Narrow Boat Plan

[IanM]

About 15 years ago I was emailed an AutoCad drawing of a plan of a motor by someone from the waterways newsgroup (I think).

 

 

I know it's a long shot but does anyone recognise what plan it is copied from i.e. Small Woolwich, etc.

 

Of course it could be just a 'made up' generic drawing.

[ditchcrawler]

I had a publication with that drawing in it, I think it was something that Laurence Hogg produced. Sort of A4 folded paper

[zenataomm]

If it's suggesting to be a lookey-likey then it's doing the job.

 

If however it's supposed to be accurate, Apart from not being to scale (too short)

 

* Cabin up sweep suggests GUCCCo & not Josher

* Stem suggests Josher'like , except for the flat top to it.

* Not enough tunnel bands for Northwich

* Engine 'ole too short

* Engine seems to be bolted to the bottom plate which causes drive shaft to slant uphill to the blades.

*Stem and stern cants shown in Plan elevation but not Side.

* Cabin top cants not Northwich, could be Woolwich.

* No cabin porthole

 

So it's a bit of a mixture of everything

 

........ apart from that it's pefick!

 

I'm sure younger eyes than mine will spot less picky issues than mine and be able to shoot my pedantic, boney, pointy finger off.

 

It's still better than I could muster.

Edited December 12, 2014 by zenataomm

[alan_fincher]

I have a copy in front of me of the drawing that has almost certainly been reconstructed from.

 

If that is in AutoCAD, I would suggest it was redrawn from what I'm looking at here.

 

These have been available long, long before Laurence Hogg started marketing anything similar, and I'm pretty certain the copy I have here was purchased at Stoke Bruerne museum in the early 1970s.

 

It is also reproduced in the "George and the Mary" publication.

it is undoubtedly intended to be a GUCCCo "Small" boat, (so called "Star Class"), and the dimensions given on both the other two sources I have show a 4' 2" hull side depth correct for those craft.

The "George and the Mary" claims it as being a plan for the "Small Woolwich" type, (i.e. the name normally taken to mean the Harland and Wolff built, composite, boats, with metal sides, but wooden bottoms). However some of the detail is clearly wrong for such boats, particularly the very "Un-Woolwich like" stem post).

 

I have a feeling that somewhere I have seen the original of this drawing claimed instead to be a Walkers of Rickmansworth "Small Ricky" "Star Class" boat though, and frankly, as drawn, the stem looks more like a wooden built boat than an iron or steel one.

 

Of course another explanation that could make it both "Harland and Wolff", but still a wooden built boat, is if it were intended to be of one of the two prototype boats that H&W built in wood - I guess they are still "Small Woolwich" boats, although most people think of that as the composite boats, not the wooden ones.

Perhaps if it is one Laurence sells, he can put as right as to its exact origins?

[alan_fincher]

Comments in red.

 

If it's suggesting to be a lookey-likey then it's doing the job.

 

If however it's supposed to be accurate, Apart from not being to scale (too short)

I can't see that, seems more or less spot on proportions, at least between correct length of 71' 6", and hull side depth of 4' 2"

 

* Cabin up sweep suggests GUCCCo & not Josher

I'm sure it is intended to be a GUCCCo Star Class boat, the question is "Which type?".

* Stem suggests Josher'like , except for the flat top to it.
See previous comments - is it meant to be one of the wooden boats?

* Not enough tunnel bands for Northwich

I think the one thing it isn't is a Northwich.

* Engine 'ole too short
Again, I can't see that - it seems to be to scale to more exactly 5' 6", the correct length for engine room on these boats.

* Engine seems to be bolted to the bottom plate which causes drive shaft to slant uphill to the blades.
I'm not completely sure that in these boats that the forward end of the drive shaft is not closer to the baseplate than the rear.

*Stem and stern cants shown in Plan elevation but not Side.

An area where they don't seem to have copied all the detail from what they were copying from.
The lid on the front deck is missing in the elevation, also, but on the drwaing they have copied.

* Cabin top cants not Northwich, could be Woolwich.

As above.

* No cabin porthole

Yes, this detail is missed from the "original" too, further "proof" that that is what has been copied into AutoCAD. (I'll admit I have never noticed that error!

 

So it's a bit of a mixture of everything

 

........ apart from that it's pefick!

 

I'm sure younger eyes than mine will spot less picky issues than mine and be able to shoot my pedantic, boney, pointy finger off.

 

It's still better than I could muster.

Edited December 12, 2014 by alan_fincher

[IanM]

The plan does show similarities to the H&W wooden prototypes.

 

Venus appears on this site but I can't link to the actual picture...

 

http://canalsidecamera.weebly.com/star-class.html

[Laurence Hogg]

About 15 years ago I was emailed an AutoCad drawing of a plan of a motor by someone from the waterways newsgroup (I think).

 

 

I know it's a long shot but does anyone recognise what plan it is copied from i.e. Small Woolwich, etc.

 

Of course it could be just a 'made up' generic drawing.

 

That is the prototype drawing for the small motor boats sent by GUCCo to Walkers of Rickmansworth, Edward Woods and Harland & Wollf. It is instantly recognisable by the raised coaming at the bottom of the engine room doors. This was a carry over from the "Royalty" boats which was there to prevent wash from river boats entering the engine room.

Only "Acturus" and "Neptune" were built exactly to this drawing as far as I know, the later Ricky's were less shapely particularly at the stern where on the first two there was a nice sweep up.

 

edited to add: I have a full size print off the original in my collection.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Laurence Hogg

[alan_fincher]

This has got me thinking.....

 

Is "Small Woolwich" applicable to all Harland and Wolff "Stars", including those prototype pairs, or is it only the later production composite type?

 

I guess there is no definitive answer, because it is only a nickname, but until now I have always instinctively thought that "Small Woolwich" means a boat with metal sides.

 

(And before Laurence reminds us again, I do know that terms like "Star class" and "Town Class" were not officially used by those ordering or building the boats!.....)

[IanM]

This has got me thinking.....

 

Is "Small Woolwich" applicable to all Harland and Wolff "Stars", including those prototype pairs, or is it only the later production composite type?

 

I guess there is no definitive answer, because it is only a nickname, but until now I have always instinctively thought that "Small Woolwich" means a boat with metal sides.

 

(And before Laurence reminds us again, I do know that terms like "Star class" and "Town Class" were not officially used by those ordering or building the boats!.....)

 

I think "Prototype" works for these as if I recall there were no prototype 'large' boats.

 

That is the prototype drawing for the small motor boats sent by GUCCo to Walkers of Rickmansworth, Edward Woods and Harland & Wollf. It is instantly recognisable by the raised coaming at the bottom of the engine room doors. This was a carry over from the "Royalty" boats which was there to prevent wash from river boats entering the engine room.

Only "Acturus" and "Neptune" were built exactly to this drawing as far as I know, the later Ricky's were less shapely particularly at the stern where on the first two there was a nice sweep up.

 

edited to add: I have a full size print off the original in my collection.

 

Thanks Laurence

[Laurence Hogg]

This has got me thinking.....

 

Is "Small Woolwich" applicable to all Harland and Wolff "Stars", including those prototype pairs, or is it only the later production composite type?

 

I guess there is no definitive answer, because it is only a nickname, but until now I have always instinctively thought that "Small Woolwich" means a boat with metal sides.

 

(And before Laurence reminds us again, I do know that terms like "Star class" and "Town Class" were not officially used by those ordering or building the boats!.....)

 

The Harland & Wollf boats were type "A", Walkers type "H" and Woods type "L" (From GUCCCo unpublished history written by Curtiss).

[Laurence Hogg]

Most of these drawings historically are part of the "B" series all of which pertain to craft built and still around today, that is except for one. Contained within this series is an extensive set of drawings to a wide beam version of the "Royalty" style motor boats, the drawings are incredibly well detailed yet no other reference to this boat type has been found as yet - a bit of a mystery!!

[pete harrison]

 

I think "Prototype" works for these as if I recall there were no prototype 'large' boats.

I disagree, for what my opinion is worth.

 

All 'Small' boats were built with a nominal hull depth of 4'2'' and Harland and Wolff Ltd. records indicate that this was the nominal depth that these first two pairs were ordered and built to. The fact that these two pairs were built at Woolwich makes them as much a 'Small Woolwich' as any of the later iron / steel composite pairs. This is exactly the same with the three pairs built by W.H. Walker & Bros. Ltd. which should be termed as 'Small Ricky'.

 

Over the years enthusiasts have created all sorts of problems by introducing terms that suit themselves and so calling them 'prototypes' only helps to 'muddy the waters' more than it already is

[IanM]

I disagree, for what my opinion is worth.

 

All 'Small' boats were built with a nominal hull depth of 4'2'' and Harland and Wolff Ltd. records indicate that this was the nominal depth that these first two pairs were ordered and built to. The fact that these two pairs were built at Woolwich makes them as much a 'Small Woolwich' as any of the later iron / steel composite pairs. This is exactly the same with the three pairs built by W.H. Walker & Bros. Ltd. which should be termed as 'Small Ricky'.

 

Over the years enthusiasts have created all sorts of problems by introducing terms that suit themselves and so calling them 'prototypes' only helps to 'muddy the waters' more than it already is

 

My apologies!

 

Anyway, scaling the AutoCAD drawing the hold depth comes to either 3'11" or 4'3" depending on where you measure to so is more than likely meant to be a 'Small' whatever

[zenataomm]

Going back to the dimensions .......

 

Taking the hold depth within the parallel box as indicating 1/2" = 4ft 3" then the length from counter to stem would be 66 ft and the beam 6ft 4 ½”

 

Plus my memory of the number of guards (having blacked a few hulls in my time) is two full length, one below the top band and one just above the footings with a couple on the bows in between.

[alan_fincher]

Going back to the dimensions .......

 

Taking the hold depth within the parallel box as indicating 1/2" = 4ft 3" then the length from counter to stem would be 66 ft and the beam 6ft 4 ½”

 

I think the nominal depth of the "Small" boats is 4' 2", not 4' 3", (or at least that is what is marked on drawings I have seen - I've not actually measured one!).

 

The way those drawings are marked implies that 4'2" is the total depth of everything, to include wooden gunwales, and the wooden bottoms - the actual iron or steel in the depth of the sides would therefore presumably be about 5" less than that.

 

When I tried measuring and scaling based on 4' 2" representing the overall depth over everything, the other dimensions came up remarkably close to what I would have expected.

 

I'm happy to be told by someone who definitely knows what the 4' 2" actually includes, but the drawings certainly imply it is the whole lot.

[IanM]

Going back to the dimensions .......

 

Taking the hold depth within the parallel box as indicating 1/2" = 4ft 3" then the length from counter to stem would be 66 ft and the beam 6ft 4 ½”

Don't try and scale off the image I posted, that was just a screen shot of the drawing. When measured on AutoCAD the dimensions are correct to within an inch or so.

[zenataomm]

Ha ha ..... now he tells us

 

I still say the front end guards don't match anything

[Laurence Hogg]

Ha ha ..... now he tells us

 

I still say the front end guards don't match anything

To repeat, Motor boats "Arcturus" and "Neptune" (I owned Neptune) were built from this drawing by Walkers.

That cad is the prototype drawing for the small motor boats sent by GUCCo to Walkers of Rickmansworth, Edward Woods and Harland & Wollf.

It is instantly recognisable by the raised coaming at the bottom of the engine room doors.

This was a carry over from the "Royalty" boats which was there to prevent wash from river boats entering the engine room.

 

Only "Acturus" and "Neptune" were built exactly to this drawing as far as I know, the later Ricky's were less shapely particularly at the stern where on the first two there was a nice sweep up.

I have a full size print off the original used for the CAD in my collection which came from Walkers.

[Laurence Hogg]

I have a copy in front of me of the drawing that has almost certainly been reconstructed from.

 

If that is in AutoCAD, I would suggest it was redrawn from what I'm looking at here.

 

These have been available long, long before Laurence Hogg started marketing anything similar, and I'm pretty certain the copy I have here was purchased at Stoke Bruerne museum in the early 1970s.

 

It is also reproduced in the "George and the Mary" publication.

 

it is undoubtedly intended to be a GUCCCo "Small" boat, (so called "Star Class"), and the dimensions given on both the other two sources I have show a 4' 2" hull side depth correct for those craft.

 

The "George and the Mary" claims it as being a plan for the "Small Woolwich" type, (i.e. the name normally taken to mean the Harland and Wolff built, composite, boats, with metal sides, but wooden bottoms). However some of the detail is clearly wrong for such boats, particularly the very "Un-Woolwich like" stem post).

 

I have a feeling that somewhere I have seen the original of this drawing claimed instead to be a Walkers of Rickmansworth "Small Ricky" "Star Class" boat though, and frankly, as drawn, the stem looks more like a wooden built boat than an iron or steel one.

 

Of course another explanation that could make it both "Harland and Wolff", but still a wooden built boat, is if it were intended to be of one of the two prototype boats that H&W built in wood - I guess they are still "Small Woolwich" boats, although most people think of that as the composite boats, not the wooden ones.

 

Perhaps if it is one Laurence sells, he can put as right as to its exact origins?

The first drawings I remember seeing sold in Stoke Bruerne was the unbuilt so called "County class" motor boat & butty which had 4ft 6" sides, this was a BTC drawing originating in 1952 and was mis sold by the museum as a "Large Woolwich".

Richard Hutchings (2nd curator) allowed me to borrow and copy/redraw a lot of drawings which were then made available through the shop and my catalogue. These and the other drawings which appeared in the shop were from "Inland Waterways Models Co" which was my early trading name, we certainly supplied the small Rickmansworth drawing as it was a good one for modellers to use having so many variations in livery due to the wide disposal of those craft. At the same time we sold them a vacuum formed half model of an Uxbridge motor boat which had multiple livery possibilities in which to finish it. During this period we supplied a lot of models to the museum and were stocking the shop on a almost weekly basis in the summer with canal wares (those were the days!).

Edited December 13, 2014 by Laurence Hogg

[springy]

I had a publication with that drawing in it, I think it was something that Laurence Hogg produced. Sort of A4 folded paper

 

I have a copy of the A5 book(let) I think you may be refering to - Canal Boats - A Short Guide edited by John M.Hill,

a 1983 BCNS publication, based on a series of articles in the society magazine Boudary Post.

 

The centre pages reproduce with permission drawings credited to Stoke Bruerne showing :-

 

Side & Plan views of a Motor - very similar to the one above but with full length top Rubbing Strake

Side & Plan views of a Butty

Cabin layout plans - Motor and Butty

Sectional profile drawings fore & aft

 

All the above have detailed dimensions, but without a specific type attribution, however

on the preceeding page is a side section of the stern of ex GUCC Town Class No 125

"Barrow" built 1937, H&W Woolwich, which also is very similar.

 

dont know if this helps

 

springy

Edited December 18, 2014 by springy

[Laurence Hogg]

 

I have a copy of the A5 book(let) I think you may be refering to - Canal Boats - A Short Guide edited by John M.Hill,

a 1983 BCNS publication, based on a series of articles in the society magazine Boudary Post.

 

The centre pages reproduce with permission drawings credited to Stoke Bruerne showing :-

 

Side & Plan views of a Motor - very similar to the one above but with full length top Rubbing Strake

Side & Plan views of a Butty

Cabin layout plans - Motor and Butty

Sectional profile drawings fore & aft

 

All the above have detailed dimensions, but without a specific type attribution, however

on the preceeding page is a side section of the stern of ex GUCC Town Class No 125

"Barrow" built 1937, H&W Woolwich, which also is very similar.

 

dont know if this helps

 

springy

 

The drawings reproduced in this book are the prototype drawings I refer to earlier for the first small boat built by Walkers, Woods, and Harland & Wollf, the image is reduced so much that detail is lost abut once again the raised coaming at the engine room identifies the drawing.

[nick_theboatman]

Walkers of Ricky Star Class. I have scans of the original drawings (dated June 1935) from the BW Museum. The drawings are now out of copyright and freely available (I was asked to put CRT credits on them if I used them in anger). It would be obvious to make a request for a PSI Licence for re-use commercially. The drawing set includes the butty shears, the motor shears, a cross-section and the plan and some other bits and bobs. The pic of the OP featured in the book "Walkers of Rickie" and I guess the Autocad was done as a run-in to that. This was a digitized version of a re-draw of the original cross-section and plan. It looks like the re-draw was done by an apprentice in the 1960s. The film hanger has some scribbles on it and the style is such that it looks like it was a technical drawing exercise. It might have been someone from the local college - I cant tell. The film is in much better condition that the original drawing (which is blue dye-line paper and is in pretty poor condition for a 80-year old drawing (lol)). I have also digitized my scans of the film and the shears (in 3rd angle and in 3D). There were a signifcant number of drawing errors (dimensions wrong for line length, side view not matching with plan with front view, etc) and when I digitized and re-drew these became apparent, so I've fixed them. The boat I'm building at the moment is in steel but Gem Bates had (at the time I started) 2 original wooden ones at his yard on the Aylesbury Arm. Very helpful person, Gem: one day I'll pay him back for the favour. Maybe one day I'll RepRap one off the 3D model (eew)... You see, CCers are not actually crusty scumbags but actually engineering sophisticates....

[Derek R.]

Shaping up nicely. Is that image transposed? (- Neither here nor there really).

[IanR]

Shaping up nicely. Is that image transposed? (- Neither here nor there really).

I thought that too, that is clearly a left handed ladder. We have the same narrowboat plan on our schools computers, I've been using it to plan the internals for our boat. I'm very grateful to whoever it was that drew it up, saved me ages!

 

Ian.

[Laurence Hogg]

"Walkers of Ricky Star Class. I have scans of the original drawings (dated June 1935) from the BW Museum"

 

If this is the set I think it is you may find the sheers do not belong to the GA drawing. I have seen these reproduced and the sheers turn out to be off the wooden "Royalty" butty boats.

 

The shop sold the "County" class boat drawing as a "Large Woolwich" until I pointed out the 4ft 6" depth of the hull! "County" class was never built but evolved through drawing mods over the years to become the first design "Admiral" class motor.