g.u wideboat progress

[chris collins]

The next plank up follows a similar process, firstly hanging battens and fairing the frames, ascertaining the position and angle of the stempost hooding, cutting the hoodings, spiling the shape of the plank etc. The short wooden frames in this shot give an accurate angle for the joint between the fist and second plank, they are only really to give an accurate position for the spiling board as any deviation here has a profound and unwanted effect on the shape of the plank

 

 

SPA50251 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

 

 

More bagatelle, the two lines here delineate the inside and outside of the plank bevel, the inner line is the size of the inside of the plank and is therefore the more critical in the pursuit of a “good tight ship.” The angle that the two planks meet dictate the bevel that needs to be planed into the lower edge of the plank, this angle will change from stempost to the beginning of the straight section and needs to be marked accordingly. Normally the angle of the bevel causes the plank to be larger on the outside of the boat hence the two lines.

 

SPA50263 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

 

The romance of boatbuilding, drawknife by william Gilpin , if you are looking at/for old tools and you find anything by “william gilpin wedges mills” it'll repay the hours of restoration time handsomely, really fine quality steel that takes and holds an edge and makes a nonsense of modern “technological advances”. The wedges mills moniker dates it around mid eighteen hundreds. If you look at the floor in the background you'll also see the smaller chippings where I was doing the straight section with a non romantic power plane, ho-hum.

 

 

SPA50267 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

 

The wooden narrowboat had evolved as a very efficient way to use of the “average” oak tree to produce a boat, both the width and length of planks coincide nicely with oaks (given average fertility and rainfall) in the prime of condition. I strongly believe that this “average” tree size and it's influence on boat size also played a very fundamental role in the dimensions and particularly lock length of our canal system. Enough of the pontificating, suffice to say that by the time the plank rippings have been turned into shearing, the narrower boards gunnels , the short boards decking, etc, there is very very little waste.

These “average” oaks are generally around 125 – 150 years old, above this age there seems to be exponentially increasing risk of wind or lightening damage and it's associated fungal attack and an increasing risk of fungus attack at the base of the tree. It is very noticeable in early photographs of this area (the environs of Walkers of Rickmansworth) how few trees there are of any description.

Which has what to do with “Progress”?

Well this lovely tree is a bit over 200 years old (and took a bit of finding) and after allowing for the sapwood and a bit of heart shake is only just big enough to be getting these planks from. Bear in mind that this is the second plank up and that the first strake is wider still. The shape of these planks is a function of the shape of the bow, I.e. the bluffer the bow the more “banana” shaped the plank will need to be, conversely the finer the bow the less “banana” and therefore the narrower the board required. Needless to say “Progress” is very much in the bluffer camp, knowing how difficult it was to find suitable timber for the rebuild it begs the question – could G.U.C.C have found enough timber to build even a small fleet of “Progresses” even if it had been a commercial success?

 

 

SPA50266 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

 

Sticking with the bluff fore end theme here's a lovely picture of the original build, it shows all manner of constructional details which hopefully we can discuss later, for now it gives a fair indication of the shape of the fore end.

 

 

SCAN0001 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

 

The general arraignment blueprint issued by G.U.CC is entitled “Motor barge for service on canal or river” and I must admit that I didn't really grasp the significance of the “or river” bit until I saw this photograph ( reproduced here in two parts because it wouldn't fit under my scanner in one hit). Check out the navigation lamps, they feature on the blueprint and are serious pieces of kit.

 

 

SCAN0002 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

 

Now check the mast and mast head lamp, again it features in the G.U specifications, again it's a no nonsense piece of kit, indeed more “or river” than roving bridge. So now that bluff fore end makes much more sense, the additional fore end buoyancy would certainly aid a passage on the the short sharp chop of wind over tide in the Thames estuary.

I've read in the past that “Progress” was commercially unsuccessful because although the locks on the G.U had been widened the channel was too narrow, I'll happily admit that the canal north of Berkhamstead is not wide boat territory but below that saw a lot of (unpowered) wide traffic. Notwithstanding a loaded draught of 4' 6'' this still gives “Progress” rich vein potential business. If we treat G.U.C.C with a little more respect we could quite reasonably speculate that “Progress” was built to spend a large portion of her time on the river, most likely loading over the ship side before delivery to a factory or works. I'd go one step further and say that there is a strong possibility that “Progress” was built for a specific cargo that for some reason or other failed to materialise. I'm just the boat builder so I'll grateful to leave that for the canal historians amongst you to mull over

 

SCAN0003 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

[Laurence Hogg]

Thanks for the update Chris as always brilliant reading. Wedges Mills was just up the road from me and the wreck of Gilpins factory at Churchbridge (bottom of the lock flight) was explored years ago, now sadly under M6 toll etc.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Laurence Hogg

[David Mack]

... reproduced here in two parts because it wouldn't fit under my scanner in one hit ...

 

SCAN0002 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

 

SCAN0003 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

 

and by the miracles of technology, two halves now reunited:

 

[Admiral]

This is a fascinating set of threads. Its great to see the whole picture of the restoration/rebuild. I think a book might be in order at the end of this and would prove to be a great seller. I know from first hand experience what it costs to do a no holds barred restoration on a metal boat but wont even imagine whats involved with wood. Great stuff and the writing is spot on.

[Carl Ryan]

Chris

 

Interesting to see the techniques used. I worked for John Woolley in the early eighties and used the same spiling board to mark out the planks and the two rows of panel pins. I am assuming you also have a bevel board to mark out the pin positions. Is this technique common to all wooden boat builders.

 

Carl

[the grinch]

.

 

 

 

SCAN0001 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

 

 

is that really Progress! looks completely different from that angle, superb detail of how the timber was fitted!

Edited November 10, 2012 by hamsterfan

[chris collins]

1)Laurence, many thanks for your kind words, back in the day when my wife and I bought our first boat that little “Boatmans cabin” catalogue was the “wish book” of choice, that first boat was an old joey and so presented little opportunity for adornment and probably did little to help your business. It may well however have helped fuel the passion for ex working boats.

2)David, many thanks for knowing how to use the miracles of modern technology and taking the trouble to help out.

3)Admiral, Thanks, no book, I'm no writer, at the moment I'm just trying to record a few hints, tips and tricks that I've picked up over the years, I won't try listing all the mistakes I've made because there probably isn't enough room on the forum. Maybe one day I'll put it on it's own webpage.

4)Carl, was that the Carl that Martin Cox used to speak of? Where you with John Wooley at Iver, Ham wharf or Eel pie island? As far as I am aware John had quite a bit to do with “Progress” , perhaps Tam & Di can fill in the details? Do you have a current address for John at all ? Yes I do use a bevel board as you describe, I just haven't taken any decent pictures yet, one day...

[Derek R.]

I knew a Carl, though I think he spelt it Karl - Kirby-Turner was his name. Lived aboard a small Dutchman before moving on to medium sized Dutchmen, and dealing with imports from Holland. Mostly Thames based but not with wood as I recall. Haven't been in contact for over thirty years. He did work in a Brentford dock for a time. Dark haired, bearded, public schoolboy accent. Probably a world apart.

[Tam & Di]

I knew a Carl, though I think he spelt it Karl - Kirby-Turner was his name. Lived aboard a small Dutchman before moving on to medium sized Dutchmen, and dealing with imports from Holland. Mostly Thames based but not with wood as I recall. Haven't been in contact for over thirty years. He did work in a Brentford dock for a time. Dark haired, bearded, public schoolboy accent. Probably a world apart.

 

Yes, they are. Probably a clue that one spells his name with a K and has the surname Kirby-Turner, and the other spells with a C and has the surname Ryan.

 

You're right that Karl deals in Dutch barges, but I've not heard of him recently. Carl is on this forum and this thread. John Wooley we've also not heard of for years now - he was in Bristol as well at one point. I believe I put a photo on here of Progress in Uxbridge dry dock when John and Duncan Larg renewed some waterline planks in the mid 60s.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Tam & Di

[chris collins]

Those of you who have had “previous” with planking wooden boats will be familiar with scrabbling around trying to find enough space whilst trying to fit the planks, there are probably enough anecdotes to keep a stand up comedian in dinners all year round. The next couple of photographs will be no surprise, “Progress” being what it is it seems a bit more extreme, that might just be me getting a bit older.

The yard here is quite long, narrow and at the end of a navigation so it was decided quite early on that a floating dock would be the best way forward, not only does it give more work space, it can also be moved to give a bit more leeway when the going gets tough.

 

SPA50269 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

 

SPA50272 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

 

The nice bit about slogging away at the big bits is that they do cover a bit of space when done.

 

SPA50280 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

 

Once the plank is pulled round and fitting snugly it is fastened to the plank below. The nail is a 4'' galvanised rosehead boat nail, I normally get them from ; Davey & Company in Colchester (01206 500945) they stock a good range of sizes (and lots of other goodies), unfortunately they do not stock the 1 ½'' needed for the shearing, in the past I have always got these from; The Glasgow steel nail co ( 0141 7623355) but they normally require a big order.

 

SPA50281 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

 

Back to the fastening, the nails sit in pockets in the upper plank and are driven at a slight angle through and into the lower plank. I normally use a gouge for the majority of the pocket and finish it off with a few turns of a round nosed bit, the nails need a pilot hole which because of the tight angle requires an extra long twist drill.

 

SPA50282 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

 

 

Back to the fastening, the nails sit in pockets in the upper plank and are driven at a slight angle through and into the lower plank. I normally use a gouge for the majority of the pocket and finish it off with a few turns of a round nosed bit, the nails need a pilot hole which because of the tight angle requires an extra long twist drill. I hope you'll forgive me for getting a bit anal about a few spikes, it may or may not help some one out.

 

SPA50283 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

 

And over to the other side, this plank was about 3ft longer than it's opposite number and was determined to cause space problems, I jacked the boat up another 6'', took off just about everything unnecessary off the dock (gained another inch or so) and it was still determined.

When I'm working by myself I really need to get the hood end of the plank in place and cramped quickly and accurately, the first few minutes when the plank is really hot are really make or break (pardon the expression), if the hood end goes in well – cramp it – run to the other end pull some bend in – tie it – run back – more cramps – run back – more pull......................

First five minutes ….....critical.

Five to ten minutes......... 90% bent.

Ten to twenty minutes........details.

When it all goes well it's a real pleasure, plank bends easily, no strain on the frames and a minimum of cramps to hold it all in place.

 

SPA50288 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

 

As it happens this one did go well.

[Timleech]

 

 

Once the plank is pulled round and fitting snugly it is fastened to the plank below. The nail is a 4'' galvanised rosehead boat nail, I normally get them from ; Davey & Company in Colchester (01206 500945) they stock a good range of sizes (and lots of other goodies), unfortunately they do not stock the 1 ½'' needed for the shearing, in the past I have always got these from; The Glasgow steel nail co ( 0141 7623355) but they normally require a big order.

 

SPA50281 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

 

 

 

Back to the fastening, the nails sit in pockets in the upper plank and are driven at a slight angle through and into the lower plank. I normally use a gouge for the majority of the pocket and finish it off with a few turns of a round nosed bit, the nails need a pilot hole which because of the tight angle requires an extra long twist drill. I hope you'll forgive me for getting a bit anal about a few spikes, it may or may not help some one out.

 

SPA50283 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

 

 

Do you put the nails in straight (and drill the full length)?

 

What we did (as I was taught) was to drill down as far as the seam, and then bend the nail halfway along before driving in, cutting its own way into the lower plank. That way, the angle of the drilling against the plank does not need to be so fine. Also we put a bit of caulking into the seam before fitting the nail, basically because you can't caulk around a nail!

 

I'm impressed!

Tim

[bargemast]

I am very much impressed, to see what you're able to do on your own, with big and heavy planks like that.

 

Peter.

[chris collins]

Tim, thanks for that, it's a good point. Years ago just before Walker bros succumbed to becoming a Tesco store I got the opportunity (courtesy of Tony Walker) to clear out the old nail store, here are a few pictured next to the equivalent sizes from Glasgow steel nail. The “originals” are a much finer shank, almost a different animal. The newer nails definitely won't cut their own way in and require a full depth pilot hole, even a little short of full depth is risking a mullered head (the nails, not mine, - although........) The rusty one on the right is one taken out of “Progress” and bent exactly as you describe.

 

 

SPA50295 by chriscollins1, on Flickr

[Timleech]

Tim, thanks for that, it's a good point. Years ago just before Walker bros succumbed to becoming a Tesco store I got the opportunity (courtesy of Tony Walker) to clear out the old nail store, here are a few pictured next to the equivalent sizes from Glasgow steel nail. The “originals” are a much finer shank, almost a different animal. The newer nails definitely won't cut their own way in and require a full depth pilot hole, even a little short of full depth is risking a mullered head (the nails, not mine, - although........) The rusty one on the right is one taken out of “Progress” and bent exactly as you describe.

 

 

 

Funnily enough, I bought a couple of sacks of nails from Walkers, when they were still there.

 

I do have a few spikes left here of different sizes, not a huge quantity but more than I'll ever use now. I think most did come from Glasgow, but I'll have a look in the next couple of days to see what there is.

 

Tim

[tafelberg]

Brilliant! I love wooden boats, I wouldn't like to own one though! . But it's wonderful to see the build!

[Keeping Up]

 

....

 

 

I've read in the past that "Progress" was commercially unsuccessful because although the locks on the G.U had been widened the channel was too narrow, I'll happily admit that the canal north of Berkhamstead is not wide boat territory but below that saw a lot of (unpowered) wide traffic. Notwithstanding a loaded draught of 4' 6'' this still gives "Progress" rich vein potential business. If we treat G.U.C.C with a little more respect we could quite reasonably speculate that "Progress" was built to spend a large portion of her time on the river, most likely loading over the ship side before delivery to a factory or works. I'd go one step further and say that there is a strong possibility that "Progress" was built for a specific cargo that for some reason or other failed to materialise. I'm just the boat builder so I'll grateful to leave that for the canal historians amongst you to mull over

 

 

...

 

 

I've read that there was considerable opposition within the GUCC, against any wide boats being used north of Berkhamstead. To help "prove" the unsuitability of the route, they organised a trial run to Braunston and back, but "just happened" to schedule it at the same time as there was a 7ft width restriction to rebuild a bridge (at Buckby ???). When Progress got there, of course, it was unable to get through and had to turn back so the unsuitability was proven.

[alan_fincher]

I've read that there was considerable opposition within the GUCC, against any wide boats being used north of Berkhamstead. To help "prove" the unsuitability of the route, they organised a trial run to Braunston and back, but "just happened" to schedule it at the same time as there was a 7ft width restriction to rebuild a bridge (at Buckby ???). When Progress got there, of course, it was unable to get through and had to turn back so the unsuitability was proven.

I'm interested where you read that Allan, because it doesn't come very close to any version of the story I have ever heard.

 

Undoubtedly there would have been major issues in operating loaded wide-beam boats very far north of Berkhamsted, because whilst many other modifications were made to the GU in the 1930s, (particularly on the Birmingham main line, obviously), the channel in many places was never widened beyond what was built for narrow boats.

 

An oft published picture of Progress, (unloaded) passing a loaded pair on Tring summit gives some idea of what the difficulties might have been.

 

But I think the suggestion that the GUCCCo wanted the Progress experiment to fail seems an odd one, and I've never seen that before. Why would they have wanted this, if they could have made it succeed?

 

What is not in dispute is that Progress early in its life made it to Hatton, because in 1934 it was used to carry the Duke of Kent, (Later George VI), on the formal opening of the widened locks.

 

 

There is a far less published story that post nationalisation the BTC (or BWB ?) used Progress again as a further feasibility test for long haul carriage up the GU in wide-beam boats, but I think (from memory) failed the test at the narrowed bridge near (I think) Blue Lias. It is stated there that had they bothered to ask those who looked after the section they could have saved themselves a trip! To be honest, that sounds slightly more like your story, but it is long after the demise of the GUCCCo.

 

If I have time later, I'll dig around in a few books and magazines, (and remind myself how wrong I've remembered it, probably!...)

Edited December 4, 2012 by alan_fincher

[alan_fincher]

UPDATE:

 

Well there is after all a "Buckby" connection, but, as I suspected, it has nowt to do with the GUCCCo, as it wasn't until some 10 years after the waterways were nationalised. (Well, at least if you believe Narrow Boat" magazine).

 

To quote:

 

In November 1958 BW conducted an experiment when the 12' 6" beam motor marge Progress, built for the GUCCC in the 1930s was navigated from Hayes to Blisworth. No problem was encountered, and the boat could have gone further had it not been for bridge reconstruction work at Long Buckby. Subsequently the trial was extended towards Birmingham but was prevented by reaching Samson Road depot by the narrowness of one of the bridges near Knowle. As a result the experiment was abandoned, but if adopted it would have led to problems at Blisworth, Braunston and Shrewley tuinnels where one way working would have had to be introduced.

 

I'm surprised it says "near Knowle" for the narrow bridge, as the ones usually quoted on the GU Birmingham line as not being full clearance are normally much earlier - Blue Lias being one, I think.

Edited December 4, 2012 by alan_fincher

[Laurence Hogg]

UPDATE:

 

Well there is after all a "Buckby" connection, but, as I suspected, it has nowt to do with the GUCCCo, as it wasn't until some 10 years after the waterways were nationalised. (Well, at least if you believe Narrow Boat" magazine).

 

To quote:

 

 

 

I'm surprised it says "near Knowle" for the narrow bridge, as the ones usually quoted on the GU Birmingham line as not being full clearance are normally much earlier - Blue Lias being one, I think.

This is correct there is a unwidened bridge near Knowle, may be 78 or 79 (someone out there will know the correct No) but a pair of boats cannot pass there, why it was left unwidened is a bit of a mystery.

 

What really intrigues me is the drawing which exists for a wide beam "Royalty" style motor. If it was never built or started the drawing is amazingly detailed for a boat not built, most other GUCCo proposed drawings are a bit bland, this is ultra detailed.

 

Edited December 4, 2012 by Laurence Hogg

[Keeping Up]

UPDATE:

 

Well there is after all a "Buckby" connection, but, as I suspected, it has nowt to do with the GUCCCo, as it wasn't until some 10 years after the waterways were nationalised. (Well, at least if you believe Narrow Boat" magazine).

 

To quote:

 

 

 

I'm surprised it says "near Knowle" for the narrow bridge, as the ones usually quoted on the GU Birmingham line as not being full clearance are normally much earlier - Blue Lias being one, I think.

 

Well done Alan, you are quite right.

 

I could not remember where I had read it, and it was some time ago so my memory had played a few tricks, but armed with your comments I tracked it down to David Blagrove's book "The Waterways of Northamptonshire" which accords with your comments here, that it was indeed much later when the experiment failed at the A5 bridge by Buckby top and that the boat eventually proceeded to get stuck at Knowle.

 

It is interesting to note that they insisted on Progress towing a wide-beam butty (Eagle) for the journey, which must have been very hard work and would not take advantage of any of the advantages of broad locks apart from the obvious doubling of total load capacity.

[IanM]

 

It is interesting to note that they insisted on Progress towing a wide-beam butty (Eagle) for the journey, which must have been very hard work and would not take advantage of any of the advantages of broad locks apart from the obvious doubling of total load capacity.

 

Obviously when the picture in post 84 was taken http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=41409&view=findpost&p=830056

[BuckbyLocks]

Obviously when the picture in post 84 was taken http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=41409&view=findpost&p=830056

 

Yes, Jim Payler took several pictures of this run coming through Stoke Bruerne.

[antarmike]

I don't know if it is relevant, but I remember helping horseboat Mike Foster's two Wey barges up from Berkhamsted to the Globe inn. I know they were empty but we never got stuck anywhere on that trip. We used Mike Baldy's horses for this trip.

 

Here they lie at The Globe Inn North of Leighton (my copyright)

 

Of Course mike Baldy and Eve Bristowe had one season Hotel boating with their Wey barges Tuba and Fleet, their run being from Berkhamstead to Stoke Bruerne.

 

Here they cross Gosgrove aqueduct, "Patience" was happy to walk the towpath over the aqueduct towing Tuba, but the other Horse , either Prudence or Providence, I can't remeber wouldn't cross the viaduct, so Fleet was bowhauled across while the horse crossed at river level.

(my copyright)

 

These boats where I believe nominally 13' 10 1/2" but I can't find my Gladwin and White where some at least are listed.

 

edit got it now Ariel 1 renamed Fleet is 13' 10 1/2" Perseverance listed at same width. i.e. significantly wider than 12' 6" for Progress. (and the proposed widebeam motor barge in the Blueprint, also 12' 6")

Edited December 4, 2012 by antarmike

[David Mack]

This is correct there is a unwidened bridge near Knowle, may be 78 or 79 (someone out there will know the correct No) but a pair of boats cannot pass there, why it was left unwidened is a bit of a mystery.

 

What really intrigues me is the drawing which exists for a wide beam "Royalty" style motor. If it was never built or started the drawing is amazingly detailed for a boat not built, most other GUCCo proposed drawings are a bit bland, this is ultra detailed.

 

 

That would look SO much better as the basis for a widebeam than your average fat narrow boat!

 

The drawing looks to show a two cylinder semi diesel. Do you know what engine was proposed for it?

[Laurence Hogg]

That would look SO much better as the basis for a widebeam than your average fat narrow boat!

 

The drawing looks to show a two cylinder semi diesel. Do you know what engine was proposed for it?

I understand it was intended to be a twin Kromhaut. I agree the design is superior to average "fat" narrowboat, the plan in full size has dozens of minor measurements which makes me wonder if this boat was partially constructed? Pollocks would have been a good builder for this. It could have been a cancelled order which was then sold on and finished to a different style for someone else, until CRT turns up the original GUCCo minutes on this fleet we may never know!