Historic Boats for sale online

[Tam & Di]

The front end was converted into a tug for the (late in the case of Richard) Richard and Jane Bird of London IWA. That was back in 1982, the boat came to a rally at Mile End where we were exhibitors.

 

By us (mostly Tim Wood of course) when we had Adelaide Dock.

 

The HNBC are a bit out with their "10 years ago" aren't they.

 

We also took our 70' x 14'6" Trent barge Clinton up there, completely overhauled ready for our then new contract for carriage of grain Tilbury-Weybridge. A forum member recently sent me photos he'd taken at the time of Clinton plus a pair of our narrowboats.

 

Tam

Edited June 27, 2013 by Tam & Di

[johnthebridge]

I think it looks horribly awkward. Apart from what's already been said, it has no gunwhale step up from the counter, which in turn adds an extra couple of inches to the cabin side (making it look too tall) whilst at the same time making the hull sides appear too shallow in relation to the cabin height. There doesn't appear to be any kick up in the bottom guard around the counter, which makes the whole thing look as though it's dragging its arse. Compare that to the real motors pictured above. In addition, the engine hole slides are steel and hinged, rather than timber and sliding, and the red painted inner panel on the back of the cabin goes right to the counter top, rather than finish with a contrasting blue. This makes the cabin appear too tall. Each to his own of course. Who did it? I refuse to believe it's any of the established people like Harris, Kemp, Brinklow etc.

Edited June 28, 2013 by johnthebridge

[Derek R.]

I would take a guess at the customer wanted 'headroom' in his back cabin, and was not fussy over details. Same can be said of many vehicle restorations, though in other fields some changes are seen as improvements on the original. The restoration of historic narrow boats has become something of a rivet counters paradise. It doesn't look 'right', because we're most likely all channeled into 'original is best'. Even so, boats and their proportions are a very subjective thing, and if it doesn't 'look' right, the ship is spoilt for a h'aporth of tar, but in this case it's several squillion quids worth of steel.

 

An idea backed by lots of money doesn't necessarily produce the goods. Someone will love it though.

[MtB]

I think it looks horribly awkward. Apart from what's already been said, it has no gunwhale step up from the counter, which in turn adds an extra couple of inches to the cabin side (making it look too tall) whilst at the same time making the hull sides appear too shallow in relation to the cabin height. In addition, the engine hole slides are in steel and hinged, rather than slide. Each to his own of course. Who did it? I refuse to believe it's any of the established people like Harris, Kemp, Brinklow etc.

 

 

Barry Hawkins re-skinned the existing cabin, according to the ebay listing. So either the previous cabin was all wrong too, or he did more than re-skin it. Do we know who built the counter stern?

 

From the ebay listing:

 

"Rigal was purchased by ourselves 10 years ago as a unconverted working boat. She was re-bottomed 18 months later. Powered by Lister HA2 engine with a Blackstone gearbox, traditional rear boatman's cabin re-skinned with Epping Stove and full professional under cloth conversion by Barry Hawkins seven years ago."

 

MtB

[alan_fincher]

Well to be fair if it is 30 years old, then I don't think back that long ago that it was necessarily the norm in doing a "butty to motor" conversion that great effort was made to accurately replicate every detail of the equivalent motor.

 

There are a lot of "Grand Union" buttys with motor back ends on that are a lot less faithful to an original motor than this one, I'm sure, particularly on "Town" class boats where I can think of examples where the boat has been given an "over deep" counter, presumably to deliberately reduce the draught at the back end, and to try and produce a boat that is less likely to be dredging the bottom.

Certainly people like Malcolm Braine have done "motor conversions" in a manner that would not now be the case if someone like Simon Wain or Steve Priest was involved.

 

Not all "Stars" that have a completely new motor swim and counter are former buttys of course. We looked at possibly buying this one at one stage, originally a "motor", but where the original back end presumably got scrapped when it was the subject of a hire boat conversion in the 1960s, and acquired a transom type stern.

Link to "Chertsey" blog post for relaunching of "Enceladus"

 

Lovely boat now, but we couldn't quite convince ourselves that the maths made sense for us.

[johnthebridge]

 

 

Barry Hawkins re-skinned the existing cabin, according to the ebay listing. So either the previous cabin was all wrong too, or he did more than re-skin it. Do we know who built the counter stern?

 

From the ebay listing:

 

"Rigal was purchased by ourselves 10 years ago as a unconverted working boat. She was re-bottomed 18 months later. Powered by Lister HA2 engine with a Blackstone gearbox, traditional rear boatman's cabin re-skinned with Epping Stove and full professional under cloth conversion by Barry Hawkins seven years ago."

 

MtB

That would explain everything.

[alan_fincher]

 

Do we know who built the counter stern?

I'm assuming the stern is the one Tam is saying was done at Adelaide Dock about 30 years ago?

 

Or am I misunderstanding?

[johnthebridge]

I would take a guess at the customer wanted 'headroom' in his back cabin, and was not fussy over details. Same can be said of many vehicle restorations, though in other fields some changes are seen as improvements on the original. The restoration of historic narrow boats has become something of a rivet counters paradise. It doesn't look 'right', because we're most likely all channeled into 'original is best'. Even so, boats and their proportions are a very subjective thing, and if it doesn't 'look' right, the ship is spoilt for a h'aporth of tar, but in this case it's several squillion quids worth of steel.

 

An idea backed by lots of money doesn't necessarily produce the goods. Someone will love it though.

Agree with you Derek, but just don't paint it up in a pastiche form that pretends to be something it patently isn't and try and charge for it!

[Timleech]

Well to be fair if it is 30 years old, then I don't think back that long ago that it was necessarily the norm in doing a "butty to motor" conversion that great effort was made to accurately replicate every detail of the equivalent motor.

 

There are a lot of "Grand Union" buttys with motor back ends on that are a lot less faithful to an original motor than this one, I'm sure, particularly on "Town" class boats where I can think of examples where the boat has been given an "over deep" counter, presumably to deliberately reduce the draught at the back end, and to try and produce a boat that is less likely to be dredging the bottom.

 

 

I think the fact that it is painted up and generally presented as a 'working boat' draws attention to the inaccuracies. If it looked like a pleasure boat conversion and didn't have the GUCCC signwriting people wouldn't be quite so bothered. Also the ad makes no reference to the fact that it's only part of a small Woolwich.

 

Tim

[alan_fincher]

I would take a guess at the customer wanted 'headroom' in his back cabin, and was not fussy over details. Same can be said of many vehicle restorations, though in other fields some changes are seen as improvements on the original. The restoration of historic narrow boats has become something of a rivet counters paradise. It doesn't look 'right', because we're most likely all channeled into 'original is best'.

 

Several of the narrow gauge locomotives operating on Welsh lines have had modifications to increase cab heights so that you don't have to be such a stooping midget to operate them without suffering permanent spinal damage.

 

I can recall total outrage when this was done to locos on the Vale of Rheidol railway, soon after it went into private ownership. In fact, over time, you tend not to notice.

 

Similarly a lot of the biggest preserved steam locos allowed out on Network Rail metals have had their heights reduced by several inches, by the cutting down of cabs, domes or chimneys, so that they can operate under overhead electrification.

 

I guess why we think narrow boats with "non standard" cabins look odd, is because they sit alongside examples that are more or less the correct proportions, (totally correct proportions, where an original cabin survives, of course!).

[MtB]

Agree with you Derek, but just don't paint it up in a pastiche form that pretends to be something it patently isn't and try and charge for it!

 

Indeed. The sellers say in the advert "Rigal was purchased by ourselves 10 years ago as a unconverted working boat",

 

So either they genuinely believe they bought a complete and original un-fiddled-with boat in the first place, or they know it is only half of the original Regas and are stretching the truth in their advert!

 

MtB

[Athy]

JTB raises an interesting point when he mentions that the side doors of trad engine rooms slid, rather than hinged, open. I had never realised this. Was it always true?

[alan_fincher]

 

Indeed. The sellers say in the advert "Rigal was purchased by ourselves 10 years ago as a unconverted working boat",

 

So either they genuinely believe they bought a complete and original un-fiddled-with boat in the first place, or they know it is only half of the original Regas and are stretching the truth in their advert!

 

MtB

Well not really?

 

If it was bought in the form of a butty converted to a motor, and without a cabin conversion on, it was both "unconverted" and "working boat".

 

I feel sure they must know what they have, and that the back end exists as a different boat, but I don't think it is a deliberate attempt to deceive.

[Timleech]

JTB raises an interesting point when he mentions that the side doors of trad engine rooms slid, rather than hinged, open. I had never realised this. Was it always true?

 

It's the slides (on top) which slide, the doors are hinged in the normal way.

 

Did the Severners have sliding doors somewhere? An idea that has lodged somewhere in my mind

Well not really?

 

If it was bought in the form of a butty converted to a motor, and without a cabin conversion on, it was both "unconverted" and "working boat".

 

I feel sure they must know what they have, and that the back end exists as a different boat, but I don't think it is a deliberate attempt to deceive.

 

Converted and unconverted at the same time

 

Maybe economical with the actualité?

 

I'm sure a potential buyer would learn the facts at some stage before parting with their money, unless very naive.

 

Tim

Edited June 28, 2013 by Timleech

[Ray T]

A clue as to why it "May not look right" - look at the size and shape of cabin doors.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Ray T

[Black Ibis]

 

It's the slides (on top) which slide, the doors are hinged in the normal way.

 

Did the Severners have sliding doors somewhere? An idea that has lodged somewhere in my mind

 

Converted and unconverted at the same time

 

Maybe economical with the actualité?

 

I'm sure a potential buyer would learn the facts at some stage before parting with their money, unless very naive.

 

Tim

 

Severners didn't have engine room doors - the engine being right at the stern, the back cabin doors provided the engine ventilation. They did have hatches (not sliding ones though) in the cabin tops, but these were for access to the accommodation when the hold was full rather than to ventilate the engine room.

 

 

I suspect that regarding these details, and authenticity, most people just don't care! It's only a select group of rivet counters who would even notice.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Black Ibis

[RLWP]

I suspect that regarding these details, and authenticity, most people just don't care! It's only a select group of rivet counters who would even notice.

 

This is a good point, and supports my 'every old boat is rubbish but mine' theory

 

She's half a butty with a posh back end painted up pretty. That's what you are buying

 

Richard

[MtB]

 

This is a good point, and supports my 'every old boat is rubbish but mine' theory

 

She's half a butty with a posh back end painted up pretty. That's what you are buying

 

Richard

 

Bit like REGINALD then. Except Reg is not posh!

 

 

MtB

[Paul H]

I thought some of you might be interested in how Rigal looked in the 1980s when owned by the subsequent owners to Richard Bird:Jeremy and Zita Clapham (now Mrs Speight). Rigal was about 60ft at the time I think and Jeremy later had her lengthened by Roger Fuller.

 

I remember thinking Rigal was drop dead gorgeous - as IIRC was Mrs C.!

 

 

Paul

[Mike Tee]

Its all personal preference, but I reckon Rigal looked better then at 60' than it does now. Somehow it looks more 'balanced'.

[alan_fincher]

I thought some of you might be interested in how Rigal looked in the 1980s when owned by the subsequent owners to Richard Bird:Jeremy and Zita Clapham (now Mrs Speight). Rigal was about 60ft at the time I think and Jeremy later had her lengthened by Roger Fuller.

 

I remember thinking Rigal was drop dead gorgeous - as IIRC was Mrs C.!

 

 

Paul

 

Well from that angle at least it looks a whole lot better to me, although tou would need to see it more from the back.

 

But (apart from the obvious 10 foot of hull length), how much of the cabin is the same / different?

 

In it's 60 foot "tug" guise there is no obvious separation of the engine room with a riveted or bolted on roof I can see.

 

So is it broadly still the same top, or different?

[pete harrison]

JTB raises an interesting point when he mentions that the side doors of trad engine rooms slid, rather than hinged, open. I had never realised this. Was it always true?

deleted as I miss-read the above posting

Edited June 28, 2013 by pete harrison

[Athy]

 

Well from that angle at least it looks a whole lot better to me, although tou would need to see it more from the back.

 

Ah, a true connoisseur of fine lines.

And what about the boat?

[Timleech]

 

Well from that angle at least it looks a whole lot better to me, although tou would need to see it more from the back.

 

 

I think it probably looks better, at least in part, because it's not pretending to be something it's not (ie a GUCCC small Woolwich motor boat).

It's a 'tug style' pleasure boat, using bits of an old hull.

 

Tim

[alan_fincher]

 

I think it probably looks better, at least in part, because it's not pretending to be something it's not (ie a GUCCC small Woolwich motor boat).

It's a 'tug style' pleasure boat, using bits of an old hull.

 

Tim

Yes, I think I agree!

 

Looks OK like that, I think - I'd give it a home!