Historic boat owners - nobs?

[alan_fincher]

Let me say straight away that I have no interest in historic boats whatsoever. My question is why should they need to hog the deep water?

 

 

It is not about "hogging the deep water", it is about being in enough depth of water that the boat can float, move forward under proper control, and not run aground.

 

Unless the "uxter plate", (bottom of the counter) is pretty close to the water when the boat is static, with very little gap between metal and water, the boat will not go well, and in particular will not stop well.

 

It matters not one jot whether the bows are towering out of the water to intimidate other boaters, or down level with the back end, because of cargo carried, you still must have the back end sitting close to, or actually in the water.

 

Achieving this with a working boat (loaded or unloaded) means it will have a static draught of at least 2' 10" to 3' 0", whereas most modern leisure boats seldom exceed 2' 6", and are in many cases more like 2' 0".

 

"Sickle" has a static draught that is at least 2' 10", but if you look at her underway, even at moderate speeds, the counter pulls down into the water by around another 6". This means that as an "unloaded" boat, (though there is 3.5 tonnes at least of ballast in a 40 foot boat), she simply needs far more depth than most modern boats do.

 

However, I think your comments have demonstrated very well exactly how little some people understand of the special situation that exists with these boats!

[nicknorman]

It is not about "hogging the deep water", it is about being in enough depth of water that the boat can float, move forward under proper control, and not run aground.

 

Unless the "uxter plate", (bottom of the counter) is pretty close to the water when the boat is static, with very little gap between metal and water, the boat will not go well, and in particular will not stop well.

 

It matters not one jot whether the bows are towering out of the water to intimidate other boaters, or down level with the back end, because of cargo carried, you still must have the back end sitting close to, or actually in the water.

 

Achieving this with a working boat (loaded or unloaded) means it will have a static draught of at least 2' 10" to 3' 0", whereas most modern leisure boats seldom exceed 2' 6", and are in many cases more like 2' 0".

 

"Sickle" has a static draught that is at least 2' 10", but if you look at her underway, even at moderate speeds, the counter pulls down into the water by around another 6". This means that as an "unloaded" boat, (though there is 3.5 tonnes at least of ballast in a 40 foot boat), she simply needs far more depth than most modern boats do.

 

However, I think your comments have demonstrated very well exactly how little some people understand of the special situation that exists with these boats!

Whilst all that is all true and personally I don't have a problem with it - and passing Tench and Ilford was a non-event in that regard - your tone risks making a claim that historic boat owners are a special case needing special treatment and a special allowance by "normal" boat owners. So the situation is that some folks chose to operate historic boats that are now barely compatible with the modern state of the system, and everybody else must make allowances for them and give them priority. Can you see that this could be construed as smacking of self-importance and arrogance? A bit like the horse boat lady who is "coming through!" regardless of anybody else. It might be better if the tone of some historic boat owners was more towards "contrite" than towards "demanding". Operators of my OP boats of course excepted.

[Guest]

Whilst all that is all true and personally I don't have a problem with it - and passing Tench and Ilford was a non-event in that regard - your tone risks making a claim that historic boat owners are a special case needing special treatment and a special allowance by "normal" boat owners. So the situation is that some folks chose to operate historic boats that are now barely compatible with the modern state of the system, and everybody else must make allowances for them and give them priority. Can you see that this could be construed as smacking of self-importance and arrogance? A bit like the horse boat lady who is "coming through!" regardless of anybody else. It might be better if the tone of some historic boat owners was more towards "contrite" than towards "demanding". Operators of my OP boats of course excepted.

What utter nonsense. It's an explanation of why HB's don't have the same flexibility in terms of available depth that other boats (like ours) do and explains exactly why their restrictions shouldn't be perceived as selfishness and arrogance.

 

You do talk rubbish sometimes Nick.

[mark99]

Is it called fanhold or something like that? the gap between uxter and the wet stuff?

 

Pictures of older boats at rest with huge gaps (fanhold?) how does that come about - is it lack of ballast or lack of load?

Edited August 18, 2014 by mark99

[nicknorman]

What utter nonsense. It's an explanation of why HB's don't have the same flexibility in terms of available depth that other boats (like ours) do and explains exactly why their restrictions shouldn't be perceived as selfishness and arrogance.You do talk rubbish sometimes Nick.

Always a pleasure to have a sophisticated adult debate with you Martin. Oh, look at the time - isn't it time for your walkies?

[Guest]

Always a pleasure to have a sophisticated adult debate with you Martin. Oh, look at the time - isn't it time for your walkies?

Then why not try and have one, and explain exactly which bit of the post in question smacks of self importance and arrogance, or maybe you simply cannot.

[Felshampo]

Time for Hobnobs already?

[nicknorman]

Then why not try and have one, and explain exactly which bit of the post in question smacks of self importance and arrogance, or maybe you simply cannot.

If I had stated that I would probably be bothered to defend it, but since I didn't I won't, just to explain to you (since you seem to have difficulty interpreting English) that

 

"(This post) could be construed as smacking of self importance and arrogance"

 

carries a different meaning from

 

"This post smacks of self importance and arrogance"

 

The latter of which you are falsely attributing to me (either because you are stupid, or just because you want an argument).

 

 

And to be fair to Alan, it was less the words in his post that I was alluding to, but more the concept of historic boats "demanding" channel priority which he only hinted at.

[Guest]

If I had stated that I would probably be bothered to defend it, but since I didn't I won't, just to explain to you (since you seem to have difficulty interpreting English) that

 

"(This post) could be construed as smacking of self importance and arrogance"

 

carries a different meaning from

 

"This post smacks of self importance and arrogance"

 

The latter of which you are falsely attributing to me (either because you are stupid, or just because you want an argument).

 

 

And to be fair to Alan, it was less the words in his post that I was alluding to, but more the concept of historic boats "demanding" channel priority which he only hinted at.

But the post could only be construed as such by somebody who is either stupid or cannot understand English. As for every body else the meaning was perfectly clear.

[cheshire~rose]

I feel Alan Fincher gave a very good description of why a historic boat needs to keep towards the centre of the channel.

 

Yes they need it, Like Sickle, Python is very short at 53' and as her bows do sit high in the water other boaters do not always appreciate the depth of water she requires for the steerer to retain full control of her. (3'3")

 

It is not a case of historic boat steerers demanding special treatment. It is about streerers wanting to remain in control of their boat and keep all other canal users safe. If you get too close to the shallows on Python the first an inexperienced steerer will know about it is when the bows seem to inexplicably swing out towards the opposite bank. In fact when you get used to steering her you realise this is the result of the stern getting sucked into the mud that you have got too close to.

 

It is easy to see that if you did try and move over into shallower water to give room for an oncoming vessel then the result could actually be to throw your bows across his path out of control. That would then result in posts on this forum about historic boat streerers who can't control their boats. I would rather be percieved as arrogant that incompetant!

[nicknorman]

But the post could only be construed as such by somebody who is either stupid or cannot understand English. As for every body else the meaning was perfectly clear.

So why didn't you pick me up on that point initially, rather than your spurious and incorrect one? Your scatter-gun approach to debating shows you are floundering.

[FadeToScarlet]

Let me say straight away that I have no interest in historic boats whatsoever. My question is why should they need to hog the deep water?

 

I understand that actual working boats such as Alton or Towcester need deep water because they are carrying cargo. I also understand that some boats had to be deep draughted to fulfill their original function.

 

However your run of the mill ex working boats should be much lighter than normal narrowboats with living accommodation. Most that I see are running around empty of cargo with their noses high in the air. If a little ballast was added in the nose area surely they would lie a lot flatter in the water and could be navigated in the same manner as the vast majority of more modern boats and not need to hog the centre of the canal.

As Alan said, it's not the depth at the front, but the depth at the back. My converted boat draws about a foot at the front, and three feet at the back, more when underway.

 

As well as not running aground, the other issue with having a deeper boat is that the back will suck itself towards the shallower water. You've probably experienced this yourself if you get close to a shallow bit. The only difference is, this happens much further out, depending on the depth of the canal.

 

If I move over too far, or too soon, then the stern end will be sucked towards the shallower side and the bow will swing across into your way, and you can't steer to prevent this.

[nicknorman]

I feel Alan Fincher gave a very good description of why a historic boat needs to keep towards the centre of the channel.

 

Yes they need it, Like Sickle, Python is very short at 53' and as her bows do sit high in the water other boaters do not always appreciate the depth of water she requires for the steerer to retain full control of her. (3'3")

 

It is not a case of historic boat steerers demanding special treatment. It is about streerers wanting to remain in control of their boat and keep all other canal users safe. If you get too close to the shallows on Python the first an inexperienced steerer will know about it is when the bows seem to inexplicably swing out towards the opposite bank. In fact when you get used to steering her you realise this is the result of the stern getting sucked into the mud that you have got too close to.

 

It is easy to see that if you did try and move over into shallower water to give room for an oncoming vessel then the result could actually be to throw your bows across his path out of control. That would then result in posts on this forum about historic boat streerers who can't control their boats. I would rather be percieved as arrogant that incompetant!

 

That is all understood, but we draw 2'8" static, and experience exactly the same control issues if the stern starts to go aground. It would therefore be "arrogant" for a historic boater to presume that the are the only ones with depth / control issues. In practice I don't find "hogging the centre channel" is an issue when both boats are properly steered because the centre channel is usually wide enough for two boats that don't find it necessary to leave 6' between them, to pass.

 

Also, passing a boat that keeps a lot of power on (especially if it is deep drafted and big-propped) causes a significant lowering of the local water level and almost inevitably results in us grounding on shallower canals with the boat's bottom aligning itself with the sloping canal bottom. Boats that pass having reduced power are normally no problem. Historic and non historic boats probably in equal proportion are considerate or not when it comes to this point, but of course the impact of the "nots" is more substantial for a deep historic boat.

[twbm]

Back in the marina (Fazeley Mill) - we were just out for the weekend, Fazeley to Fradley and back again. Jeff is back in Aberdeen for work now, I'm allowed out until Tuesday evening (the joys of being retired!)

 

 

Whilst all that is all true and personally I don't have a problem with it - and passing Tench and Ilford was a non-event in that regard - your tone risks making a claim that historic boat owners are a special case needing special treatment and a special allowance by "normal" boat owners. So the situation is that some folks chose to operate historic boats that are now barely compatible with the modern state of the system, and everybody else must make allowances for them and give them priority. Can you see that this could be construed as smacking of self-importance and arrogance? A bit like the horse boat lady who is "coming through!" regardless of anybody else. It might be better if the tone of some historic boat owners was more towards "contrite" than towards "demanding". Operators of my OP boats of course excepted.

 

Could we have a copy of Jeff's shift patterns so we can work out when you're going to be bored and antagonistic?

[nicknorman]

Could we have a copy of Jeff's shift patterns so we can work out when you're going to be bored and antagonistic?

 

I think you'll find if you read my OP that it was complimentary to the boat operators in question. It was only after the thread was hijacked by others that I had to express my (minor) disagreement. Now as I admitted in my OP, my compliments to said operators could be construed as being patronising and unnecessary, but on the other hand there are plenty of folk around who are able to receive praise without feeling patronised, (and those who can't one should feel sorry for). But that doesn't seem to be the issue.

 

Anyway, you have repeatedly made it clear that you don't like me (even though you have never met me, and of course I have a pretty good idea why) so I can assure you that I have got the message and there is no need to wear out your fingers repeating yourself endlessly.

[Guest]

So why didn't you pick me up on that point initially, rather than your spurious and incorrect one? Your scatter-gun approach to debating shows you are floundering.

Because it matters not a jot. Your nit picking approach to what people pick you up on is matterless. The simple fact remains that a very good explanation was given, you then tried to say it could be interpreted as something else, which was incorrect in the eyes of any sensible person.

Anyway, you have repeatedly made it clear that you don't like me (even though you have never met me, and of course I have a pretty good idea why) so I can assure you that I have got the message and there is no need to wear out your fingers repeating yourself endlessly.

Oh here we go, what is that supposed to mean then? Edited August 18, 2014 by The Dog House

[MtB]

That is all understood, but we draw 2'8" static,

 

Yes but what does your boat draw?

 

 

 

MtB

[nicknorman]

Oh here we go, what is that supposed to mean then?

It wasn't addressed to you so I suggest you don't further tax your brain by contemplating it.

Because it matters not a jot. Your nit picking approach to what people pick you up on is matterless.

 

Even if what they pick me up on is nitpicking? And since when did you start using Chinese bedding?

[Guest]

It wasn't addressed to you so I suggest you don't further tax your brain by contemplating it.

 

Even if what they pick me up on is nitpicking? And since when did you start using Chinese bedding?

Well it doesn't take much taxing of ones brain to work it out now does it? Your persecution complex is showing me thinks.

[Tuscan]

That is all understood, but we draw 2'8" static, and experience exactly the same control issues if the stern starts to go aground. It would therefore be "arrogant" for a historic boater to presume that the are the only ones with depth / control issues. In practice I don't find "hogging the centre channel" is an issue when both boats are properly steered because the centre channel is usually wide enough for two boats that don't find it necessary to leave 6' between them, to pass.

.

Arrogant doubt it, ignorant sometimes maybe, but if boaters are confident enough there is no reason as you say why both can't past very close by in the middle channel. Too often some think we are playing a game of chicken.

[Sabcat]

Forget historic boats. What's going on with the people who have boats with fake rivets (almost invariably in the wrong place)?

[GUMPY]

Arrogant doubt it, ignorant sometimes maybe, but if boaters are confident enough there is no reason as you say why both can't past very close by in the middle channel. Too often some think we are playing a game of chicken.

I thought that was half the fun playing chicken when approacing historic craft, used to be fun when I had the barge

[Sabcat]

I thought that was half the fun playing chicken when approacing historic craft, used to be fun when I had the barge

I generally work on the basis that it might have a Bolinder in it and they couldn't stop it if they wanted to

[billS]

Forget historic boats. What's going on with the people who have boats with fake rivets (almost invariably in the wrong place)?

 

I think it is a bit like early Punks - they used to sport fake fastenings with no discernible use - zips and safety pins everywhere. I always keep my brolly handy when I pass one of these boats, just in case the owner decides to spit at me...

[Laurence Hogg]

A few facts perhaps not known to some posting on this thread. Most "historic" motor boats if not rebuilt or chocked under the counter draw 3ft static and 3ft 3" underway.

The majority will have two plane curving plates to the stern post, not a single plane curve as most modern craft have. This makes the older hulls more efficient as far as hydrodynamics are concerned and also improves reverse steering and holding back.

The downside for a "historic" is their as built weight and because the swim has a two plane shape, going aground is a more gentle affair although often will see the craft more harder to get off, than the modern ones as their single curve 90 degree swim stops the grounding sooner.

 

When we pass other craft we always slow and often go into neutral as we pass hull to hull quite close, this prevents sucking the other boat into your stern.

 

Control of these heavy old craft is often easier than modern ones and often when waiting for a lock we "hang about" in the channel rather than trying to hold in on shallow moorings. Also if your boat is a Harland & Wollf with the original balanced (weighted) rudder then you will appreciate how well these work in keeping a still boat in the right place.