Jump to content

Historic Boats for sale online


Featured Posts

3 hours ago, zenataomm said:

Yes I know.

However most canal boats that sink do so because of lack of attention.

I was amused at the image of someone in the 60s/70s looking at an under maintained long distance, wooden narrow boat and deciding .....

"You know, I appreciate this ancient boat which is mainly rotten and knackered is only worth buttons, however I really think we should deliberately sink it in order to preserve what timbers aren't already mushy.  We should do this in order to preserve it for future generations to restore and then pontificate in flowery language about it so they can sell it for thousands."  

Yeah right!

 

3 hours ago, David Mack said:

That's more or less what the Boat Museum at Ellesmere Port did!

 

IMGP3128.JPG

Edited by Ray T
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ray T said:

 

 

IMGP3128.JPG

Yes you're right, they did, and what a hash they made of it.

However that wasn't in the 60s/70s and neither were they trying to flower up an advert the same way a brewery writes a pub grub menu.

A generous portion of locally owned boat, carefully crafted from an original professionally created 100ft working boat. 

Generously drenched in bitumen and embellished with just a hint of blue paint ......

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 02/04/2020 at 12:15, magnetman said:

3rd party insurance does not require a survey as it's on a self-declaration basis. 

 

So if boat sinks and loss adjuster decides it was not sound then you as owner are responsible for the wreck removal. 

 

At least this allows you to get a license which is the aim of the game. 

 

BSS does not seem to me to be too arduous for a butty. 

 

 

 

 

Bss on a butty we never had any trouble, worst we had to deal with was back cabin stove, no gas no electricity, no oil, no engine, the stove and that was it. There wasn't anything to fail on

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 21/03/2020 at 07:23, Halsey said:

"Princess Anne" is now open to offers - this is a really great and very well maintained boat - if its your "bag" then something with a "4" in front would probably secure it...……………...

 

On 21/03/2020 at 09:24, Mike Tee said:

Now on the ‘duck’ for £42k

 

On 21/03/2020 at 17:42, zenataomm said:

Having lived with a couple of composite hulls, it's the only thing that'd turn me off ..... 

 

No matter how good vegetable bottoms are you never get out of the habit of sleeping with one arm hanging over.

 

On 22/03/2020 at 18:29, roland elsdon said:

My experience of elm bottomed boats was that they leaked for a lot of reasons , but that once settled the maintenance  was more about the fight they had with the steel sides. 
Having said that the front board on our boat was 50 years old, and eventually i pretty much spooned it out of the shoe plate.

steel bolts rotting, keelson falling apart...…………………………………….After 14 years we replaced with steel.

I think it worth pointing out that the vast majority of the wooden bottom in PRINCESS ANNE is almost new, being fitted by Brinklow Boat services only a few years ago. This bottom was replaced from the fore end to the engine room, as well as several under the back cabin / engine room with only a few older but perfectly serviceable bottom boards remaining in place. This bottom is made of opepe and will outlast most steel bottoms of a similar age so really is not a negative point, especially on a boat being used for pleasure. I took a look at this bottom a couple of months ago when it was on the dock at Brinklow and it looked very good. PRINCESS ANNE represents remarkable value to my mind and really ought to be snapped up as just about everything has been done (at great expense), let alone it being a boat with a very strong history.

 

It is a tragedy that almost every composite 'historic' boat has been re-bottomed in steel, and that today's 'enthusiasts' reject a wooden bottom based upon the hearsay of those who know no better or the memories of soggy life expired 1950's elm bottoms of the past. Foreign woods have transformed this situation, and improved construction practice combined with modern adhesives and sealants mean that wooden bottoms, cabins, gunwales, cants, decks e.t.c. can and should be preserved - the alternative is that 'historic' boats will become modern welded steel pleasure boats that only give the outward appearance of being something that they are not :captain:

 

edit - I have deliberately placed this into two separate threads as I think boats with new / fairly new bottoms of foreign wood (opepe) are getting unnecessary bad press. So many potential owners / enthusiasts do not seem to understand that a new wooden bottom should outlast a steel bottom of the same age with the same level of maintenance.

Edited by pete harrison
  • Greenie 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a huge difference between a time expired  Butty with a wooden bottom with a rotten keelson, and riveted thin footings, that had spent years, as a tube storage boat, before having an undercloth conversion on, which is what we had at the start, and Princes Anne, which has had a new wooden bottom, and steelwork treatment. 
If I didn’t have what I have I’d buy her like a shot. I suspect she will only need basic maintenance for years.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, pete harrison said:

 

 

 

I think it worth pointing out that the vast majority of the wooden bottom in PRINCESS ANNE is almost new, being fitted by Brinklow Boat services only a few years ago. This bottom was replaced from the fore end to the engine room, as well as several under the back cabin / engine room with only a few older but perfectly serviceable bottom boards remaining in place. This bottom is made of opepe and will outlast most steel bottoms of a similar age so really is not a negative point, especially on a boat being used for pleasure. I took a look at this bottom a couple of months ago when it was on the dock at Brinklow and it looked very good. PRINCESS ANNE represents remarkable value to my mind and really ought to be snapped up as just about everything has been done (at great expense), let alone it being a boat with a very strong history.

 

It is a tragedy that almost every composite 'historic' boat has been re-bottomed in steel, and that today's 'enthusiasts' reject a wooden bottom based upon the hearsay of those who know no better or the memories of soggy life expired 1950's elm bottoms of the past. Foreign woods have transformed this situation, and improved construction practice combined with modern adhesives and sealants mean that wooden bottoms, cabins, gunwales, cants, decks e.t.c. can and should be preserved - the alternative is that 'historic' boats will become modern welded steel pleasure boats that only give the outward appearance of being something that they are not :captain:

 

edit - I have deliberately placed this into two separate threads as I think boats with new / fairly new bottoms of foreign wood (opepe) are getting unnecessary bad press. So many potential owners / enthusiasts do not seem to understand that a new wooden bottom should outlast a steel bottom of the same age with the same level of maintenance.

Well said Pete,

 

I had intended to make the same point myself this evening, you beat me to it.

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, pete harrison said:

It is a tragedy that almost every composite 'historic' boat has been re-bottomed in steel, and that today's 'enthusiasts' reject a wooden bottom based upon the hearsay of those who know no better or the memories of soggy life expired 1950's elm bottoms of the past.

Although I didn't re-bottom either of my composite boats, I can understand why the new owners did.  

Mainly it met their various needs from dry bilges to the need to build extensive lift able floors and how that affects fixtures and bulkheads.

One of my boats had been totally re-bottomed in the late 70s early 80s in 3" Elm, and every two years I lay underneath much longer than I spent blacking the sides. The comment above leaves out one very relevant fact. In the late 60s a new, far more virulent, strain of Dutch Elm Disease arrived in Britain, within 10 years it had conquered all but the most extreme areas of Scotland.

Good quality Elm was hard to obtain and expensive.  

Alternatives like Opepe or Iroko may have been acceptable I don't know, the previous owners made that decision, all I know is what I had.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, pete harrison said:

 

 

 

I think it worth pointing out that the vast majority of the wooden bottom in PRINCESS ANNE is almost new, being fitted by Brinklow Boat services only a few years ago. This bottom was replaced from the fore end to the engine room, as well as several under the back cabin / engine room with only a few older but perfectly serviceable bottom boards remaining in place. This bottom is made of opepe and will outlast most steel bottoms of a similar age so really is not a negative point, especially on a boat being used for pleasure. I took a look at this bottom a couple of months ago when it was on the dock at Brinklow and it looked very good. PRINCESS ANNE represents remarkable value to my mind and really ought to be snapped up as just about everything has been done (at great expense), let alone it being a boat with a very strong history.

 

It is a tragedy that almost every composite 'historic' boat has been re-bottomed in steel, and that today's 'enthusiasts' reject a wooden bottom based upon the hearsay of those who know no better or the memories of soggy life expired 1950's elm bottoms of the past. Foreign woods have transformed this situation, and improved construction practice combined with modern adhesives and sealants mean that wooden bottoms, cabins, gunwales, cants, decks e.t.c. can and should be preserved - the alternative is that 'historic' boats will become modern welded steel pleasure boats that only give the outward appearance of being something that they are not :captain:

 

edit - I have deliberately placed this into two separate threads as I think boats with new / fairly new bottoms of foreign wood (opepe) are getting unnecessary bad press. So many potential owners / enthusiasts do not seem to understand that a new wooden bottom should outlast a steel bottom of the same age with the same level of maintenance.

Thank you! At last a well informed intelligent perspective on wood in narrowboat construction.

 

"Vegetable bottoms'.....honestly!

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, pete harrison said:

 

It is a tragedy that almost every composite 'historic' boat has been re-bottomed in steel, and that today's 'enthusiasts' reject a wooden bottom based upon the hearsay of those who know no better or the memories of soggy life expired 1950's elm bottoms of the past. Foreign woods have transformed this situation, and improved construction practice combined with modern adhesives and sealants mean that wooden bottoms, cabins, gunwales, cants, decks e.t.c. can and should be preserved - the alternative is that 'historic' boats will become modern welded steel pleasure boats that only give the outward appearance of being something that they are not :captain:

So if they're constructed using completely different materials - different timber, modern adhesives and sealants - in what sense are they still historic? And if you're going to accept this level of 21st century intrusion, then why not a steel bottom which would have been a perfectly possible alternative way of building the boat in the first place, firmly early twentieth century technology.

 

Just wondering. :)

Edited by Paddle
  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a few steel bottomed boats and am well aware of the maintenance etc that is required. With the wooden bottomed Princess Anne, Pete Harrison mentioned in another thread that only regular basic routine maintenance every couple of years would be required. What exactly is this maintenance? I have visions of spending hours laying on my back caulking many yards of  (small) gaps between the timbers, which would mean, at the very least, finding a yard with hardstanding to be able to raise the boat enough to safely get underneath. If so, I'd have thought it would be relatively more expensive, particularly in time, than maintaining steel which can stretch to 3-4 years for regular blacking, and even longer with the more exotic stuff - and it is a lot easier to roll on a few coats of blacking rather than the caulking route. (I hasten to add I absolutely love  Princess Anne - the boat that is, never met the other one - and am not trying to do it down in any way, just a genuine interest on what a wooden bottom in modern wood would need on a regular basis.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mike Tee said:

I've had a few steel bottomed boats and am well aware of the maintenance etc that is required. With the wooden bottomed Princess Anne, Pete Harrison mentioned in another thread that only regular basic routine maintenance every couple of years would be required. What exactly is this maintenance? I have visions of spending hours laying on my back caulking many yards of  (small) gaps between the timbers, which would mean, at the very least, finding a yard with hardstanding to be able to raise the boat enough to safely get underneath. If so, I'd have thought it would be relatively more expensive, particularly in time, than maintaining steel which can stretch to 3-4 years for regular blacking, and even longer with the more exotic stuff - and it is a lot easier to roll on a few coats of blacking rather than the caulking route. (I hasten to add I absolutely love  Princess Anne - the boat that is, never met the other one - and am not trying to do it down in any way, just a genuine interest on what a wooden bottom in modern wood would need on a regular basis.)

As I have said the maintenance of a recently fitted opepe wooden bottom is equivalent to a steel bottom, but they require different things that offset one another:

 

keep the bottom clean, especially behind the knee bends - this is the same for wood or steel bottoms.

 

dock every couple of years for inspection - this is the same for wood or steel bottoms - wooden bottoms will be inspect overall condition, inspect shoe plating and inspect caulking and bottom bolts whereas steel boats will be inspect overall condition - inspect sacrificial edge of base plate - inspect for excessive rust / pitting.

 

repair as required - wooden bottom requires no paint - caulk bottom seams as required - ensure shoe plating and bottom bolts secure and replace / renew as required whereas steel bottom requires removal of corrosion, repairs to sacrificial edge of base plate, weld infill of excessive pitting, prime and paint with several coatings of choice.

 

Sufficiently elevated plinths will be required to carry out a good quality docking to the bottom of a wooden boat or steel boat - so no difference, and both will require somebody spending several hours laying on their back whether you do this work yourself or chose to have this work done by a boatyard.

 

On balance these seem pretty much the same to me, but again I am not writing about soggy old elm bottoms that are life expired and often the subject of memory or conversation on this Forum :captain:

Edited by pete harrison
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paddle said:

So if they're constructed using completely different materials - different timber, modern adhesives and sealants - in what sense are they still historic? And if you're going to accept this level of 21st century intrusion, then why not a steel bottom which would have been a perfectly possible alternative way of building the boat in the first place, firmly early twentieth century technology.

 

Just wondering. :)

Oak and elm were used back in the day as they were in plentiful supply in the UK, but that does not mean that they were the best that nature provides. The world is a much smaller place now and foreign wood has been proven to be both suitable and accessible (sustainable is another question), both of which allows the overall fabric and design philosophy of these boats to be maintained, whilst our native source of suitable timber has reduced considerably.

 

21st century intrusion is fine by me if it allows a wooden cabin not to leak, and I lived in a leaky wooden back cabin for several years (Company owned boat). Again these adhesives and sealants allow the overall fabric and design philosophy of these boats to be maintained whilst also providing the opportunity for the cabin e.t.c. to be robust. 

 

Replacing wood for steel has become such common practice that the few remaining boats that are as true to their design as reasonably practical should be cherished and not seen as second rate :captain:

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pete harrison said:

Oak and elm were used back in the day as they were in plentiful supply in the UK, but that does not mean that they were the best that nature provides. The world is a much smaller place now and foreign wood has been proven to be both suitable and accessible (sustainable is another question), both of which allows the overall fabric and design philosophy of these boats to be maintained, whilst our native source of suitable timber has reduced considerably.

 

21st century intrusion is fine by me if it allows a wooden cabin not to leak, and I lived in a leaky wooden back cabin for several years (Company owned boat). Again these adhesives and sealants allow the overall fabric and design philosophy of these boats to be maintained whilst also providing the opportunity for the cabin e.t.c. to be robust. 

 

Replacing wood for steel has become such common practice that the few remaining boats that are as true to their design as reasonably practical should be cherished and not seen as second rate :captain:

Of course we mustn't forget that BTW started the trend of replacing wooden bottoms with steel...….(eg Asterope, Achilles)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, archie57 said:

Of course we mustn't forget that BTW started the trend of replacing wooden bottoms with steel...….(eg Asterope, Achilles)

As did Willow Wren Canal Carrying Company Ltd. at about the same time :captain:

 

edit = I would like to be clear that I have no problem with composite boats that have been re-bottomed in steel, and to a large extent I understand why it has been done over the years. I do however have a problem when the few composite boats that still have wooden bottoms are seen as inferior, especially those that have been professionally re-bottomed in recent years with opepe or similar. 

Edited by pete harrison
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/05/2020 at 14:54, pete harrison said:

21st century intrusion is fine by me if it allows a wooden cabin not to leak, and I lived in a leaky wooden back cabin for several years (Company owned boat). Again these adhesives and sealants allow the overall fabric and design philosophy of these boats to be maintained whilst also providing the opportunity for the cabin e.t.c. to be robust. 

I know I know. Yet... show me a single 1930s boatman who wouldn't have replaced his Bolinder with a 21st century Yamaha. Never sulks; never gets cold going down a flight; starts straight away; doesn't stall when you're trying to put it into reverse etc. The overall design philosophy of the boat is maintained (after all engines were swapped the entire time, that shiny Bolinder itself replacing a Kromhout) whilst also providing the opportunity to be robust... And much less a fundamental change than using foreign timber for the entire 71' length of the boat? 

 

Not trying to argue. Just going round in circles!

Edited by Paddle
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a real pity that some of the old wooden bottomed boats can't be Grade II listed (suggested a bit tongue-in-cheek, because the inspector would insist on elm rather than more modern stuff which would be a bit of a problem)..............(unless Pete Harrison could be elected chief inspector!!!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike Tee said:

Its a real pity that some of the old wooden bottomed boats can't be Grade II listed (suggested a bit tongue-in-cheek, because the inspector would insist on elm rather than more modern stuff which would be a bit of a problem)..............(unless Pete Harrison could be elected chief inspector!!!)

Well we had more than a few grade two listings with our composite boat over years...

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Paddle said:

I know I know. Yet... show me a single 1930s boatman who wouldn't have replaced his Bolinder with a 21st century Yamaha. Never sulks; never gets cold going down a flight; starts straight away; doesn't stall when you're trying to put it into reverse etc. The overall design philosophy of the boat is maintained (after all engines were swapped the entire time, that shiny Bolinder itself replacing a Kromhout) whilst also providing the opportunity to be robust... And much less a fundamental change than using foreign timber for the entire 71' length of the boat? 

 

Not trying to argue. Just going round in circles!

My German boatman friend certainly liked his modern engine, but just wished it sounded like the older slow-running type.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pluto said:

My German boatman friend certainly liked his modern engine, but just wished it sounded like the older slow-running type.

I remember the "baby Sulzers" going up the Rhine at night passing Boppard.  A constant stream of type 2s, or class 25 in modern parlance!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/05/2020 at 16:16, Paddle said:

I know I know. Yet... show me a single 1930s boatman who wouldn't have replaced his Bolinder with a 21st century Yamaha. Never sulks; never gets cold going down a flight; starts straight away; doesn't stall when you're trying to put it into reverse etc. The overall design philosophy of the boat is maintained (after all engines were swapped the entire time, that shiny Bolinder itself replacing a Kromhout) whilst also providing the opportunity to be robust... And much less a fundamental change than using foreign timber for the entire 71' length of the boat? 

 

Not trying to argue. Just going round in circles!

You are losing me now, but I suppose it depends on how big or small the circles are that you are going around in !

 

If it makes you feel better my large Northwich motor has a welded steel bottom and footings dating to 2003, a welded steel engine room dating to 1969 and a welded steel cabin dating to 1979ish. It also has a 1995 three cylinder diesel engine (but of an oldish design) with a PRM gearbox. We have recently removed a steel undercloth cabin conversion to return the boat to cloths, and in the process removed steel gunwales around the hold and replaced them with wood (iroko not oak).

 

The other thing here is that I am not hiding behind a pseudonym, making me personally accountable for my input on this Forum. I will not be adding any further to this particular topic until you reveal your identity as I am wondering if you are 'trolling' :captain:

 

edit - one way or another I know most of the pseudonym's real identities on here, or at least those that I deal with long term.

Edited by pete harrison
  • Greenie 2
Link to post
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.