Alan's, admittedly opinionated, but nevertheless harmless post.

[alan_fincher]

My objection is to your self appointed superiority because you perceive the frivolousness of you running some old lump of a boat to be so much better than the frivolous deoration of new boats with so called replica items.

Rather an odd comment, when I run one old and one (relatively!) modern boat.

 

I really believe I'm not snobbish about either.

 

But I have been admiring some very nice recent boats on the current trip, (in my "modern" boat), but have regularly observed to those travelling with me that in my opinion, the top range boats that don't try to do the fake rivet bit look so much better than those that do. (Almost nobody can actually do convincing fake rivets, in my view).

 

It is just an opinion. Clearly it is not shared by all, or Mr Hudson would not be able to sell more than 95% of his output - I fully accept that.

 

Presumably those people who buy a Hudson boat also like the look of what I consider to be a rather caricature front end. I actually think the boats look vaguely absurd, but clearly there are a very large number of people who cannot feel the same, and I am not suggesting they should not buy what they consider to be a handsome boat. Mine is just an opinion, (I said that!), and I don't see the problem with expressing it - I can't see why that equates to "self appointed superiority".

 

I assume you are in 'the other camp' but you haven't actually declared sides.............

 

Probably doesn't need to!

 

TELEMACHUS Built by S M HUDSON - Length 18 metres (59 feet 1 inch ) - Beam 2.1 metres (6 feet 11 inches ) - Draft 0.8 metres (2 feet 7 inches ) Metal hull, power of 43. Registered with British Waterways number 519586 as a Powered. Last registration recorded on 31-May-2011.

[Guest wanted]

Well she is definitely NOT a shiny boat, (largely monocolour BW blue), and doesn't really even have a "vintage" engine, (although what she does have is correct for part of her working life).

 

We are genuinely staggered at the amount of interest she attracts. People who are in no way canal enthusiasts constantly engage us in conversation at locks, and want it explained what she is.

 

A journey where we engage everybody who asks can take a lot longer than with Chalice, just doing the information bit.

 

Goodness knows what it is like trying to boat with a truly "blinged up" full length working boat with a Bollinder!

 

I suspect Sickle gets far more admiring glances than most £100K to £150K modern "replica" boats - we simply were not prepared for that.

 

I think it's the lines on Sickle, You say it has been shortened but it looks well in proportion to me.had bot Baron and Dane down at Brentford this morning, sounding sweet

[Timleech]

 

 

But I have been admiring some very nice recent boats on the current trip, (in my "modern" boat), but have regularly observed to those travelling with me that in my opinion, the top range boats that don't try to do the fake rivet bit look so much better than those that do. (Almost nobody can actually do convincing fake rivets, in my view).

 

It is just an opinion. Clearly it is not shared by all, or Mr Hudson would not be able to sell more than 95% of his output - I fully accept that.

 

Presumably those people who buy a Hudson boat also like the look of what I consider to be a rather caricature front end. I actually think the boats look vaguely absurd, but clearly there are a very large number of people who cannot feel the same, and I am not suggesting they should not buy what they consider to be a handsome boat. Mine is just an opinion, (I said that!), and I don't see the problem with expressing it - I can't see why that equates to "self appointed superiority".

 

 

 

I agree with all of that.

Hudson boats shout 'Look at me!', so it's inevitable that people will look, and many will form an opinion and want to express it. Having spent my formative boating years among working and ex-working boats, it's glaring to me where Hudson 'gets it wrong', but then AFAIAA he doesn't make any claims for authenticity so knocking his boats on those grounds would be wrong - it's just a style which I find mildly upsets my sensibilities. As Alan says, lots of people must like it, so it makes those people (and probably a lot of onlookers) happy plus keeping him in business.

 

Tim

[Robin2]

So...

 

After all that there seems to be a consensus that these brackets are the wrong way up

 

 

and this is the correct way

 

 

 

but there is still no rational explanation for either type.

 

C'mon historians --- help

Edited August 22, 2011 by Robin2

[Chris Pink]

I got it!

 

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

 

 

Looks like an accident waiting to happen

[Chris Pink]

So...

 

After all that there seems to be a consensus that these brackets are the wrong way up

 

 

and this is the correct way

 

 

 

but there is still no rational explanation for either type.

 

 

 

You just swapped them round, you tease.

 

Isn't it obvious? Look at the forces applied by a rope and imagine you were trying to rip one off the bulkhead.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Chris Pink

[Proper Job]

As an owner of a Hudson with afore said rings, as with many things on Steve's boats (and others), yes they're fundamentally purely decorative.

 

However, for Alan , I have used mine a couple of times.

 

They're very useful when moving a breasted up boat. You can run a spring line from the boats Tee stud back to them to stop fore to aft movement or, if the boat is shorter than mine, you don't tie bow to bow, but bow to bulkhead ring.

[Robin2]

You just swapped them round, you tease.

 

I pressed "post" when I meant to press "preview" and then had to edit in public

 

Isn't it obvious? Look at the forces applied by a rope and imagine you were trying to rip one off the bulkhead.

 

That's only true if you know WHY you would put a load in one direction or the other. I am waiting for someone to propose a convincing explanation of what the brackets and rings were designed for - perhaps someone has a very old photo showing them in use?

[Chris Pink]

I am waiting for someone to propose a convincing explanation of what the brackets and rings were designed for - perhaps someone has a very old photo showing them in use?

 

Post #13, 14, 19, 20... bored now. 20 most of all, I use mine all the time for this. I only tie up with bow and stern lines when I've finished boating.

 

Oh, there is another use for them/it - to tie off the bottom cloths.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Chris Pink

[Sir Nibble]

Might they have had some use in loading or unloading? Holding the hold in position relative to a wharf crane for instance.

[LEO]

So...

 

After all that there seems to be a consensus that these brackets are the wrong way up

 

 

and this is the correct way

 

 

 

but there is still no rational explanation for either type.

 

C'mon historians --- help

 

Hi,,

 

I'm sure I have seen a picture or old B/W film where these rings or the bar are used for temporarily hold 2 boats together. The rope passing through the ring or bar ais attached to a heavy weight and strung over the gunwals of the adjoining boat. This saves a lot of tying front and back ends and boats can rise and fall easily as they are emptied for filled.

 

Those in picture I are the wrong way up and would foul the cabin doors when they are opened and fixed back.

 

I find them useful on a tug style when boating alone as a lenght of rope hanging down from each ring to just above deck height provides something to hang onto and haul yourself out if you fall in.

 

Leo.

[Speedwheel]

Oh, there is another use for them/it - to tie off the bottom cloths.

 

Yes indeed - good point.

[nicknorman]

Alan I totally defend your right to dislike fake rivets, Hudson bows and anything else you can think of. My difficulty is when that expression of dislike is presented as a sneer, with the implication that only people with no taste, sense etc would have them. Perhaps you could consider what the purpose of inserting the word "frivolous" before "decoration" was, and how it might be interpreted by the reader.