Jump to content

Historic Boats for sale online


alan_fincher

Featured Posts

2 hours ago, Chris-B said:

Just been listed on brokerage 

Elstree

http://www.tingdeneboatsales.net/boat-spec?BoatID=6389648

 

23 minutes ago, koukouvagia said:

A really good conversion.  Unlike many adverts this one has plenty of photos.  At that price, I'd say that it will sell quickly.  I'm presuming the undercloth cabin is steel. 

Seems to have had it's bottom cut off though! (Draught 0.65 metres?  Really ??)

I didn't realise this boat no longer had its Russell Newbery, (which was a brand new replacement in the 1970s, I think).  It indeed looks a stonking boat otherwise, but the 3 cylinder Gardner seems completely out of place to me, in a Grand Union boat

However, I agree with you - I think tis one will find a buyer quicker than most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chris-B said:

Just been listed on brokerage 

Elstree

http://www.tingdeneboatsales.net/boat-spec?BoatID=6389648

Nice boat.

Someone needs to proof read the advert as it says 1.85m beam which is incorrect.

 

Istr Elstree was for sale in the mid nineties with a Lister HA3 in it. Not sure if I'm thinking of another boat. Pete Harrison will know :)

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Athy said:

 There does not appear to be an interior connection between the back cabin and the main living accommodation - might this hinder the boat's sale?

 

Pretty standard on a conversion of a "Grand Union"boat.  In fact you are lacking two connections.  Back cabin to engine room, as well as engine room to conversion.

Some have doors cut through, but the engine rooms are only 5' 6" long, so it is usually a bit of a challenge to make it work.

In fact that Gardner seems to be filling the whole engine room, and to me it looks you can only get one side to the other by climbing over it.  With a sensible more traditional 2 cylinder engine you have lots of space at the fore end to walk round.  Unsuitable engine crammed into to small a space, (or so it appears) is what would put me off an otherwise superb looking boat.  There's an inbuilt generator taking up even more of the space I think.

Incidentally I have never seen this boat move from its mooring in the last 12 years.  I'm sure it probably does, but not often, or very far, I suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, X Alan W said:

Are you saying you did the whole trip Kinver/Chester Overnight/1 Night ,how many hours did you boat & how many handed ?

We finally got Beck off the bank at about 3pm, and arrived in Chester around lunchtime the following day. Two handed. It was almost exactly 30 years ago, so I'm a bit hazy on the detail. I remember winding the speedwheel too far off entering a lock, and being unable to restart the engine before ramming the gate at about 11.30 pm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, koukouvagia said:

 I'm presuming the undercloth cabin is steel. 

Quote

This is insulated and double protected against water ingress,

You've got me wondering now!  The quote would of course be true if it was cloths over steel, but why bother to say that, if it were?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

You've got me wondering now!  The quote would of course be true if it was cloths over steel, but why bother to say that, if it were?

The deck board looks wooden, but I guess that's no guarantee that the cabin roof/walls/whatever are.

Thanks for that information about through access or lack of. From the photos of the back cabin there do appear to be functioning stable-style doors to the engine room, but whether one could actually open them or not is a different matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Athy said:

The deck board looks wooden, but I guess that's no guarantee that the cabin roof/walls/whatever are.

Thanks for that information about through access or lack of. From the photos of the back cabin there do appear to be functioning stable-style doors to the engine room, but whether one could actually open them or not is a different matter.

Apologies,

I'm on a small tablet, where actually downloading and viewing the full PDF details is tricky.

I hadn't realised there are countless photos in there, not on the main advert.

You are correct.  There does seem to be a door twixt back cabin and engine room, that the original boat would have lacked.

Now I see more pictures, I see it has a "gap" forward of the engine room in similar vein to what we have on Flamingo, (though with no access from it into the main cabin?) The presence of a cross deck at the gunwale level of course then precludes any sensible door into the engine room from the former hold.  (In our boat the water tank is under the equivalent deck).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can remember the conversion is wooden and nicely done, i'd imagine that this would give a more stable boat. trying to work out if the back cabin bulkhead has been moved slightly forward to allow more bed space. 

Edited by BWM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

Nice boat.

Someone needs to proof read the advert as it says 1.85m beam which is incorrect.

 

Istr Elstree was for sale in the mid nineties with a Lister HA3 in it. Not sure if I'm thinking of another boat. Pete Harrison will know :)

That's what you get when you give it to a salesman who lives on a Josher :)

Tim

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At some point someone has put 7ft as the beam and 29hp as the engine into the license application (data shown on canalplan boat list).

RN DM2 is 18hp and a Gardner 3LW (says its a marine one but not sure about that) should be about 40hp-60hp depending on rpm. So the 29hp refers to what I think was an air cooled Lister in there before the Gardner went in. For some reason I think the Gardner is out of a crane.

 

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, magnetman said:

At some point someone has put 7ft as the beam and 29hp as the engine into the license application (data shown on canalplan boat list).

RN DM2 is 18hp and a Gardner 3LW (says its a marine one but not sure about that) should be about 40hp-60hp depending on rpm. So the 29hp refers to what I think was an air cooled Lister in there before the Gardner went in. For some reason I think the Gardner is out of a crane.

 

The 1972 vintage Russell Newbery was taken out of ELSTREE in about 1993 when it was replaced with an air cooled Lister HA3. If I remember correctly that Russell Newbery had a habit of running on one cylinder, but after a thorough sorting out is now in F.M.C. Ltd. motor CAMEL. The Lister HA3 was replaced by the Gardner 3LW with PRM501 gearbox in early 1999. I have all of the engine serial numbers available.

I also recall being on ELSTREE in Bristol Floating Harbour shortly before the Gardner was fitted, and the owner told me how the boat required refooting and rebottoming after he had completed the under cloth conversion. During this work the hull sides were reduced slightly and the owner referred to ELSTREE now being a 'middle Woolwich' :captain:

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, pete harrison said:

The 1972 vintage Russell Newbery was taken out of ELSTREE in about 1993 when it was replaced with an air cooled Lister HA3. If I remember correctly that Russell Newbery had a habit of running on one cylinder, but after a thorough sorting out is now in F.M.C. Ltd. motor CAMEL. The Lister HA3 was replaced by the Gardner 3LW with PRM501 gearbox in early 1999. I have all of the engine serial numbers available.

I also recall being on ELSTREE in Bristol Floating Harbour shortly before the Gardner was fitted, and the owner told me how the boat required refooting and rebottoming after he had completed the under cloth conversion. During this work the hull sides were reduced slightly and the owner referred to ELSTREE now being a 'middle Woolwich' :captain:

Would that work have included alterations to stem post and skeg? There was a boat on eBay, possibly called Bournemouth that had been reduced in this way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, pete harrison said:

I also recall being on ELSTREE in Bristol Floating Harbour shortly before the Gardner was fitted, and the owner told me how the boat required refooting and rebottoming after he had completed the under cloth conversion. During this work the hull sides were reduced slightly and the owner referred to ELSTREE now being a 'middle Woolwich' :captain:

Would this explain the quoted draught of 0.65 metres? :)

Presumably another knee-less boat then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BWM said:

Would that work have included alterations to stem post and skeg? There was a boat on eBay, possibly called Bournemouth that had been reduced in this way. 

I thought Bournemouth was actually a Malcolm Braine "skirted" boat.  That is that the counter had been extended downwards, and a new uxter plate fitted lower than the original?

To me it seems unlikely it would also have had the draught reduced at the bottom of the hull as well, but I'm happy to be corrected if it was.

Bournemouth was one that always sounded worth avoiding to me, and although it was on the market when we were looking to buy, we never bothered to go and look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could have the name wrong, the one I was thinking of languished on eBay for a very long time-it may still be on there, I haven't checked! Was sure the information stated that it had been reduced in draft, a shame as it still retained its National engine. The pictures of the interior showed very little distance between gunwale and floor, more akin to a modern boat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears to me that there are two camps here, one looking for originality of design and the other being more accepting that a boat changes and develops with its owners desires along with the accepted engineering methods of the day.

I am in the second camp where these alterations and modifications form a part of the boat history, and as long as it looks about right and is strong then I can live with it. Clearly nobody will want to buy a boat that has alterations where time has taught us that these are flawed, unless the price reflects this - and of course anything can be put back to original design at a price. I really hope we do not move towards concourse as with the classic car world (in which I am also loosely involved) as this will be the point where money is more important than the boat :captain:

Edited by pete harrison
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, pete harrison said:

It appears to me that there are two camps here, one looking for originality of design and the other being more accepting that a boat changes and develops with its owners desires along with the accepted engineering methods of the day.

I am in the second camp where these alterations and modifications form a part of the boat history, and as long as it looks about right and is strong then I can live with it. Clearly nobody will want to buy a boat that has alterations where time has taught us that these are flawed, unless the price reflects this - and of course anything can be put back to original design at a price. I really hope we do not move towards concourse as with the classic car world (in which I am also loosely involved) as this will be the point where money is more important than the boat :captain:

The daft thing about concours is that so many vehicles are in better condition than when they left the factory, and somewhat soulless because of the lack of character that the passing of time produces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BWM said:

The daft thing about concours is that so many vehicles are in better condition than when they left the factory, and somewhat soulless because of the lack of character that the passing of time produces.

And I am seeing this with boats now as so many have been heavily restored and their history erased. When I was a young man it was possible to identify a G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. motor by the dents in its counter but this is rarely the case now :captain:

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, roland elsdon said:

Thank you for that information Mr Harrison( and Mr djgoode) whilst I was aware yarwoods built boats both for independents and big fleets, she appears to have a bigger front deck than the average fmc boat coupled with that for cabin. My incorrect thought was she was a station boat with an added timber forecabin, or with the big deck cut back to fit it.

she is a pretty unusual boat then pretty much a custom build unlike the fleet boats

W.J. Yarwood and Sons Ltd., Northwich built five narrow boats for Midlands and Coast Canal Carriers Ltd., the first four were horse boats (THE) NORTH, MERCURY, LEO and TAURUS built in the mid / late 1920's followed by a one off motor ARIEL in 1935.

MERCURY and TAURUS still exist as horse boat / buttys whereas the others are all motors of one sort or another :captain:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

I thought Bournemouth was actually a Malcolm Braine "skirted" boat.  That is that the counter had been extended downwards, and a new uxter plate fitted lower than the original?

To me it seems unlikely it would also have had the draught reduced at the bottom of the hull as well, but I'm happy to be corrected if it was.

 

Being good friends with the current owner and previous owner I can confirm this to be so although not sure about the uxter plate.

Lovely boat and if she had been for sale around the time I bought PETRA I would have seriously considered buying her.

Keith

Edited by Steilsteven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BWM said:

I could have the name wrong, the one I was thinking of languished on eBay for a very long time-it may still be on there, I haven't checked! Was sure the information stated that it had been reduced in draft, a shame as it still retained its National engine. The pictures of the interior showed very little distance between gunwale and floor, more akin to a modern boat. 

Was it Bognor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pete harrison said:

It appears to me that there are two camps here, one looking for originality of design and the other being more accepting that a boat changes and develops with its owners desires along with the accepted engineering methods of the day.

I am in the second camp where these alterations and modifications form a part of the boat history, and as long as it looks about right and is strong then I can live with it. Clearly nobody will want to buy a boat that has alterations where time has taught us that these are flawed, unless the price reflects this - and of course anything can be put back to original design at a price. I really hope we do not move towards concourse as with the classic car world (in which I am also loosely involved) as this will be the point where money is more important than the boat :captain:

 

3 hours ago, pete harrison said:

And I am seeing this with boats now as so many have been heavily restored and their history erased. When I was a young man it was possible to identify a G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. motor by the dents in its counter but this is rarely the case now :captain:

I'm actually broadly in agreement with you Pete, and whilst I can admire the effort that has gone into some of the most "blinged" and polished boats, (Joshers more often than not?!?), I also am no great fan of seeing them more restored than they might normally ever have been in service.

However when it comes to having a hull sliced through at about waterline level, and then everything below that rebuilt more in the style of a modern leisure boat, I start to question whether you are looking at an evolving part of an historic boat's history, or a largely new boat that has managed to retain enough of the "above water" bits to still largely look the part.  That said I guess provided it has enough structural integrity the "largely new below water" boat is less likely to be an expensive money pit than one that still has 80 to 100 year old riveted seams much further down.

Specifically reducing the draught of a boat by deepening the counter or slicing several inches off the bottom may well make for a boat that is easier to take along some of the now much shallower canals, so of course you can argue "why not, it actually makes more sense than ploughing through with a moving draught of over 3 feet".

FWIW, I'm sure Flamingo still has the same dents in the counter it did in carrying service, albeit that a few may have been added since.  For reasons I have never fully got to the bottom of, Sickle on the other hand is probably on its fourth counter.  Even that has an identifiable dent, but I'm not going to own up to how I think it got there!

 

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.