Moving Lucy

[carlt]

I was always led to believe that replacing one plank at a time was a restoration. This is what we did with Judith Ann, starting from the ironwork is a rebuild.

 

Dan

There are, basically, four ways of doing it:

 

1) a "rolling" restoration where the boat is gradually restored, in the water, with repeated dry dockings...Hardy is an example of this method.

 

2) A plank by plank restoration where the boat is taken out of the water and each piece is measured, replicated and the new bit put in the hole left by the old, such as Judith Ann or Lucy.

 

3) A side by side rebuild, where the old ironwork is moved over to new bottoms and a replica is built. Severn was rebuilt in this way.

 

4) The boat is dismantled, all the wood is burnt and a new boat is built using the old ironwork...Raymond has undergone this treatment...twice!

[greywolf]

My link _offtopic: well slightly this may be of interest also.

 

It is good to see the build progress on these fine old boats.

Edited December 12, 2011 by greywolf

[IanM]

The restoration/rebuilding/reconstruction/replica debate always gets me thinking of the Ship of Theseus...

 

"Theseus is remembered in Greek mythology as the slayer of the Minotaur. For years, the Athenians had been sending sacrifices to be given to the Minotaur, a half-man, half-bull beast who inhabited the labyrinth of Knossos. One year, Theseus braved the labyrinth, and killed the Minotaur.

 

The ship in which he returned was long preserved. As parts of the ship needed repair, it was rebuilt plank by plank. Suppose that, eventually, every plank was replaced; would it still have been the same ship? A strong case can be made for saying that it would have been: When the first plank was replaced, the ship would still have been Theseus’ ship. When the second was replaced, the ship would still have been Theseus’ ship. Changing a single plank can never turn one ship into another. Even when every plank had been replaced, then, and no part of the original ship remained, it would still have been Theseus’ ship.

 

Suppose, though, that each of the planks removed from Theseus’ ship was restored, and that these planks were then recombined to once again form a ship. Would this have been Theseus’ ship? Again, a strong case can be made for saying that it would have been: this ship would have had precisely the same parts as Theseus’ ship, arranged in precisely the same way.

 

If this happened, then, then it would seem that Theseus had returned from Knossos in two ships. First, there would have been Theseus’ ship that has had each of its parts replaced one by one. Second, there would have been Theseus’ ship that had been dismantled, restored, and then reassembled. Each of them would have been Theseus’ ship.

Theseus, though, sailed in only one ship. Which one?"

[carlt]

The restoration/rebuilding/reconstruction/replica debate always gets me thinking of the Ship of Theseus...

In this instance it would appear that many replicas of Theseus' boat could have been built with no original left.

 

It doesn't quite work the same, with wooden ex-working boats as there is only one set of ironwork.

Edited December 12, 2011 by carlt

[alan_fincher]

Pete's original intention was to do a side by side replication, like Severn, laying new bottoms and moving the ironwork over but, happily, changed his mind and chose the rebuild route.

Ah! that explains my misconception.

 

Seems I was right about the original plan, but had not read enough of the newsletters to realise a different approach was now being followed.

 

Thanks to you, (and others) for putting me right.

[greywolf]

The restoration/rebuilding/reconstruction/replica debate always gets me thinking of the Ship of Theseus...

 

"Theseus is remembered in Greek mythology as the slayer of the Minotaur. For years, the Athenians had been sending sacrifices to be given to the Minotaur, a half-man, half-bull beast who inhabited the labyrinth of Knossos. One year, Theseus braved the labyrinth, and killed the Minotaur.

 

The ship in which he returned was long preserved. As parts of the ship needed repair, it was rebuilt plank by plank. Suppose that, eventually, every plank was replaced; would it still have been the same ship? A strong case can be made for saying that it would have been: When the first plank was replaced, the ship would still have been Theseus’ ship. When the second was replaced, the ship would still have been Theseus’ ship. Changing a single plank can never turn one ship into another. Even when every plank had been replaced, then, and no part of the original ship remained, it would still have been Theseus’ ship.

 

Suppose, though, that each of the planks removed from Theseus’ ship was restored, and that these planks were then recombined to once again form a ship. Would this have been Theseus’ ship? Again, a strong case can be made for saying that it would have been: this ship would have had precisely the same parts as Theseus’ ship, arranged in precisely the same way.

 

If this happened, then, then it would seem that Theseus had returned from Knossos in two ships. First, there would have been Theseus’ ship that has had each of its parts replaced one by one. Second, there would have been Theseus’ ship that had been dismantled, restored, and then reassembled. Each of them would have been Theseus’ ship.

Theseus, though, sailed in only one ship. Which one?"

 

The one still capable of floating or being used as a ship not a museum piece. You could go spiritually and as long as the spirit of the boat is there then it is the same boat,probably best achieved by the gradual restoration rather than the complete rebuild using nothing from the old structure.

[IanM]

In this instance it would appear that many replicas of Theseus' boat could have been built with no original left.

 

It doesn't quite work the same, with wooden ex-working boats as there is only one set of ironwork.

 

Good point, hadn't thought of that

[WotEver]

The restoration/rebuilding/reconstruction/replica debate always gets me thinking of the Ship of Theseus...

... or Trigger's broom.

 

 

Tony

[carlt]

... or Trigger's broom.

 

Again, not relevant to the rebuilding or restoration of a wooden ex-working boat.

 

There is one set of ironwork and this is retained, in the rebuild.

Edited December 12, 2011 by carlt

[GSer]

How are the restorations of these wooden boats funded?

 

Is Lucy owned by an individual and as such they are funding the work themselves?

 

Or is there a 'Save Lucy Trust'

 

It dosn't look too a cheap thing to restore.

 

Not wanting to pry too much but i'm just interested about how these things get financed.

 

 

Paul

[carlt]

How are the restorations of these wooden boats funded?

 

Is Lucy owned by an individual and as such they are funding the work themselves?

 

Lucy is owned by Pete Boyce and he is funding the restoration.

[GSer]

Lucy is owned by Pete Boyce and he is funding the restoration.

 

 

Fair play to him, that's a proper project

[Terence]

Again, not relevant to the rebuilding or restoration of a wooden ex-working boat.

 

There is one set of ironwork and this is retained, in the rebuild.

 

Are but if Trigger used the original nails would it be correct?

 

Lucy is owned by Pete Boyce and he is funding the restoration.

 

Just to add, Pete is going it solo as commitees tend to push things up a different path and Pete wants to be in control.

Thanks for the help here Carl by the way.

 

Cheers

Terence

[carlt]

Are but if Trigger used the original nails would it be correct?

 

No because the ironwork is a fundamental part of the construction and shape.

 

The original nails, of the broom, have no more significance than the nails and spikes used on the boat.

 

If a wooden narrow boat was a sea boat then it would be described as "composite", like Cutty Sark, rather than "wooden", having wooden planks wrapped around an iron frame.

 

The metalwork is as important as the timbers.

 

Very few entirely "wooden" working boats were built, with wooden knees.

[greywolf]

No because the ironwork is a fundamental part of the construction and shape.

 

The original nails, of the broom, have no more significance than the nails and spikes used on the boat.

 

If a wooden narrow boat was a sea boat then it would be described as "composite", like Cutty Sark, rather than "wooden", having wooden planks wrapped around an iron frame.

 

The metalwork is as important as the timbers.

 

Very few entirely "wooden" working boats were built, with wooden knees.

 

Jem bates has what he says is the last wooden working boat with wooden knees eg Blackthorn rose in the for sale section.

[pete harrison]

Broadly this is how Raymond was claimed to be reconstructed, although the end result certainly indicates that insufficient effort was put into measuring up the old Raymond, unfortunately.

 

I am not sure this was entirely the case.

 

I think RAYMOND suffered for being built by a committee, and a committee of canal enthusiasts who knew little of working narrow boats, let alone wooden narrow boats. Obviously their intention was good even though they were clearly misguided. I am unable to answer why they chose to have the new RAYMOND built at Tardebigge, but I do know the man who is resposible for building it - who by his own admission (to me) had never built a full sized wooden narrow boat before. I am aware that the building of the new RAYMOND took longer than expected and the builders were rushed off Tardebigge drydock where it was being built, and that was the excuse given to me for the miss-shaped fore and stern ends when I first joined Friends of Raymond in April 2005.

 

I strongly believe that on completion Lucy will be more than capable of carrying a load similar to that it would carry in its working days. I am fairly sure that no such load has ever been put on Raymond nor ever will be.

 

Although I was not then a member of Friends of Raymond I did see RAYMOND being built on Tardebigge drydock (my interest then being as a researcher of 'historic' narrow boats). From what I saw I do not think it would be wise to put a load into the new RAYMOND, both due to the way that the boat was constructed and because the Friends of Raymond crew would (in my opinion) be overwhelmed by a loaded pair. I simply accept the new RAYMOND for what it is - a new (now 10 years old) wooden butty that has taken the identity of the last wooden narrow boat built for commercial work, and that it incorporates some if not all of the older boat's ironwork.

 

edit - although I am a member of Friends of Raymond these are my own views and opinions and clearly do not reflect those of the Friends of Raymond Board of Trustees.

Edited December 12, 2011 by pete harrison

[khaffra]

Was Raymond not built from secondhand ironwork originally therefore in theory Raymond is not its real name??

[stagedamager]

There is a theory that a lot of wooden boats got their knees from derelict hulls, I'm sure someone can confirm or deny this. We think Judith Ann is possible built around a set of knees from a shroppie fly boat but have no concrete proof, other than the shape!!

Regards and seasons greetings,

Dan!!

[carlt]

We think Judith Ann is possible built around a set of knees from a shroppie fly boat but have no concrete proof, other than the shape!!

I'm fairly certain you're right but, again, I only have their appearance to go on.

[stagedamager]

Looking at the bow, the evidence is there!!!

 

 

 

Dan

[Guest]

No because the ironwork is a fundamental part of the construction and shape.

 

The original nails, of the broom, have no more significance than the nails and spikes used on the boat.

 

If a wooden narrow boat was a sea boat then it would be described as "composite", like Cutty Sark, rather than "wooden", having wooden planks wrapped around an iron frame.

 

The metalwork is as important as the timbers.

 

Very few entirely "wooden" working boats were built, with wooden knees.

Out of interest, what are the advantages/disadvantages of wooden knees versus irons?

Cheers

[carlt]

Out of interest, what are the advantages/disadvantages of wooden knees versus irons?

Cheers

You need thicker wooden knees, to get the same strength, as iron.

 

The wooden knees of a Walton boat stick out about 9", at the bottoms and 4" just below the gunwales.

 

If they were in a work boat they would get in the way of unloading cargo.

 

The knees that form the boat shape, however, in the bows and stern, are wooden because space isn't an issue and forming the shape is easier, in wood.

[Guest]

You need thicker wooden knees, to get the same strength, as iron.

 

The wooden knees of a Walton boat stick out about 9", at the bottoms and 4" just below the gunwales.

 

If they were in a work boat they would get in the way of unloading cargo.

 

The knees that form the boat shape, however, in the bows and stern, are wooden because space isn't an issue and forming the shape is easier, in wood.

Thanks Carl