National Historic Ships Replica Register

[koukouvagia]

There are quite a few narrowboats on the Historic Ships Register. I suspect that many owners of historic narrowboats, like me, want an objective consideration of their boats in case CART decides to quibble about the definition of an historic craft in future.

 

Alongside the two main registers: The National Register of Historic Vessels and the National Historic Fleet list, there is also a list for replica boats. At the moment there are no narrowboats on this, but I would think boats like Hasty and Astraea could well be included. What other new replicas might be on the list?

 

There are various grades of replica boat ranging from "true replica" to "representation".

 

National Historic Ships

[Athy]

I would think boats like Hasty and Astraea could well be included.

I would think the former but not the latter (which has a full cabin where the cargo hold would have been and thus may have the hull shape of an old working boat but doesn't really look like one).

[Laurence Hogg]

Saturn & Raymond would be contenders.

[cheshire~rose]

The team that have built New Dawn, the Chesterfield Canal Trust's replica "Cuckoo Boat" will be applying to have her added to the register as soon as she is officially launched

[alan_fincher]

There are quite a few narrowboats on the Historic Ships Register. I suspect that many owners of historic narrow boats, like me, want an objective consideration of their boats in case CART decides to quibble about the definition of an historic craft in future.

Up until now, I don't think there has been much correlation between whether a boat is on their register, and whether CRT treat it as "historic" for licensing purposes. (I'm not aware of CRT having any interest otherwise in classing as "historic", but happy to be corrected if there are reasons not involving its licence).

 

For example "Flamingo" is already on the National Historic Ships register, but would not I assume meet current CRT requirements for an historic boat licence discount, because of a relatively recent full cabin conversion, (not "under cloths").

 

I know that trying to clarify the rules is something HNBC have said they are working with CRT on, but I have emailed Phil Prettyman trying to find out more, but to date he has not responded. You have prompted me to try again!

[madcat]

In my opinion all historic boats should be given a discount whether converted or not it's a gesture of support and an aknowledgment of the commitment that owning an old boat requires.

Conversion may help to keep a boat used and floating and de conversion is always possible in the future. It's time to try and hang onto what we have , all of it .

 

I put the money saved by the discount into the boats saving account and it's there to help pay for dry docking etc .

 

Good quality replica and re built boats are of historical interest too. GU boats were the latest new thing before they hung around long enough to get old .

[Laurence Hogg]

Up until now, I don't think there has been much correlation between whether a boat is on their register, and whether CRT treat it as "historic" for licensing purposes. (I'm not aware of CRT having any interest otherwise in classing as "historic", but happy to be corrected if there are reasons not involving its licence).

 

For example "Flamingo" is already on the National Historic Ships register, but would not I assume meet current CRT requirements for an historic boat licence discount, because of a relatively recent full cabin conversion, (not "under cloths").

 

I know that trying to clarify the rules is something HNBC have said they are working with CRT on, but I have emailed Phil Prettyman trying to find out more, but to date he has not responded. You have prompted me to try again!

I cannot see why "Flamingo" should not be considered "Historic". Indeed post carrying cargo days the boat then carried passengers, these boats evolve and bits get added or removed for various reasons. To class a craft as historic they should have a rolling shut of date of say 50 years and the need that the boat must have been involved with carrying or support services trade. I do remember that the "Admirals" were excluded at one time (maybe still are) and that was very wrong.

The only grey area I can see is where someone has built a full size boat using a part of an original, ie a bow and the rest is new, this in my mind is stretching the point a bit far.

 

I would be happy to support any proper action / lobbying against CRT to assist this definition.

[koukouvagia]

In my opinion all historic boats should be given a discount whether converted or not it's a gesture of support and an aknowledgment of the commitment that owning an old boat requires.

A greenie for Madcat!

 

(I seem to have lost the ability to add an emoticon - all the editing facilities are greyed out. Strange.)

[c c]

I put Badsey on the Historic Ships register after hearing R Parry speak at a HNBC meeting shortly after he arrived as CRT ChX. He simply suggested it may be a good way for CRT licencing folk to quickly tell if a boat qualified for an historic boat discount. As it costs nothing to go on the NHSRegister, I thought it sounded sensible. As for the 10% discount, I have always thought this should be larger when you take into consideration, that our canals are not maintained for the likes of Badsey to navigate.

[furnessvale]

(I seem to have lost the ability to add an emoticon - all the editing facilities are greyed out. Strange.)

Happened to me a couple of times and each time I forget how to cure it.

 

Next time you open up to post, if you are still having problems, look in the top left corner and you will see a little symbol box. Click on it and all should be restored, if I have remembered correctly.

 

The next time it happens to me I shall PM you, so you can tell me.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

I put Badsey on the Historic Ships register after hearing R Parry speak at a HNBC meeting shortly after he arrived as CRT ChX. He simply suggested it may be a good way for CRT licencing folk to quickly tell if a boat qualified for an historic boat discount. As it costs nothing to go on the NHSRegister, I thought it sounded sensible. As for the 10% discount, I have always thought this should be larger when you take into consideration, that our canals are not maintained for the likes of Badsey to navigate.

Not forgetting that deep draughted boats are doing a lot of their dredging for them as well.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[cheshire~rose]

A conversion does not take away the significance of the date a boat was built. Indeed the conversion may be the only reason why a boat has actually survived to be the age it is.

 

The majority of boats built to do a job of work will reach a stage in their lives when they are no longer useful in the line of work they were built for. Sometimes that is because they have been superseded by a more modern, more efficient craft. Sometimes the line of work they were built for no longer exists. Many boats are converted for a new life or line of work at that time and that conversion and the use the boat gets in the years following that conversion become part of the boats history and should be enjoyed and celebrated. If the boat had not been converted would it still exist? I suspect not.

 

Historic narrow boats that have been converted to be used as leisure boats are a wonderful thing. It is possible to do a tasteful conversion and retain the majority of whatever is salvageable of the original boat. Encouraging younger into ownership is important, people who have the energy and passion that these boats can need. Younger people have families and needs/desires that differ from those of the working boat family that used to live in a back cabin.

 

I agree it may be undesirable to add a conversion to an unconverted boat but lets not cast scorn at historic boats that have conversions as it is part of their history and it is what has made them survive

[koukouvagia]

 

Next time you open up to post, if you are still having problems, look in the top left corner and you will see a little symbol box. Click on it and all should be restored, if I have remembered correctly.

 

The next time it happens to me I shall PM you, so you can tell me.

 

 

Thanks George - your solution worked

[Timleech]

A conversion does not take away the significance of the date a boat was built. Indeed the conversion may be the only reason why a boat has actually survived to be the age it is.

 

The majority of boats built to do a job of work will reach a stage in their lives when they are no longer useful in the line of work they were built for. Sometimes that is because they have been superseded by a more modern, more efficient craft. Sometimes the line of work they were built for no longer exists. Many boats are converted for a new life or line of work at that time and that conversion and the use the boat gets in the years following that conversion become part of the boats history and should be enjoyed and celebrated. If the boat had not been converted would it still exist? I suspect not.

 

Historic narrow boats that have been converted to be used as leisure boats are a wonderful thing. It is possible to do a tasteful conversion and retain the majority of whatever is salvageable of the original boat. Encouraging younger into ownership is important, people who have the energy and passion that these boats can need. Younger people have families and needs/desires that differ from those of the working boat family that used to live in a back cabin.

 

I agree it may be undesirable to add a conversion to an unconverted boat but lets not cast scorn at historic boats that have conversions as it is part of their history and it is what has made them survive

I agree with most of the above, with some reservations about the 'younger people' bit. Yes absolutely they need to be encouraged, but the ones with the real energy are those who haven't yet got to the 'family' stage. I started when 17, and we had sub-camping boat standard accommodation and didn't worry about it.

As far as I remember, one of the criteria for acceptance for the Historic Ships register is along the lines of 'no major changes to external appearance', I don't know what their attitude is to obviously converted Narrow Boats.

 

Tim

[Tony Dunkley]

Saturn & Raymond would be contenders.

I don't think the vessel that now carries the name 'Raymond' qualifies as anything more than a very inaccurate and poor representation of what it's claimed to be. I've looked at many photographs of it, and I have to say it bears no resemblance whatever to the original boat.

[Tuscan]

I put Badsey on the Historic Ships register after hearing R Parry speak at a HNBC meeting shortly after he arrived as CRT ChX. He simply suggested it may be a good way for CRT licencing folk to quickly tell if a boat qualified for an historic boat discount. As it costs nothing to go on the NHSRegister, I thought it sounded sensible. As for the 10% discount, I have always thought this should be larger when you take into consideration, that our canals are not maintained for the likes of Badsey to navigate.

We did the same it was quite an easy process

[Giant]

As far as I remember, one of the criteria for acceptance for the Historic Ships register is along the lines of 'no major changes to external appearance'.

 

There's no requirement about external appearance. There is a requirement that the vessel "be substantially intact", and it seems to me that the hull is what matters - the note on this requirement "If more than 70% of the hull structure is intact the vessel can be considered for registration. Any vessel which is less intact than this will only be considered for registration at a different percentage if national significance can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Registration Sub-Committee."

 

The registration conditions are here: http://www.nationalhistoricships.org.uk/pages/understanding-the-criteria.html

 

In summary, the vessel must:

• Be at least 50 years old
• Have demonstrable and significant UK associations
• Be based in UK waters
• Be more than 33 ft in length overall
• Be substantially intact

[furnessvale]

I don't think the vessel that now carries the name 'Raymond' qualifies as anything more than a very inaccurate and poor representation of what it's claimed to be. I've looked at many photographs of it, and I have to say it bears no resemblance whatever to the original boat.

IMO the only way to preserve the "soul" of a wooden boat is to replace the wood plank by plank, rib by rib.

 

Having seen the original Raymond piled up in the hold of another boat for 12 months, like so much firewood, I think something of its spirit was lost.

 

I hasten to add I have never rebuilt a wooden boat, so anyone who has, is perfectly entitled to come along and tell me I am talking b*****ks.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Timleech]

There's no requirement about external appearance. There is a requirement that the vessel "be substantially intact", and it seems to me that the hull is what matters - the note on this requirement "If more than 70% of the hull structure is intact the vessel can be considered for registration. Any vessel which is less intact than this will only be considered for registration at a different percentage if national significance can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Registration Sub-Committee."

 

The registration conditions are here: http://www.nationalhistoricships.org.uk/pages/understanding-the-criteria.html

 

In summary, the vessel must:

• Be at least 50 years old
• Have demonstrable and significant UK associations
• Be based in UK waters
• Be more than 33 ft in length overall
• Be substantially intact

Fair enough, it's different from what I remember so I wonder whether the criteria have changed over time?

 

IMO the only way to preserve the "soul" of a wooden boat is to replace the wood plank by plank, rib by rib.

 

Having seen the original Raymond piled up in the hold of another boat for 12 months, like so much firewood, I think something of its spirit was lost.

 

I hasten to add I have never rebuilt a wooden boat, so anyone who has, is perfectly entitled to come along and tell me I am talking b*****ks.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

I'm inclined to agree. I was heavily involved in keeping the Saturn going during its last working guise, as an Hotel Boat, but rather lost interest when it was demolished and 'rebuilt' as a new boat, even though it was overall a fine job.

 

Tim

[Giant]

Fair enough, it's different from what I remember so I wonder whether the criteria have changed over time?

 

It's possible. I couldn't find any information about revisions to the conditions, only the current ones.

[Tony Dunkley]

IMO the only way to preserve the "soul" of a wooden boat is to replace the wood plank by plank, rib by rib.

 

Having seen the original Raymond piled up in the hold of another boat for 12 months, like so much firewood, I think something of its spirit was lost.

 

I hasten to add I have never rebuilt a wooden boat, so anyone who has, is perfectly entitled to come along and tell me I am talking b*****ks.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

I didn't know that's what was done with 'Raymond', but it explains why what now masquerades as the same boat looks as it does. If a boat is, to all intents and purposes broken up and, presumably, the knees and ironwork used in the construction of a new boat, then the original boat has ceased to exist and a new one has been built using recycled bits from an old one.

The so-called 'Raymond' I've seen in photographs is badly proportioned, misshapen and downright ugly, particularly the stern end and cabin, and in view of the fact that the original boat was, in effect, broken up rather than rebuilt by renewing rotten planks and other parts one at a time, it can't be claimed to be anything more than a representation, and a poor one at that.

[alan_fincher]

There's no requirement about external appearance. There is a requirement that the vessel "be substantially intact", and it seems to me that the hull is what matters - the note on this requirement "If more than 70% of the hull structure is intact the vessel can be considered for registration. Any vessel which is less intact than this will only be considered for registration at a different percentage if national significance can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Registration Sub-Committee."

tially intact

Well, depending on exactly how you estimate that "70% of the hull structure is intact", surely a very large number of iron, steel or inially composite narrow boats would fail that test?

 

If a boat has had a whole new bottom, even if sides are intact down to the chines, surely for most that would already mean more than 30% of the external steelwork was new, and hence there can't be 70% that is not.

 

Once you are into new footings, uxter plate, counter, etc, surely many boats classed as "historic" retain no more than half their original hull exterior?

 

Scanning through the many narrow boats on the register, I don't think this requirement is applied that thoroughly!

[Laurence Hogg]

I think with a "working boat" one has to expect replacement of the structure. Our boat has had substantial replacement work over the years, the port front plate is not original and has a different type of rivet, the fore end was cut off (god knows why) and a fore end welded back on, have no proof its the one the boat started with, but all the changes have been in its working life of 79 years and so count as maintenance of the hull.

 

Previously mentioned "Raymond" is a badly copied new build using recycled parts but can it get worse?

The claims seen on the Saturn website are ridiculous,

 

"Saturn is a unique canal narrowboat. She is the last horse-drawn Shropshire Union Canal Fly-boat in the World – originally built to travel non-stop, day and night, carrying perishable goods. Over 100 years old,"

 

100 years old?? Last flyboat from SU fleet - I think this is rather wide of the mark!

 

Maybe one thing Historic ships can do is to sort the fakes and untruths from the real survivors!

Edited January 31, 2015 by Laurence Hogg

[Giant]

I think their interpretation of the "70% intact" condition must in practice allow for repair work - overplating, replating, renewal of planks, etc - that maintains the original hull shape and design.

 

I suspect they are rather more concerned with the cases where a boat has been shortened, lengthened, a new bow or stern built in a different shape, etc.

 

It's amazing what gets done to ships sometimes. I have sailed on a beautiful tall ship with fine lines, high stern, and a sharp bow, that you would never know started its life as a Russian tug boat.

[Ian Mac]

So what is historic? - an interesting question. Nearly all the wooden boats around have very little original timber left in them, as the timber only lasts for about 25yrs once steamed, Yes I know of the exceptions, but its a good rule of thumb. So is there a difference between a major repair and a rebuild. I think what is done to a boat should be recorded as a requirement of being on the NHS register. So Gifford, Saturn, Raymond, Stour, Walton are total rebuilds, some being better copies of the originals than others. So for example most wooden boats now use Opepe rather than Elm for bottom boards does this matter? One can't get proper elm any more some of our original? elm bottoms where well over 3ft wide, one would think you have made it if you got one a foot wide today, but you can get opepe in the original width, so which is better? Using narrow bottom boards means that more nails are use to attach the bottom boards and thus hasten the demise of the garbord strake, so its probably not good practice it terms of boat building skills to use narrow boards, besides being a lot more work. Another question, nearly all the original wooden boats where build with plain cut nails, we nearly all use Galvanised ones now. This is a radical change of spec, but it does stop nail rot, which must be a good thing!? But is it historic?

So if we are to keep one of the last wooden butties such as Chance II going, for example, how does one set about saving such a boat? In the long run the cheapest way is to do a totally rebuild of her. But does one do it a bit at a time, or just start by laying down a new keel and bring the bits over as needed from the original version, if so how and when do you get the bits and what's lost in the process? See conversation about the Raymond.

I'm not sure how the WCBS did the Hazel, I know Chris Leah is very keen on preserving not just the shape but the style, and appears to have done a really good Job.
Just for the record I believe our boat is one of the last true original FMC woodern boats, but now all thats left which came from 1937 besides most of the iron work, is a very moth eatern counter block, the kelson, most of the stanks, a few deck supports and some bits of the lining plank in the tanks, and maybe the bottom planks at the back. We had to replace what was left of the original stem and wooden knees at the front when we rebuilt the front end 4 winters ago. However its a pretty good copy, we think, others may disagree.
So the forth plank at the back was replaced in 1957, 1985 and 2014 so how can she be original?

--

Cheers Ian Mac

 

[Athy]

 

 

The majority of boats built to do a job of work will reach a stage in their lives when they are no longer useful in the line of work they were built for. Sometimes that is because they have been superseded by a more modern, more efficient craft. Sometimes the line of work they were built for no longer exists. Many boats are converted for a new life or line of work at that time

 

 

Rather like people who, when their working life ends, are converted into leisure people and enjoy a new life on a boat.

I didn't know that's what was done with 'Raymond', but it explains why what now masquerades as the same boat looks as it does. If a boat is, to all intents and purposes broken up and, presumably, the knees and ironwork used in the construction of a new boat, then the original boat has ceased to exist and a new one has been built using recycled bits from an old one.

 

This reminds me of the LMS 'Patriot' class engines, supposedly rebuilds of the earlier 'Claughton' class but retaining few of their original parts and bearing little resemblance to them - and not as good-looking!