Complete Propulsion Installation

[Murflynn]

The rear deck (at this stage) is still up for "adjustment" and the hatch thats visible in some pics is a weed hatch so unless I'm mistaken then a trad stern is preferred. Sorry for not keeping up with replies but hadn't realised there were updates. I'm also planning to "angle" the forward face of the weedhatch to make it easier to get my whole arm in from the front side, if I go ahead with that I'll show the results.

The presence of a weed hatch is not related to whether it's a trad stern or not.

As DC says, it is not a trad stern boat and unless you intend to substantially extend the rear of the cabin and change the bulkheads, etc. it never will be.

You could convert it to a semi-trad by extending the cabin sides aft, leaving the rear cabin bulkhead intact, but the engine installation won't be affected.

It is a cruiser stern and the engine installation should be straightforward. You need to measure the distance from the bulkhead to the point of the vee and then compare it with other narrowboats (pictures available on the manufacturers' sites and on this website, if you search).

There appears to be a hole aft of the weedhatch which, if I'm not mistaken, is the rudder tube.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Murflynn

[Roustabout]

Sorry guys, its probably MY interpretation of a cruiser/trad stern thats confusing issues. The pics are from when the nb was aquired BEFORE the existing cabin was removed (due to quality/distortion), new cabin is currently being fabricated with a box-iron framework that will extend further towards the rear (with the counter adapted to suit). I've spoken with Ditchcrawler previously with regards to hydraulics but its still a "dark art" to me, but it would certainly be of benefit to me for exactly the same reasons.

[MtB]

Anglian Diesels are the company specialising in hydraulic drives for narrowboats. They have the expertise if you have the cash.

 

It won't be cheap and I really don't see the point unless the new cabin superstructure you mention IS going to be a proper trad style with a traditional back cabin and engine room forward of this. Even then I don't see the point as I think I saw you saw you were fitting a BMC 2.2 which isn't going to look exactly fantastic in as engine room, nor would raising it 3" to clear the kelson matter one jot, in my opinion. A marine gearbox would drop the output shaft by about this amount anyway!

(Blimey, that all came out as a bit of a jumble!)

[ditchcrawler]

Sorry guys, its probably MY interpretation of a cruiser/trad stern thats confusing issues. The pics are from when the nb was aquired BEFORE the existing cabin was removed (due to quality/distortion), new cabin is currently being fabricated with a box-iron framework that will extend further towards the rear (with the counter adapted to suit). I've spoken with Ditchcrawler previously with regards to hydraulics but its still a "dark art" to me, but it would certainly be of benefit to me for exactly the same reasons.

There is another way with the hydraulic pod so you don't have a shaft coming through the hull, I have standard stern gear with an inboard hydraulic motor.

 

http://www.herculeshydraulics.co.uk/products/drive-pods.html

http://betamarine.co.uk/portfolio-item/hydraulic-propulsion/

http://www.waterwaysworld.com/questionspost.cgi?post=482

[Roustabout]

Thank you everyone for your comments, even though some of them I don't relish all comments are welcome whether I like them or not. I like the idea of the hydro pods but in my opinion too overkill for an nb, plus it puts the hydro fluid close to the water with only the integrity of any hoses/seals seperating the fluid from the environment. I don't have a problem with a through-hull fitting but just cannot afford to go "bespoke" which is what just about everyone has so far offered (during research) for the hydro option which would of been preferred for headroom/engine position/through hull alignment wear.

The hull itself is of unknown build and year, not ideally designed but workable with a 12mm baseplate.

[MtB]

With a 12mm baseplate I'd have no hesitation chopping out a bit of keelson to get the engine lower if it is bothering you!

 

Still confused about whether you are going to put the engine forward in a separate engine room and what format of new cabin you are building...

Oh and keep it simple and conventional. This is always the best way to achieve the most fit for purpose goal you mention. Drop the hydraulic idea. Fit an ordinary prop shaft (cardan shaft if a forward engine room) and put up with the lower headroom in the back cabin!

[Roustabout]

Sorry Mike maybe this will help explain the logic.

Got it cheap(ish) enough to make it feasible and its sited in a yard 100 miles away making it difficult to attend and work with. Substandard cabin now removed and being rebuilt (part-time) with a view to "getting it home" (lower GU) to enable more frequent attendance to finalise any works. My best plan is to fit all associated propulsion and controls (fit for purpose engine-gearbox-shaft-propellor-rudder) to enable the movement, and a back cabin to act as a "bedsit" to enable full-time attendance. When the cabin gets "skinned over" it will then gain security, as the window apertures will only be cut like a stencil, that's to say that half a dozen or so areas will remain to retain the steel panel where the windows will be (offering security until windows fitted). Until I have a secure "container" I cannot leave anything onsite which also limits progress. As soon as its ready for baptism and launch then the RCD/BSS and licence can be arranged.

[Roustabout]

Its currently situated not far from the Black Country Museum

[ditchcrawler]

Its currently situated not far from the Black Country Museum

Factory

[Roustabout]

Correct Ditchcrawler

[Roustabout]

Good grief Ditchcrawler it appears that we share the same birthday, albeit 10yrs apart !

[Paul C]

Sorry guys, its probably MY interpretation of a cruiser/trad stern thats confusing issues. The pics are from when the nb was aquired BEFORE the existing cabin was removed (due to quality/distortion), new cabin is currently being fabricated with a box-iron framework that will extend further towards the rear (with the counter adapted to suit). I've spoken with Ditchcrawler previously with regards to hydraulics but its still a "dark art" to me, but it would certainly be of benefit to me for exactly the same reasons.

 

Do you have any up-to-date pics?

[Roustabout]

Unfortunately not Paul, but hopefully will have sometime soon. Also I'll try to make an effort on recording "specific" measurements throughout, then at least that way I can start getting some more precise planning underway even if it means painting a full size outline on the grass with emulsion.

[ditchcrawler]

If you are fitting a BMC with a Newage PRM260 box with the offset output shaft, would that not get the shaft low enough to sit the engine above the keelson?

[Roustabout]

I managed to grab an opportune PRM150 on another deal elsewhere prior to any required research in the hope it would suffice, but second thoughts point me towards a 260. Due to distance and weight I've not yet made the effort to analyse any of the physicals regarding engine placement and alignment, other than knowing that the trend is for the lump to go down almost to the baseplate. I figured there's a good reason for this as it seems to be the norm amongst others, the BMC is the OEM marinised lump with the full sump. This is the reason why I was hoping to make a "fake" engine (dimention-wise) to give me something easy to push/pull around while I try to get the position right, even though it weighs plenty I can't leave the engine there to be vandalised/stripped/weighed in.

[ditchcrawler]

How about putting the engine to one side ans having a pair of joints in the prop shaft, you may be able to run most of it under the bed hole so keeping your head room.

[Paul C]

How about putting the engine to one side ans having a pair of joints in the prop shaft, you may be able to run most of it under the bed hole so keeping your head room.

 

I was going to suggest this too. You'd basically need (well, not need but desired to) plan your layout so that the majority of the furniture/fixed/heavy units are on the other side of the engine, to minimise the amount of ballasting required. If not, then I suspect a lot of ballast would be required, and combined with the 12mm base plate will lead to issues such as drain holes, engine room vent holes etc being too close to the waterline, too little freeboard, too much draft, etc.

[bottle]

Put the engine where the shell was designed to take it.

 

Build back cabin in front of that.

[Roustabout]

As far as the pics are concerned EVERYTHING above the gunnels has been removed, is there something to suggest if this was designed specifically for one layout or another with regards to cruiser/trad ?

If there IS then please excuse my ignorance as I didn't know. The back cabin plan was to make it more possible to get afloat quicker under its own independent power.

[Murflynn]

The quickest way to make it possible to get afloat under its own power is to make a perfectly conventional installation with the engine under the stern deck and a short stern tube/shaft, as the hull was clearly designed for.

 

If you've removed all the upper-works then you can put the temporary accommodation anywhere you like, for example under a tent awning in the body of the boat.

 

However if you choose to make life complicated it seems unreasonable to expect the forum to understand and help out with your impractical solutions, especially when you drip-feed us with new information.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Murflynn

[ditchcrawler]

The quickest way to make it possible to get afloat under its own power is to make a perfectly conventional installation with the engine under the stern deck and a short stern tube/shaft, as the hull was clearly designed for.

 

If you've removed all the upper-works then you can put the temporary accommodation anywhere you like, for example under a tent awning in the body of the boat.

 

However if you choose to make life complicated it seems unreasonable to expect the forum to understand and help out with your impractical solutions, especially when you drip-feed us with new information.

How is that any more conventional than putting the engine in front of the back cabin?

[Roustabout]

Murflynn, I apologise if I come across as "unreasonable" that's certainly far from my intention. I know little about hull design other than the basics of displacement & planing and that swims are as important at the stern as well as the bow. I've come here to ask advice of better people than me and of course for MY part I've not offered much by way of evidence for diagnosis (old pics). I probably wrongly assumed the pics might of been swaying opinion with regards to a cruiser stern going by the previous cabin that is no longer there, but if (as has been suggested) the hull looks like it was built FOR the purpose of an engine under the counter I wouldn't recognise it being a layman. Having said that though I DO recognise that it WAS built previously as a cruiser, from the gunnels down would there be a difference between this and a more traditionally built hull ?

I ask this because I honestly don't know and I am more than happy to be made aware, and thanks everyone for advice so far.

[bottle]

The pictures say cruiser stern:

The chequered plate is the engine cover.

The engine needs to go under there.

Unless you have removed all that stern deck

 

The other picture says cruiser stern with extended sides, it is not a 'semi-trad'

[Murflynn]

How is that any more conventional than putting the engine in front of the back cabin?

 

get real !!

[Roustabout]

Some of the chequerplate is gone already so to some extent can be altered more, its just a matter of where to draw (cut) the line. While its at the stage it is it should be easier to build it to any desired spec, unless I'm mistaken. Yes it WAS a cruiser stern but does it have to stay that way because the way I see it a trad is just a cruiser that's been enclosed and the floor removed. The point I'm trying to make is that a trad stern is desired, is there a logical reason why it cannot be one ?