Modern hulls to carry cargo

[David Schweizer]

 

Yes, this boat is still at Winkwell, I think.

 

However unless OP gives some idea what they want to carry, and how much of it, it is impossible to answer whether an adapted leisure boat could suit.

 

A full length working (motor) boat will load to something like 20 tons, if there is enough water for it to float in, (a butty maybe 5 tons more than a motor). The boat that is pictured there is highly unlikely to be good for more than about 10 tons, because of its length and a "hold" that will be very much shallower than "the real thing". You might load a working boat to a draft of say 3' 6", and it will have at least 4' deep hull sides, so still show 6" of side with that load on. Many leisure boat hulls are nothing like 3' 6" deep, so if you try and achieve a loaded draft of 3' 6", the results will not be good(!)

 

So jollymoggy, what do you want to carry, and how much of it?

 

But some are. Our boat has 4ft 2" sides and the builder built at least one 72 ft boat to the same hull dimensions which was used for carrying - Newbury bulit for and operated by John Forth

[alan_fincher]

 

Is that a valid generalisation?

 

Our boat has hull sides just on 4' and she isn't particularly "high waisted", looking round the marina if most boats are drawing around 2' they must have gunwale heights (above base plate) of at least 3'6".

 

Well obviously 3' 6" sides would not allow you to load to anything approaching a 3' 6" draught, as any narrow boat built for carrying should be easily capable of.

 

With 4' hull sides it would be possible if you were brave enough to only leave 6" showing, but I think if I were going to do that I'd be more comfortable with a 70 foot boat than one of (say) 50 feet, which is going to rock more, and hence more likely to have the gunwales go beyond a critical point.

Edited June 4, 2015 by alan_fincher

[alan_fincher]

 

But some are. Our boat has 4ft 2" sides and the builder built at least one 72 ft boat to the same hull dimensions which was used for carrying - Newbury bulit for and operated by John Forth

 

Yes clearly why I said "many are", which obviously implies some are not.

 

If you have 4' 2" sides that is broadly similar to a "Star" class boats, but this was I suggest unusual in a new build, even when yours was built.

 

I guess many a Springer probably has a similar hull depth, as they are actually "more hull and less top" than many other leisure boats, but I don't think I'd want to use one as a carrying boat.

 

"Chalice" I think was a fairly typical "Clonecraft", probably of similar proportions to many built in the 1980s and 1990s. Its hullside was 3' 10" deep, so actually only 4" less than Helvetia. If trying to carry with it, I think a 3' draught would have been a reasonable maximum number to work to.

 

...... except that the exhaust would have been several inches under water at that stage, and any attempt to remove the weed hatch quite disastrous - two further things for OP to consider if they intend to load a leisure boat hull down well beyond what was originally intended.

[Neil2]

...... except that the exhaust would have been several inches under water at that stage, and any attempt to remove the weed hatch quite disastrous - two further things for OP to consider if they intend to load a leisure boat hull down well beyond what was originally intended.

 

That's a good point, I reckon you would have to extend the weed hatch on most leisure boats and as for some reason builders seem to think the exhaust should be as low as possible you'd probably have to deal with that too. We hired a boat a couple of years ago that submerged it's exhaust when the waste tank was full!

[David Mack]

...... except that the exhaust would have been several inches under water at that stage, and any attempt to remove the weed hatch quite disastrous - two further things for OP to consider if they intend to load a leisure boat hull down well beyond what was originally intended.

Which of course is why working boats had exhausts out through the cabin roof and no weedhatch.

Edited June 4, 2015 by David Mack

[jollymoggy]

 

Yes clearly why I said "many are", which obviously implies some are not.

 

If you have 4' 2" sides that is broadly similar to a "Star" class boats, but this was I suggest unusual in a new build, even when yours was built.

 

I guess many a Springer probably has a similar hull depth, as they are actually "more hull and less top" than many other leisure boats, but I don't think I'd want to use one as a carrying boat.

 

"Chalice" I think was a fairly typical "Clonecraft", probably of similar proportions to many built in the 1980s and 1990s. Its hullside was 3' 10" deep, so actually only 4" less than Helvetia. If trying to carry with it, I think a 3' draught would have been a reasonable maximum number to work to.

 

...... except that the exhaust would have been several inches under water at that stage, and any attempt to remove the weed hatch quite disastrous - two further things for OP to consider if they intend to load a leisure boat hull down well beyond what was originally intended.

Yeah I've thought about the weed hatch and exhaust. I'd have all outlets including exhaust welded shut. And have the weed hatch height increased.

[junior]

I'd have all outlets including exhaust welded shut.

 

I don't think that will do your engine much good.

[jollymoggy]

I don't think that will do your engine much good.

You know what I mean, obviously new exhaust will be in place

[onionbargee]

Weld in a high coaming around the hold would get you a bit more depth.

[cuthound]

I think the living accommodation is forward of the engine 'ole

 

The hold looks fairly big and deep to me:

 

Hadar1

 

 

Hadar2

 

When I saw the top picture I thought"Blimey, wrens, let alone sparrows could drink of that gunnel", then I noticed someone had paved the cut over

[GUMPY]

Stokie No1 was built in the 1990's to carry cargo, John made a go of it ubtil he got disoloutioned with it.

http://www.pearce-bennett.freeserve.co.uk/stokie.htm

Are the only pics I can find.

The boat was shunned by most of those with traditional "working" boats as despite the fact he was making a living from it it wasn't an old boat.........

[furnessvale]

Stokie No1 was built in the 1990's to carry cargo, John made a go of it ubtil he got disoloutioned with it.

http://www.pearce-bennett.freeserve.co.uk/stokie.htm

Are the only pics I can find.

The boat was shunned by most of those with traditional "working" boats as despite the fact he was making a living from it it wasn't an old boat.........

I don't think that comment is entirely fair. The vast majority of traditional "working" boats are "ex working" boats and IIRC were fairly indifferent to the activities of Stokie, or Newbury, Newdigate or Hadar come to that.

 

Stokie did have turf war problems with at least one other dealer which is exactly the same as turf wars between dealers using old boats.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[zenataomm]

Hi all,

 

Might seem a daft question but I'm considering whether a modern hull can be converted to carry cargo. The old carrying boats I see sit high in the water and tower over new boats. Is converting an existing hull an option or do I need an old working boat?

 

Thanks

 

 

As is the tradition of canalworld.net this thread quite quickly staggered off course at the first junction.

The OP asked about converting a modern hull to carry cargo, not purpose built modern hulls to carry cargo.

 

I still have doubts that many modern shaped pleasure narrow boats would have the strength to maintain integrity after having 10 -20 ton of anything shot into it.

They don't have either 3" thick elm bottoms or steel ones with heavy duty kelson running the length with profiled knees running in close to stop bowing and bulging.

 

Cast stem posts aren't a major part of modern construction nor is a lengthy swim at either end. To move and stop that kind of dead weight a small set of blades spinning fast close to the surface is no match to a large course set running deep.

 

Admittedly it could all be altered, but how much is the budget here? And at what point do you use the same amount of money to go down the "Newbury/Hadar" route or replate an old hull that was designed and built to do the job?

 

I think that was the OP's question ....... probably wrong, I'm sure others will correct me.

[David Schweizer]

Stokie No1 was built in the 1990's to carry cargo, John made a go of it ubtil he got disoloutioned with it.

http://www.pearce-bennett.freeserve.co.uk/stokie.htm

Are the only pics I can find.

The boat was shunned by most of those with traditional "working" boats as despite the fact he was making a living from it it wasn't an old boat.........

 

Actually that is not strictly correct, As I understand it, she was originally built in the early 1990's by Pinders as a recreational boat, but for some reason was not completed. Pinders were then left with an almost complete boat with no buyer until Dave Sharman did a deal with them to remove the superstructure, modify the hull, and finish her completion as a working boat. Dave and Brioni ran her for a few years until Dave became ill and sadly died sometime around 1997. It was then that John Chard took over running the Stokie.

Edited June 7, 2015 by David Schweizer

[GUMPY]

 

Actually that is not strictly correct, As I understand it, she was originally built in the early 1990's by Pinders as a recreational boat, but for some reason was not completed. Pinders were then left with an almost complete boat with no buyer until Dave Sharman did a deal with them to remove the superstructure, modify the hull, and finish her completion as a working boat. Dave and Brioni ran her for a few years until Dave became ill and sadly died sometime around 1997. It was then that John Chard took over running the Stokie.

Thanks for completing the story I didn't know that.

As Stokie wasn't built as a cargo vessel it shows that modern pleasure hulls could/can be converted to carry.

[David Schweizer]

Thanks for completing the story I didn't know that.

As Stokie wasn't built as a cargo vessel it shows that modern pleasure hulls could/can be converted to carry.

 

John stopped trading a few years ago, and since then The Stokie has been sold (possibly twice). I saw her last year looking rather scruffy with no name on the side panels, but knowing the boat well, recognised her, The new owner confirmed that she was The Stokie and that he had recently aquired her, and was planning to trade with her.

Edited June 8, 2015 by David Schweizer

[ditchcrawler]

 

 

As is the tradition of canalworld.net this thread quite quickly staggered off course at the first junction.

The OP asked about converting a modern hull to carry cargo, not purpose built modern hulls to carry cargo.

 

I still have doubts that many modern shaped pleasure narrow boats would have the strength to maintain integrity after having 10 -20 ton of anything shot into it.

They don't have either 3" thick elm bottoms or steel ones with heavy duty kelson running the length with profiled knees running in close to stop bowing and bulging.

 

Cast stem posts aren't a major part of modern construction nor is a lengthy swim at either end. To move and stop that kind of dead weight a small set of blades spinning fast close to the surface is no match to a large course set running deep.

 

Admittedly it could all be altered, but how much is the budget here? And at what point do you use the same amount of money to go down the "Newbury/Hadar" route or replate an old hull that was designed and built to do the job?

 

I think that was the OP's question ....... probably wrong, I'm sure others will correct me.

But the OP is not talking about carrying 20 tons only about 6 or 7 from the way I read it.

[onionbargee]

 

 

As is the tradition of canalworld.net this thread quite quickly staggered off course at the first junction.

The OP asked about converting a modern hull to carry cargo, not purpose built modern hulls to carry cargo.

 

I still have doubts that many modern shaped pleasure narrow boats would have the strength to maintain integrity after having 10 -20 ton of anything shot into it.

They don't have either 3" thick elm bottoms or steel ones with heavy duty kelson running the length with profiled knees running in close to stop bowing and bulging.

 

Cast stem posts aren't a major part of modern construction nor is a lengthy swim at either end. To move and stop that kind of dead weight a small set of blades spinning fast close to the surface is no match to a large course set running deep.

 

Admittedly it could all be altered, but how much is the budget here? And at what point do you use the same amount of money to go down the "Newbury/Hadar" route or replate an old hull that was designed and built to do the job?

 

I think that was the OP's question ....... probably wrong, I'm sure others will correct me.

Can't agree with any of that I'm afraid.

[jollymoggy]

I've been enjoying all the replies. Very mixed opinions here Thanks for sharing your thoughts.