Jump to content

17M or 18M (16 or 60ft)


Danny1234

Featured Posts

Hello there

 

I'm getting a wide-beam canal boat designed and built, .... for now it's going to be 56' x 12'6", or 17 x 3.8 metres (gulp!)

 

Would just like to check a couple of things as I'm now negotiating with shell builders.

I would be limited to the Southern wide-beam network (I've already accepted/decided that).

The figures I have here are

Lee & Stort: 84' x 16' and 85' x 13'3"

Regent's Canal: 72' x 14'6"

Brentford and Paddington to Camp Hill: 72' x 14'

Kennet & Avon: 70' x 13'6" (at the narrowest section)

Basingstoke Canal: 72' x 13'

River Thames: 100'plus x 14'8"

Wey & Godalming: 72' x 13'10"

 

Not too sure how it works with the Grand Union. Though normally the Southern End is OK for wide-beams 13', .... though there seems to be some problem/issue around Berkhamstead??????

 

Quick question then, is 12'6" OK for the Southern wide beam network? Would seem that it is.

 

How much difference if there for manoeuvring/steering between 17 meters and 18 (56' versus 59 or 60)?

I would guess not that much actually as it is only about 7% or so difference.

Plus, it may actually give mine slightly better handling, as I have 'squeezed down' the swims to maximise internal space (though they should still be usable). That's at 17 meters. If I added the extra metre, then I could increase/improve the swims a bit.

To clarify, is 18 metres (60') going to make any real difference in locks, compared to a 17 metres (56')?

 

Any 'real-world' feedback appreciated!

 

Cheers

Danny

Edited by Danny1234
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Others will be able to advise you better, but regarding the decision to stick with the southern part of the wide canal network: a long way into the future, come time to sell, if it doesn't fit in the northern part (eg I believe Calder & Hebble has a limitation of 58'???) then you will be restricting your market there. So may be worth thinking more 'widely' than just the parts of the network you've mentioned.

Edited by Paul C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who once had a 51x11'6 barge I would council against going for 12'6 with 56ft length.

Since lengthening mine to 61x 11'6 it now swims much better and is easier to handle without changing the swims, as for size having done most of the waterways that you mention, except the Basingstoke, I would not want to have anything larger than my present boat, and I have been handling boats for over 40 years.

 

Julian

did I mention Parglena is for sale?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you wouldn't fit the Wey & Arun Canal south of Southland as our locks south of there, are only 12ft wide not that we will be reconnected for a good number of years yet!!

 

edit to add 68ft is our shortest length from Baldwin's Knob Lock southward

Edited by hamsterfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello there

 

I'm getting a wide-beam canal boat designed and built, .... for now it's going to be 56' x 12'6", or 17 x 3.8 metres (gulp!)

 

Would just like to check a couple of things as I'm now negotiating with shell builders.

I would be limited to the Southern wide-beam network (I've already accepted/decided that).

The figures I have here are

Lee & Stort: 84' x 16' and 85' x 13'3"

Regent's Canal: 72' x 14'6"

Brentford and Paddington to Camp Hill: 72' x 14'

Kennet & Avon: 70' x 13'6" (at the narrowest section)

Basingstoke Canal: 72' x 13'

River Thames: 100'plus x 14'8"

Wey & Godalming: 72' x 13'10"

 

Not too sure how it works with the Grand Union. Though normally the Southern End is OK for wide-beams 13', .... though there seems to be some problem/issue around Berkhamstead??????

 

Quick question then, is 12'6" OK for the Southern wide beam network? Would seem that it is.

 

How much difference if there for manoeuvring/steering between 17 meters and 18 (56' versus 59 or 60)?

I would guess not that much actually as it is only about 7% or so difference.

Plus, it may actually give mine slightly better handling, as I have 'squeezed down' the swims to maximise internal space (though they should still be usable). That's at 17 meters. If I added the extra metre, then I could increase/improve the swims a bit.

To clarify, is 18 metres (60') going to make any real difference in locks, compared to a 17 metres (56')?

 

Any 'real-world' feedback appreciated!

 

Cheers

Danny

 

Just to be pedantic you cannot get as far as Camp Hill if you are 14ft wide; many of the bridges past Braunston are narrower than 14ft. Having said that, although I don't know the actual width I think you'd be OK at 12ft 6in.

 

Regarding Berkhamstead: AIUI the Grand Union was deliberately built as a broad canal as far as Berkhamstead but as a narrow canal north of there. The difference is primarily that the underwater profile of the canal bed is different, the deep centre section having been made wider south of Berkhamstead to allow two widebeam boats to pass each other. These days with shallower boats and silted canals the distinction is relatively unimportant.

 

Having no experience of widebeams but considerable experience of narrowboats, I'd go for a longer boat with longer swims every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is nothing to stop you building it square at both ends but it would steer like a brick. Soft angled Chines where the bottom and side meet give a better glide through the water and if you ever go on the Thames you will know if you have a poor swim. Barges where used to move goods and if they had a poor swim they where inefficient. The old Dutch barges where built as sailing craft so their swim had to be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello there

 

I'm getting a wide-beam canal boat designed and built, .... for now it's going to be 56' x 12'6", or 17 x 3.8 metres (gulp!)

 

Would just like to check a couple of things as I'm now negotiating with shell builders.

I would be limited to the Southern wide-beam network (I've already accepted/decided that).

The figures I have here are

Lee & Stort: 84' x 16' and 85' x 13'3"

Regent's Canal: 72' x 14'6"

Brentford and Paddington to Camp Hill: 72' x 14'

Kennet & Avon: 70' x 13'6" (at the narrowest section)

Basingstoke Canal: 72' x 13'

River Thames: 100'plus x 14'8"

Wey & Godalming: 72' x 13'10"

 

Not too sure how it works with the Grand Union. Though normally the Southern End is OK for wide-beams 13', .... though there seems to be some problem/issue around Berkhamstead??????

 

Quick question then, is 12'6" OK for the Southern wide beam network? Would seem that it is.

 

How much difference if there for manoeuvring/steering between 17 meters and 18 (56' versus 59 or 60)?

I would guess not that much actually as it is only about 7% or so difference.

Plus, it may actually give mine slightly better handling, as I have 'squeezed down' the swims to maximise internal space (though they should still be usable). That's at 17 meters. If I added the extra metre, then I could increase/improve the swims a bit.

To clarify, is 18 metres (60') going to make any real difference in locks, compared to a 17 metres (56')?

 

Any 'real-world' feedback appreciated!

 

Cheers

Danny

 

Hi Danny

 

As a narrowboat liveaboard of many years and now widebeam liveaboard if I where you I would disregard any printed sizes as they are usualy wrong or outdated. Trying to pass another widebeam on todays silted canals can be a nightmare and the extra foot or two in width is worth losing to enable free passage. I eventualy opted for 10ft 6 inch beam and glad I didnt go any wider. The T and M canal at the bottom end supposedly passes boats with a beam of which is just not possible as one forum member I know found to his cost and all other uk canals now have similar problems. So I suggest real world feedback you asked for is a good idea as you may find people on widebeamers in the area you want to cruise can give you first hand experience which is the only kind that is of any use to you.

 

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello again

 

'I'd go for a longer boat with longer swims every time'

I see, ..... that was the impression I'd got from what I'd read.

I think then I'll go for the extra 1000mm and lengthen the swims, .... maybe narrow it down a bit as well

 

Chines, .... consider that/those, but was put off by the prospect of loosing internal floor space.

How big/wide do these have to be to make an noticeable difference.

Say they were only 100mm wide (as in the start a 100mm in from the sides of the hull), the slope up by ?????? degress, .. 45, 60, .... is that actually going to have any effect.

Plus, one wonders how much extra that would cost? (will have to find out from the builders). I'd partly ruled that out as it will only be a CAT D craft. My understanding is that these were mainly required for CAT C.

Yes, ... the Thames, ..... my intention would be to avoid the Thames going out East, past London. I would only really be going from East London to West and back maybe twice a year at the most. The I would wait for nice weather/calm conditions, ect, ...

The photos I've seen of Dutch Barges didn't look like the chines were particularly big.

I guess it's a bit 'crude', but I was hoping to 'compensate' for not having perhaps the most elegant/clean swims by having a bit more power in the engine (for those occasional trips up/along the Thames)

 

Thanks again for your comments. I will have to take a few trips up/down the Rivers Lee and Stort to check out the conditions/situation

Cheers

Danny

 

Footnote, the original 'Title' of the post should have course been 56 or 60ft (not 16 or 60ft), ..... though I guess that would have been figured out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't take it for gospel that 13'3''is the Storts minimum lock width. You'll be struggling with a 12'6''wide boat with vertical hull sides and anodes on both flanks on the R.Stort as you will almost certainly jamb in some locks,one namely top gate entry and exit of Sawbridgeworth lock.Also some tight bends and plenty of overhanging branches waiting to remove your paint.

A 12'6''boat up here should only have anodes on one side or preferably none at all on its flanks to ensure getting through the locks.10' wide is the ideal maximum width on the Stort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When considering what size boat to get built for the canals you plan to boat on, bear in mind that you shouldn't use the method that a woman does when she buys a bra - i'e it's not a good idea to try to cram as much boat as you can into the canal, up to the given BW limits.

 

Why? If you make it as big as you possibly can, then boating won't be much fun. You could get stuck, have limited moorings options and keep hitting bridges/scraping tunnels. You also have to consider where you are going to be able to moor it. Are you going to be a cruiser or do you have a mooring? As Bizzard says you'd be better off going a bit narrower if you plan to do the Stort as some of the bends and bridges would be a tight squeeze and there aren't a huge amount of mooring options up there.

 

Of course most of the Lee is big and wide and the Thames is easy for big boats. There are one or two big fat boats we see up here that cruise between the Thames and the Lee, but I've never seen them on the Stort, they'd not fit through the locks.

 

If you're worried about internal space, then research your fitting out to make sure you don't waste space. My narrowboat is only 56foot6, but I still manage to have a 'spare room' and a little bath and lots of storage onboard because I have a clever fit-out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello

 

I see, ....

'Don't take it for gospel that 13'3''is the Storts minimum lock width', ...... I was concerned that these printed sizes might be a bit approximate or 'over-ambitious'.

Feedback appreciated, I'll take these comments on-board so to speak and see about slimming things down and adjusting the swims a bit

 

Regards

 

Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello there

 

I'm getting a wide-beam canal boat designed and built, .... for now it's going to be 56' x 12'6", or 17 x 3.8 metres (gulp!)

 

My boat is 57ft x 12ft, so a foot longer and six inches narrower than your proposed build. Because of those dimensions it turns very easily indeed - easier in fact than most narrowboats. I can turn it around almost within it's own length and most narrowboaters are surprised that a big boat is so manouvreable. However (and here comes the snag), I find that it won't steer in a straight line for very long if I take my hand off the tiller, whereas most narrowboats will do that much better. I think the theory is that the easiest boat to turn would be completely round, but of course a round boat would be impossible to steer in a straight line.

 

For these reasons I wouldn't mess with the swims - they won't affect your internal space that much. Remember that it's a boat. Whatever the final dimensions of the boat, you can certainly make the interior into a nice space to live. But build a boat to be a boat!

Edited by blackrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My boat is 57ft x 12ft, so a foot longer and six inches narrower than your proposed build. Because of those dimensions it turns very easily indeed - easier in fact than most narrowboats. I can turn it around almost within it's own length and most narrowboaters are surprised that a big boat is so manouvreable. However (and here comes the snag), I find that it won't steer in a straight line for very long if I take my hand off the tiller, whereas most narrowboats will do that much better. I think the theory is that the easiest boat to turn would be completely round, but of course a round boat would be impossible to steer in a straight line.

 

For these reasons I wouldn't mess with the swims - they won't affect your internal space that much. Remember that it's a boat. Whatever the final dimensions of the boat, you can certainly make the interior into a nice space to live. But build a boat to be a boat!

As do Coracles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello again

Fair points ..... I've now added the extra 1000 or so. Most of which has gone in to the swims. So they are now approx 3500 (bow and stern) and taper in a fair bit.

From what I can make out then they are now more or less as most other 55' to 60' boats

Still not sure what to do about the width. Will probably keep it as it is for now.

 

How about this then for 'manoeuvrability'

 

http://www.milburnboats.co.uk/LadyTeal/ladytealatcrickboatshow2010.html

 

One assumes they don't go very fast (it's a hotel) and just go up and down the Leeds & Liverpool canal (apparently)

 

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello again

Fair points ..... I've now added the extra 1000 or so. Most of which has gone in to the swims. So they are now approx 3500 (bow and stern) and taper in a fair bit.

From what I can make out then they are now more or less as most other 55' to 60' boats

Still not sure what to do about the width. Will probably keep it as it is for now.

 

How about this then for 'manoeuvrability'

 

http://www.milburnboats.co.uk/LadyTeal/ladytealatcrickboatshow2010.html

 

One assumes they don't go very fast (it's a hotel) and just go up and down the Leeds & Liverpool canal (apparently)

 

Regards

I have owned a shallow drafted, blunt(ish) ended wide beam, wheel steered boat of 49ft x 14ft (approx) similar in concept to Lady Teal (but less exaggerated) and can tell you that it was a pig to steer. If you took your eye off the bow for a second it would shear off into the bushes. It was so bad that it was nearly impossible for the steerer to view the scenery because a moment's inattention and you were heading for the bank. It took the addition bow and skeg keels to correct that linear instability. I would never have another of such a design. If you intend to cruise, rather than use it as a house boat, then get the shape right at the expense of interior max size IMO or you will live to regret it.

Roger

Edited to add: Yes, Lady Teal plies the L&L (mainly towards Leeds I believe) but I have spotted it passing through Skipton occasionally.

Edited by Albion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have owned a shallow drafted, blunt(ish) ended wide beam, wheel steered boat of 49ft x 14ft (approx) similar in concept to Lady Teal (but less exaggerated) and can tell you that it was a pig to steer. If you took your eye off the bow for a second it would shear off into the bushes. It was so bad that it was nearly impossible for the steerer to view the scenery because a moment's inattention and you were heading for the bank. It took the addition bow and skeg keels to correct that linear instability. I would never have another of such a design. If you intend to cruise, rather than use it as a house boat, then get the shape right at the expense of interior max size IMO or you will live to regret it.

Roger

Edited to add: Yes, Lady Teal plies the L&L (mainly towards Leeds I believe) but I have spotted it passing through Skipton occasionally.

 

 

That "Lady-Teal" seems to steer pretty well, I followed for about 4 hours and helped them going through the locks last year when I went to the Skipton Waterways Festival, they have wheel and tiller-steering.

 

Her hull shape is a bit like the French commercial barges, straight sided, and flat bottomed, with a bit less blunt bow.

 

The type of Roger's boat was known not to handle the way you wanted, and several of these boats had different modifications made to them, to make them at least a bit more predictable to steer, their props were badly positionned too, hard to get water to them, but the insides were nice and comfortable, ideal boats for CM.

 

Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello again

Fair points ..... I've now added the extra 1000 or so. Most of which has gone in to the swims. So they are now approx 3500 (bow and stern) and taper in a fair bit.

From what I can make out then they are now more or less as most other 55' to 60' boats

Still not sure what to do about the width. Will probably keep it as it is for now.

 

How about this then for 'manoeuvrability'

 

http://www.milburnbo...atshow2010.html

 

One assumes they don't go very fast (it's a hotel) and just go up and down the Leeds & Liverpool canal (apparently)

 

Regards

 

Danny,

 

I trust you'll take my comment as an attempt to be helpful.

 

There are many things a layperson can design, or influence, on a boat. (indeed, if one wished, you could fell an oak tree and make a dug-out canoe!)

 

There are also boat designers that have made a successful career from designing key elements such as hull profile and design aspects that will enable (some of) the performance aspects - -

Why not use the hull basics of a proven design, and then use that as your basis for the rest of the boat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Danny,

 

I trust you'll take my comment as an attempt to be helpful.

 

There are many things a layperson can design, or influence, on a boat. (indeed, if one wished, you could fell an oak tree and make a dug-out canoe!)

 

There are also boat designers that have made a successful career from designing key elements such as hull profile and design aspects that will enable (some of) the performance aspects - -

Why not use the hull basics of a proven design, and then use that as your basis for the rest of the boat?

 

Hello again

No problem, ..... I take all the comments as helpful and am compiling a fair size pile of 'documents' listing the various issues and potential solutions.

'Why not use the hull basics of a proven design'

I feel that's what I am doing. I'm just keen to review all the aspects of it to see where things can be tweaked here and there to make things more amenable to my circumstances.

Part of my 'strategy' is to produce a full set of fabrication drawings then I'll see how pro-active the would be builders are regarding the design. If one just says 'sure mate, we'll do whatever you want, .... that'll be £30K', then I probably won't be in rush to use their services

All being well I'll be doing the rounds of the builders through June. I've had some initial exchanges via email and sent some of them some drawings. So far most responses have been along the lines of 'come and see us and we'll talk about it'. Which I guess is fair enough. Still, I'm living in London, and don't really want to travel a couple of hundred miles round trip to speak to a builder who clearly can't be bothered/doesn't want to actually consider the design and how it might be tweaked for usability and cost effective fabrication.

Thanks again. I'll post up some other manoeuvrability concerns in separate threads

 

Regards

Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

 

If one just says 'sure mate, we'll do whatever you want, .... that'll be £30K',

 

<snip>

 

So far most responses have been along the lines of 'come and see us and we'll talk about it'.

 

<snip>

 

Danny

 

I have tried to say this before, I'm not sure you heard it the first time.

 

If you turn up with a set of amateur drawings to the first builder, they'll build it and you take the consequences

 

If you turn up with a set of amateur drawings to the second builder, they will firstly try to persuade you not to do it and take one of their tried and tested designs, if that fails they will turn down the job

 

It's great fun to construct these castles in the air, time for a strong dose of reality - go and talk to one of the friendly hull fabricators

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard

Thank you for your 'words of caution'

I'm sure you've come across many 'dreamers', ....

I assure you I will not be turning up at any builders with a set of 'amateurish drawings', or some spec on a scrappy piece of paper

FYI I produce 'drawings' for a living, ..... and have done more than my share of liaising with fabricators/builders and the like.

I assure you I have dealt with projects/budgets and 'financial implications' far in excess of those involved with a canal boat, ..... no I won't be getting burnt by some builder.

'if that fails they will turn down the job'

They won't get the job then!

All the best anyway.

 

Regards

Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see if I can explain myself a bit better

 

The canal industry is very different to most engineering undertakings. At one end of the hull industry are general fabricators who fit boats in amongst other welding jobs. At the other end are skilled craftsmen building damn good boats.

 

From what I have read so far, it seems that you want to employ boat builders who know what they are doing, a really good idea. If you want builders like this to make something for you, the relationship you are entering will be far more than just a 'build to the drawings' contract. They will want to be able to trust you, to be able to discuss things with you, to be able to tell you when you are wrong, to be able to offer ideas you hadn't thought of, to take on board your ideas if they are new and practical. As their order books are usually full for years to come, they can pick and choose what they build. The best way to work with people like this is actually to turn up with a sketch, an idea, a dream.

 

If you want a build-to-drawings contract, you will be working with the other end of the hull fabricator spectrum

 

This isn't like any modern industry

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.