Large, Med and Small Woolwich/Northwich

[alan_fincher]

 

................. and they generally behave pretty well if the outer edges of the uxter are just touching the water when static.

 

Tim

 

So far, experience with "Sickle" has shown she is much easier to handle with an inch or so between uxter and water when static.

 

This may of course differ if it is not a cut down boat, but with "Sickle" when we added more ballast at the back to bring the uxter fully on to the water it meant she was bouncing over rubble in many bridge holes that normally she passes through without too much protest. Mind you with uxter on the water we might do better in the Ricky tug of war!

[furnessvale]

 

So far, experience with "Sickle" has shown she is much easier to handle with an inch or so between uxter and water when static.

 

This may of course differ if it is not a cut down boat, but with "Sickle" when we added more ballast at the back to bring the uxter fully on to the water it meant she was bouncing over rubble in many bridge holes that normally she passes through without too much protest. Mind you with uxter on the water we might do better in the Ricky tug of war!

Just take on more crew for the event! Years ago at Nottingham, I was "extra" crew (with a dozen others) when Glyn on Aquarius won the ToW with his newly fitted JP3.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Timleech]

 

So far, experience with "Sickle" has shown she is much easier to handle with an inch or so between uxter and water when static.

 

This may of course differ if it is not a cut down boat, but with "Sickle" when we added more ballast at the back to bring the uxter fully on to the water it meant she was bouncing over rubble in many bridge holes that normally she passes through without too much protest. Mind you with uxter on the water we might do better in the Ricky tug of war!

 

Being shorter, it probably pulls down more when under way. By 'behaviour' I was referring more to reliable starting and stopping, and comfortable steering.

The higher you lift the counter, the less reliable stopping will be.

 

Tim

[Timleech]

No idea what happened there!

 

Tried a long post, but nothing has gone in to it, and I now can't edit. I'll try again!

 

 

 

This is TOTALLY bizarre, Tim! You can clearly see the post that I thought I made, but which to me looks blank, and I'm unable to even edit. How very odd!

 

I've done another now, because I though it was lost.

 

 

I can still see the original!

 

Tim

[alan_fincher]

 

 

I can still see the original!

 

Tim

So can I now.

 

I'll leave both posts, or it will make even less sense!

 

Being shorter, it probably pulls down more when under way. By 'behaviour' I was referring more to reliable starting and stopping, and comfortable steering.

The higher you lift the counter, the less reliable stopping will be.

 

Tim

 

Yes, I agree with all of that.

 

I had the pleasure of a couple of days steering "Chertsey" last year, and the uxter was I guess out of the water by at least 4 inches. A little slow to actually get going, but fine when underway. However stopping was definitely not a strong point.

 

I find a full length boat far more compliant than "Sickle", particularly if reversing. "Sickle" is frankly not that "easy" a boat, if I'm honest.

[Pluto]

 

So far, experience with "Sickle" has shown she is much easier to handle with an inch or so between uxter and water when static.

 

This may of course differ if it is not a cut down boat, but with "Sickle" when we added more ballast at the back to bring the uxter fully on to the water it meant she was bouncing over rubble in many bridge holes that normally she passes through without too much protest. Mind you with uxter on the water we might do better in the Ricky tug of war!

When I worked with Charlie Atkins on Lapwing, he would knock it out of gear as soon as the bow entered a bridge hole, the wash then caught up with the stern, raising it such that, in effect, you were going downhill out of the bridge hole. Not only was it quicker, but it also stopped you dragging the bottom in shallow bridge holes. When living on the Bridgewater side of Preston Brook tunnel, he also used to insist that I came with him when he went for water. His eyesight was certainly not as good as it used to be, which was his explanation, but I suspect it was more likely that he wanted a little extra ballast to get the counter down.

[Timleech]

When I worked with Charlie Atkins on Lapwing, he would knock it out of gear as soon as the bow entered a bridge hole, the wash then caught up with the stern, raising it such that, in effect, you were going downhill out of the bridge hole. Not only was it quicker, but it also stopped you dragging the bottom in shallow bridge holes. When living on the Bridgewater side of Preston Brook tunnel, he also used to insist that I came with him when he went for water. His eyesight was certainly not as good as it used to be, which was his explanation, but I suspect it was more likely that he wanted a little extra ballast to get the counter down.

 

I just wrote a reply based on the assumption that you were still talking about Lapwing tor the last bit, but then realised you must have meant Mendip which makes much more sense.

Lapwing was well ballasted and didn't need any extra.

 

Tim

[David Mack]

The figures quoted by Alan would apear to be internal hold dimensions rather than draft, but are routinely (mis)quoted as draft by some people who wish to over exagerate the proportions, and consequent navigational difficulties of their former working boats.

 

Looking at a copy of the original GUCCC drawings, the depth from the top of the gunnel to the underside of the base plate is quoted as 4ft 3ins, with a distance of 3ft 1in from the underside of the uxter plate to the bottom of the skeg. This means that any loaded boat drawing 4ft 2ins would only have one inch freeboard, which even the most adventurous boatman would find challenging! In reality the GUCCC "small" boats drew about 3ft 9ins. when fully laden, and something like 3ft when running empty.

The Large Northwich drawing I have quoutes a moulded hull depth of 4 ft 6 1/4 in. This is measured from the top of the gunwale angle to the bottom of the frames i.e excluding the thickness of the bottom plate. The overall depth, from top of the wooden gunwale plank to the underside of the bottom is given as 4 ft 9 in.

[Tam & Di]

When I worked with Charlie Atkins on Lapwing, he would knock it out of gear as soon as the bow entered a bridge hole, the wash then caught up with the stern, raising it such that, in effect, you were going downhill out of the bridge hole. Not only was it quicker, but it also stopped you dragging the bottom in shallow bridge holes.

 

I used to do much the same - I just wound the power right off abruptly as the fore end entered the bridge hole, though I didn't actually go out of gear. With a loaded butty, especially on a snatcher on short pounds, you could see how well that worked as the line barely dipped, whereas if you tried to just motor through without knocking the power off the butty would nigh on catch the motor. It also meant you picked up far less crud, as you say. I actually worked it out for myself, but I guess it was a thing all boatmen did.

 

Tam

Edited February 4, 2014 by Tam & Di

[alan_fincher]

The Large Northwich drawing I have quoutes a moulded hull depth of 4 ft 6 1/4 in.

 

Might have expected you to have the Large Woolwich drawing!

[Tuscan]

I also knock into neutral as the bow enters in the bridge hole, I've learnt the hard way many years ago that not to was to get a blade full . I also got a large woolwich drawing of the net a few years ago.

[David Schweizer]

I have never heard any owner of an (ex)working boat make such a claim and they would get short shrift from other (ex)working boat owners if they did.

 

You are, of course, referring to small boats. A large boat would have 6" more freeboard.

 

A large Woolwich draws 2'10" counter on when empty, at least Alton does.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

I am sure you are right George but, as you have already acknowledged, they would know that another owner would know they were talking rubbish.

 

No names, but unfortunately there is a small minority of people operating ex working boats who continue to spread myth about the draft of their boat. I have been "told" on more than one occassion by a crew member of an ex-working boat they "they" need the deep water because they are drawing nearly 4ft. I of course know this is rubbish as our boat draws just over 3ft underway and we are usually very close, if not on, the bottom. We also need to be close to the middle on shallow canals. But they are apparently insufficiently knowledgeable or observant to recognise a deep drafted narrowboat, unless it was built for commercial carrying.

Edited February 4, 2014 by David Schweizer

[Athy]

It's an interesting technique, and the explanations of it make sense. So should all boats change into neutral when going through bridges?

[Rob-M]

It's an interesting technique, and the explanations of it make sense. So should all boats change into neutral when going through bridges?

I always use neutral through bridge holes, both on ex-working boats and on my modern holiday boat.

[pete harrison]

 

I used to do much the same - I just wound the power right off abruptly as the fore end entered the bridge hole, though I didn't actually go out of gear. With a loaded butty, especially on a snatcher on short pounds, you could see how well that worked as the line barely dipped, whereas if you tried to just motor through without knocking the power off the butty would nigh on catch the motor. It also meant you picked up far less crud, as you say. I actually worked it out for myself, but I guess it was a thing all boatmen did.

 

Tam

And I do (or used to do) exactly the same as you Tam, riding through the bridgehole on a wave as it caught up and pushed the boat through on an improved depth of water.

 

A trick I used to do for fun back in the day, especially if I wanted to catch up with the boat in front, was to estimate when the boat in front was about a length or two before a bridgehole then I would hold back (reverse) quite hard. This would send a wave along the canal and if timed correctly would catch the boat in front as it was just entering the bridgehole, lift it then drop it on the bottom under the bridge as the wave continued along the canal. On the flip side I have also had this done to me

At least one large wool'ich had a hook - Epsom had a hook and dolly when I had her.

And that was certainly the arrangement when John Knill owned EPSOM, but I do not know when it was fitted.

[pete harrison]

Just take on more crew for the event! Years ago at Nottingham, I was "extra" crew (with a dozen others) when Glyn on Aquarius won the ToW with his newly fitted JP3.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

The Nottingham event was at the end of July 1999 and at that time AQUARIUS was fitted with a Lister HR3, replacing a Lister JP2

Edited February 4, 2014 by pete harrison

[madcat]

I admit I lied to my OH about the draft of a big Northwich , it's only about 2' 4" dear, it will float on wet grass.

Edited February 4, 2014 by madcat

[stagedamager]

The Nottingham event was at the end of July 1999 and at that time AQUARIUS was fitted with a Lister HR3, replacing a Lister JP2

I remember that event well, having gone in to clear 'Joel's' prop in true sportsmanship......

[pete harrison]

 

The figures quoted by Alan would apear to be internal hold dimensions rather than draft, but are routinely (mis)quoted as draft by some people who wish to over exagerate the proportions, and consequent navigational difficulties of their former working boats.

 

Looking at a copy of the original GUCCC drawings, the depth from the top of the gunnel to the underside of the base plate is quoted as 4ft 3ins, with a distance of 3ft 1in from the underside of the uxter plate to the bottom of the skeg. This means that any loaded boat drawing 4ft 2ins would only have one inch freeboard, which even the most adventurous boatman would find challenging! In reality the GUCCC "small" boats drew about 3ft 9ins. when fully laden, and something like 3ft when running empty.

I have 'Yard' records for both Harland & Wolff Ltd. and W.J. Yarwood & Sons Ltd., both of which list nominal overall dimensions:

 

Harland & Wolff Ltd.

 

Small = 71'6'' x 7'0½'' x 4'2'' (all types including wooden hulls)

Large = 71'6 x 7'0½'' x 4'9½''

 

W.J. Yarwood & Sons Ltd.

 

Small = 71'6'' x 7'0½'' x 4'2''

Middle = 71'6'' x 7'0½'' x 4'6''

Large = 71'6'' x 7'0½'' x 4'9''

 

I do not have nominal dimensions for the boats built by W.H. Walker & Bros. Ltd. or E.G. Woods, but I do have all of their gauge tables which suggest a similar dimension to all other boats of the same type.

 

Obviously each individual boat will differ slightly as demonstrated by the Grand Union Canal Company gauge registers.

[David Schweizer]

I have 'Yard' records for both Harland & Wolff Ltd. and W.J. Yarwood & Sons Ltd., both of which list nominal overall dimensions:

 

Harland & Wolff Ltd.

 

Small = 71'6'' x 7'0½'' x 4'2'' (all types including wooden hulls)

Large = 71'6 x 7'0½'' x 4'9½''

 

W.J. Yarwood & Sons Ltd.

 

Small = 71'6'' x 7'0½'' x 4'2''

Middle = 71'6'' x 7'0½'' x 4'6''

Large = 71'6'' x 7'0½'' x 4'9''

 

I do not have nominal dimensions for the boats built by W.H. Walker & Bros. Ltd. or E.G. Woods, but I do have all of their gauge tables which suggest a similar dimension to all other boats of the same type.

 

Obviously each individual boat will differ slightly as demonstrated by the Grand Union Canal Company gauge registers.

 

On checking, the dimensions I quoted are taken from a drawing of the Wooden Walkers boats, (small Rickies) which appeared in the February 1935 edition of "Motorboat and Yachting"

 

The overall dimensions are the same as quoted above except for hull dpth which is definitely 4'3"

Edited February 4, 2014 by David Schweizer

[alan_fincher]

Whilst looking for another old post, I found this one.....

 

A reminder of what a "small" boat looks like, apparently loaded with 27 tons.

 

Don't think I'd fancy it!

 

[Tam & Di]

It's an interesting technique, and the explanations of it make sense. So should all boats change into neutral when going through bridges?

 

It only works properly if you are going quite hard when you get there. That means the stern is dug well in and there is a little "hump" of water following you. You knock the power off sharply, the "surfwave" catches you up, lifts the stern, and throws the boat through the bridge. Just as you are on the crest of the wave and the stern is coming clear you put the power right on again. I never found it necessary to actually go right out of gear.

 

tam

[alan_fincher]

I have 'Yard' records for both Harland & Wolff Ltd. and W.J. Yarwood & Sons Ltd., both of which list nominal overall dimensions:

 

<SNIP>

 

W.J. Yarwood & Sons Ltd.

 

Small = 71'6'' x 7'0½'' x 4'2''

Middle = 71'6'' x 7'0½'' x 4'6''

Large = 71'6'' x 7'0½'' x 4'9''

 

<SNIP>

 

I'll freely admit I don't know what the "nominal" 4' 6" means for a "Middle" boat, because there is no edge to a chine you could measure down to - you can only measure to a choice of imaginary lines projected from other points.

 

Not only does it have round chines with a quoted 8" radius, but also a mild V shaped bottom, which shows as being 3.5" lower in the middle than at the edges where it joins those round chines.

 

I guess the most likely is that the 4' 6" is down to a projection of thepoint where the base plates join the chines, and that the "depth" of the V bottom is in addition to that.

 

But I have never put a measure over my boat (yet!) so I really don't know!

[furnessvale]

The Nottingham event was at the end of July 1999 and at that time AQUARIUS was fitted with a Lister HR3, replacing a Lister JP2

Sorry Pete. As usual you are correct. I knew a JP2 had come out and replaced by a 3 pot. My faulty memory said JP3. Thank you for your meticulous records.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

I remember that event well, having gone in to clear 'Joel's' prop in true sportsmanship......

Was it you then, who went in, in front of the pub and pulled that long tarpaulin type adverising banner from the blades of a boat (Joel?).

 

I remember the water was black from tugging and I thought "what a brave man" :-)

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[billh]

 

Was it you then, who went in, in front of the pub and pulled that long tarpaulin type adverising banner from the blades of a boat (Joel?).

 

I remember the water was black from tugging and I thought "what a brave man" :-)

 

George ex nb Alton retired

The hilarious part about this episode was the advertising banner had "British Waterways" printed on it - referring to some canal side property development!

Thank you , Mr Damager for your youthful enthusiasm . The whole day was very entertaining, even if we didn't win the tug of war- we never do . We stand a good chance in any speed trial though!