Relative Values Of Historic Boats With A Conversion on?

[carlt]

Relative Values Of Historic Boats With A Conversion on?

1) Former long distance carrying motor boat, such as a "Grand Union" or a "Josher".

I'd sell the wife kids and dogs for one.

2) A boat similar to above, but converted from a former un-powered butty of an otherwise similar type, and with a "modern" back end on.

I'd keep the dogs but throw in my granny to sweeten the deal.

3) A working boat type for which there was never actually a "motor" version, the type having been intended to to be horse drawn. This might be a "Station" boat, or a "Joey" with quite nice lines like a "Bantock".

Only worth a half cousin or maybe a great aunt.

[mark99]

Well I wouldnt sell it for anything less than 90 to 100k (at the moment) as I really wish to live on it for a while, perhaps even raise a family which would be nice

 

And Malvern is greatly reduced, I was very tempted - its a lovely boat.

I'm moored very close to this boat and it attracts my eye everytime I pass her on the way out of Harefield.

[FadeToScarlet]

Sell Chalice, buy Cam, tow it around with Sickle. Job done!

 

(yes, I like welded boats with corrugated sides and blunt fore ends)

 

Whilst we were looking at converted butties, Joey boats, etc., we really wanted a motor.

 

To me, seeing a butty with hydraulic drive going along is like seeing a caravan with no car- it just looks odd to me.

[Rufford]

Sell Chalice, buy Cam, tow it around with Sickle. Job done!

 

(yes, I like welded boats with corrugated sides and blunt fore ends)

 

Whilst we were looking at converted butties, Joey boats, etc., we really wanted a motor.

 

To me, seeing a butty with hydraulic drive going along is like seeing a caravan with no car- it just looks odd to me.

 

Thats just it, there are some lovely butty's out there - but they just aint a motor are they?

[MtB]

Just noticed Malvern's been reducedto £47995. But of course, that's a type 2 as well!

http://www.apolloduck.co.uk/feature.phtml?id=301238

 

Yes, I wonder why ?

 

I reckon it's because of that godawful cratch cover grafted onto the front of it.

 

How to spoil the look of a boat, or what?!

 

 

MtB

[c c]

I don't know if this has come up recently and this is probably not the right thread to put it on but WILLIAM built 1931 by Yarwood W J & Sons Ltd, Northwich is for sale. I don't know the asking price.

[koukouvagia]

I don't know if this has come up recently and this is probably not the right thread to put it on but WILLIAM built 1931 by Yarwood W J & Sons Ltd, Northwich is for sale. I don't know the asking price.

£35K (see post #18)

[churchward]

Don't.

 

But even looking about now, at others, I still couldn't tell you what actually was a "fair" price, I think!

 

Yes, I wonder why ?

 

ETA

 

Looks a pretty attractive "Type 2" to me, (if we accept it is a "Josher"...) The Armstrongs are lovely engines, but I get the impression parts are like hens teeth.....

Armstrong engines are top draw I think engineering quality wise. They are in my view every bit as good if not better in that respect than the much vaunted Gardner. I agree parts may be a little harder to source but Gardner parts aren't that common these days either. Better sources will be in the truck and stationary engine circles I suspect.

 

If the engine is in any good condition I suspect in a narrowboat an armstrong will outlast you and I.

 

I am no expert on ex-working boat values with a conversion or withiout but from what I see about I would think up to £50K seems about right for good boat maybe a bit above for the more exceptional boats.

[stagedamager]

I agree, AS2's are cracking engines. Give me one any day!! Also if anyone knows of a marine bell housing for one anywhere I would be very interested!!

Dan

[Athy]

Gardner parts aren't that common these days either.

[quote

That's the second time I've read that on the forum in the last few weeks. Readily available from the remains of the once-mighty Gardner firm, called - yes you've guessed - Gardner Parts. I don't think they carry parts for models earlier than the LWs though.

[churchward]

That's the second time I've read that on the forum in the last few weeks. Readily available from the remains of the once-mighty Gardner firm, called - yes you've guessed - Gardner Parts. I don't think they carry parts for models earlier than the LWs though.

not everything though. There are components that are harder to source for some engines. I know of some folk who have struggled. not in the ones usually found in narrowboats though. The parts on offer from those guys can be rather eye watering on the expense front I beleive. Not that surprising though as some of the parts will be made in very small numbers if not one offs.

Edited September 30, 2013 by churchward

[alan_fincher]

It is no secret I think we are at least tentatively looking for a boat with working boat origins, but one already having a full cabin conversion.

 

Now there are not a lot of these about, but what are can be a whole range of things......

 

1) Former long distance carrying motor boat, such as a "Grand Union" or a "Josher".

2) A boat similar to above, but converted from a former un-powered butty of an otherwise similar type, and with a "modern" back end on.

3) A working boat type for which there was never actually a "motor" version, the type having been intended to to be horse drawn. This might be a "Station" boat, or a "Joey" with quite nice lines like a "Bantock".

 

...........................

Thanks for the thoughts, (even the humorous ones, but "Sickle" most definitely is not for sale, even at prices attracted by top of the range full length boats!).

 

We are obviously not as deterred by some posters, as I think we are currently mulling over one that is actually a "Type 1.5", (don't ask!), and one that classes as a lowly "Type 3", (and no that is not my old BCN boat "Kerbau" currently on e-Bay!).

 

Further thoughts are welcomed, although I fear we are anyway in danger of soon entering "heart wins over head" territory!.......

 

(Viewing old boats, even if only from an "it can't hurt to take a look" perspective is a very dangerous pastime - that's how we already came to own our "Type 0.6"....)

[FadeToScarlet]

Thanks for the thoughts, (even the humorous ones, but "Sickle" most definitely is not for sale, even at prices attracted by top of the range full length boats!).

We are obviously not as deterred by some posters, as I think we are currently mulling over one that is actually a "Type 1.5", (don't ask!), and one that classes as a lowly "Type 3", (and no that is not my old BCN boat "Kerbau" currently on e-Bay!).

Further thoughts are welcomed, although I fear we are anyway in danger of soon entering "heart wins over head" territory!.......

(Viewing old boats, even if only from an "it can't hurt to take a look" perspective is a very dangerous pastime - that's how we already came to own our "Type 0.6"....)

Does it have to be a motor? Seeing as Sickle is a perfect tug already.

 

That way, things like Cam and Barnes become interesting prospects.

[Fred_Smith]

Well written OP except the heading "historic" why on do people persist on using this term? So far the respondents have not favoued the use of the word. Stop using it, as it devalues the carrying era of the canals

[alan_fincher]

Does it have to be a motor? Seeing as Sickle is a perfect tug already.

 

That way, things like Cam and Barnes become interesting prospects.

Yes, it must be self-powered!

 

What we go boating in as a main "cruising" boat has to fit in a single lock. With just the two of us, and the aftermaths of my broken pelvis, we are neither skilled enough nor fit enough to work two boats through narrow lock flights, except periodically. (We do move "Sickle" and "Chalice" together, but are always a bit relieved to revert to just the one!...)

 

We'll compromise on 70 plus feet, and hence accept a boat that will not do Northern waterways, (a further excuse for keeping "Sickle"!).

 

I don't know much about either but both "Cam" and "Barnes" seemed remarkably over-priced to me, given they can't move themselves. I may be maligning them, but can't see many paying massively over "mid thirties" tops for a butty with a top on, however nicely done.

 

There is also the issue of where does the butty get its electric from - I wouldn't want a generator, either inbuilt or external, and umbilical cords from a motor wold be a pain, (and Sickle has very minimal generating capability anyway...).

Well written OP except the heading "historic" why on do people persist on using this term? So far the respondents have not favoued the use of the word. Stop using it, as it devalues the carrying era of the canals

 

Probably when they added "Historic" to their name, what has recently name changed again and become the Historic Narrow Boat Club have much to answer for in increasing the use of that term.

 

Personally I prefer it to "Working Boat", as that always brings out tose wh,o (rightly to some extent!), those who say "but it isn't, is it?"

 

I realise the mouthful "Former Working Boat" is a possible description.

 

Out of interest, though, why do you think "historic" used in this context "devalues the carrying era of the canals" - I can't immediately see why it does.

 

(I would also suggest that the respondents haven't needed to use the word after the original post, because we have by then established what kind of boats the thread is about).

[junior]

Depends on how many bodies Mr Fincher has buried under there

 

I think you may have just solved the mystery of the missing Chris Pink!!

[churchward]

Yes, it must be self-powered!

 

What we go boating in as a main "cruising" boat has to fit in a single lock. With just the two of us, and the aftermaths of my broken pelvis, we are neither skilled enough nor fit enough to work two boats through narrow lock flights, except periodically. (We do move "Sickle" and "Chalice" together, but are always a bit relieved to revert to just the one!...)

 

We'll compromise on 70 plus feet, and hence accept a boat that will not do Northern waterways, (a further excuse for keeping "Sickle"!).

 

I don't know much about either but both "Cam" and "Barnes" seemed remarkably over-priced to me, given they can't move themselves. I may be maligning them, but can't see many paying massively over "mid thirties" tops for a butty with a top on, however nicely done.

 

There is also the issue of where does the butty get its electric from - I wouldn't want a generator, either inbuilt or external, and umbilical cords from a motor wold be a pain, (and Sickle has very minimal generating capability anyway...).

 

Probably when they added "Historic" to their name, what has recently name changed again and become the Historic Narrow Boat Club have much to answer for in increasing the use of that term.

 

Personally I prefer it to "Working Boat", as that always brings out tose wh,o (rightly to some extent!), those who say "but it isn't, is it?"

 

I realise the mouthful "Former Working Boat" is a possible description.

 

Out of interest, though, why do you think "historic" used in this context "devalues the carrying era of the canals" - I can't immediately see why it does.

 

(I would also suggest that the respondents haven't needed to use the word after the original post, because we have by then established what kind of boats the thread is about).

Personally for what you seem to be after I would have thought "ex-working boat" is more accurate than historic. Historic would seem to me to have a wider inclusion. For example you might describe one of the early Frobisher Narrow boats as historic now.

 

In any case good luck with your search.

[alan_fincher]

Personally for what you seem to be after I would have thought "ex-working boat" is more accurate than historic. Historic would seem to me to have a wider inclusion. For example you might describe one of the early Frobisher Narrow boats as historic now.

Yes, kind of take the point, but certainly the term "working boat", (at least without "ex" or "former" added!), seems to often cause more dissent than "historic!".

 

If bored, I'll start a forum poll, to see what the majority prefer!

[MtB]

Yes, kind of take the point, but certainly the term "working boat", (at least without "ex" or "former" added!), seems to often cause more dissent than "historic!".

 

If bored, I'll start a forum poll, to see what the majority prefer!

 

Quite. Contemporary welded-steel ex-hire boats fit the description 'ex-working boats' pretty accurately, and I think the term 'historic boat' was dreamed up to exclude them when trying to classify a 50 year old narrowboat. Maybe 'old narrowboat' is the most accurate. Or 'vintage narrowboat'. Bit poncy though...

 

MtB

[magpie patrick]

Yes, kind of take the point, but certainly the term "working boat", (at least without "ex" or "former" added!), seems to often cause more dissent than "historic!".

 

If bored, I'll start a forum poll, to see what the majority prefer!

 

 

Inland Waterways Freight Group have got upset at the National when an historic boat has taken the prize for the best presented working boat, the feeling being that this should be reserved for a boat that is actually working.

 

I've never been part of the award, just present at heated debates (IWFG don't get as much say as you might think in this one)

[Athy]

I too have wondered about the use of that word. To me, "historic" means that it did something special rather than just being old.

To take an analogy from the railway world, 'City Of Truro' is a historic engine because it (allegedly) was the first to break the 100mph barrier. A Black Five is not historic. Vintage perhaps, old certainly, but not historic.

I realise that I'm on tricky, er, waters regarding boats. Would it be fair to say that the boats which did the last "Jam 'ole Run" in 1970 are historic because they participated in an event which was significant, being the end of an era, but that other similar boats are not "historic"? I don't see the term "vintage" used for a fine old boat, but I think it should be.

[alan_fincher]

Would it be fair to say that the boats which did the last "Jam 'ole Run" in 1970 are historic because they participated in an event which was significant, being the end of an era, but that other similar boats are not "historic"?

 

I can't see it that way.

 

The Kearley & Tongue coal traffic only lasted a very short while after other regular long distance coal traffic to mills in that area ended, I think, and there was still the shorter distance lime pulp traffic from Brentford to Boxmoor running on a fairly regular basis too, so you could for example argue that Arcas & Actis, Tadworth & Bakewell and Stanton and Bude are just as "historic" as the final "Jam 'Ole' pairs. I think the 'Jam Ole' attracts such attention because the boats were generally kept in fine form, and hence far more photographed, I would say. (Also their assosciation with Braunston Marina means Tim Coghlan is likely to contine to extract many column inches in magazines and books about them for years to come!....)

 

Tongue slightly in cheek, but out "Sickle" was in active work for BW, albeit as a tug and not carrying, about 30 years after any of the above, so actually had a working life that approaches twice as long as many of the boats built with her just before the war.

 

Now I guess something like "Columba", currently available for a brave buyer with a load of cash to flash, being one of John Knill's much written about boats, is more "historic" than anything else so far mentioned. I'm not brave enough though, nor do I want to flash that much cash!

 

As to your car analogy, I believe some terms like "VIntage" do actually have a set meaning, but get used about vehicles that don't strictly meet that set meaning, (although I'm no expert!). This would seem to endorse that.

To quote....

 

 

Veteran - officially a car made up to and including December 1918.

Vintage - officially a car made between 1919 and 1930. Although the term is often used to describe any car made before World War 2.

 

 

So officially most of the boats we are talking about would fail either of these tests, but if you allow the unofficial "before World war 2" definition, then "Sickle" and similarly aged boats would be unofficially "Vintage" but not "Veteran".

 

(Someone who knows these things will now say that I have not Googled a reliable source!)

[Ray T]

I suppose if "one" was getting pickey they could be called ex canal carrying Co cargo or work boats, depends on their function.

 

Interesting because I have not seen any of the preserved dredgers refered to as historic boats including ex BW ones as that title is now also confined to history.

 

Following on from the railway comment all I have seen and heard is railway locos being ex LMS, LNER, BR etc as apart from Tornado they could all be classed as historic.

 

Actually on reflection Tornado in its own way is also now historic, being the first loco built in the UK since Evening Star. (Before any pedants get involved I know the boiler was fabricated in Germany.)

Edited October 1, 2013 by Ray T

[Tuscan]

I reckon you should just by a Hudson and be done with it, we will all keep out of your way.

[Rufford]

Pick Historic, Classic or Vintage. Anything that adds value ;-)