Any recent experiences with Viking Canal Boats

[mariskae]

Hi everyone

 

I'm looking for recent experiences with Viking Canal Boats. I understand that people have been unimpressed with their work in the past. I saw their boat at Crick boat show on the weekend and was actually quite impressed with their work. Is there anyone on here who has recently (in the last year or so) had a boat built by them, or who has thought about having a boat built by them but decided not to? I wonder whether they have upped their game after problems people had with them a few years ago (they did point out for example that they used to use MDF and now they use block board - he showed a sample).

 

Context- looking to have a widebeam built for spring next year and looking at builders.

 

 

Thanks

Mariska

[Boat&Bikes]

Hello and welcome. I have no experience of Viking boats but I did look at the outside steelwork at Crick last weekend. It was much improved on last years boat at the show. Ian.

[mariskae]

Thanks Ian, that's interesting

[Lady Muck]

Mariskae, I would be very careful with *any* budget widebeam builder.

 

Its not the internal fitting out I'd be concerned about, a surveyor friend messaged me the other day to ask me to share his thoughts on budget widebeams being delivered to his yard,

 

He said (c+p from message)

 

'most arrive painted some with the blacking still wet and all with the base plate never painted there is a lattice work of welds on the base plate and most bases are undulating which will be a problem in time take a 70ft narrow boat overplate the base in 6mm steel total cost 11k imagine what a 70ft wide will cost. with the poor quality workmanship of wide beams and there inherent soon to be realised problems with the steel work I can see wide beams becoming the NEW SPRINGERS.'

 

Did you get chance to look at the baseplate? Do you know what to look for? I'm not sure I would, but I can see from the countless new ones that come past me in London, the constructions not always that great, lots of wavy cabin sides.

 

The usual caveat with a new build is to employ a surveyor to oversee the build and it's really really worth doing, if you ask me.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Lady Muck

[Starcoaster]

Springers have lived long, full lives without falling apart and a significant number are still going strong, many without overplating!

[Murflynn]

.... a surveyor friend messaged me the other day to ask me to share his thoughts on budget widebeams being delivered to his yard,

 

He said (c+p from message)

 

'most arrive painted some with the blacking still wet and all with the base plate never painted there is a lattice work of welds on the base plate and most bases are undulating which will be a problem in time take a 70ft narrow boat overplate the base in 6mm steel total cost 11k imagine what a 70ft wide will cost. with the poor quality workmanship of wide beams and there inherent soon to be realised problems with the steel work I can see wide beams becoming the NEW SPRINGERS.'

 

 

oh dear, what an opinionated twit!!

[mariskae]

Thanks lady muck, that's really interesting. Sounds like your friend has a lot of experience. I'd love to have a chat with them if you're able to connect us? In line with your suggestion we will definitely get a surveyor involved in all stages of production.

 

I'm trying to understand what determines the costs of the different boat builders. Are the cheaper boats cheaper because the quality is lower (cheap steel, quick/shoddy welds), or their costs are lower (standardised design, production line, cheaper workforce in Poland/Czech republic). Or a mix - I'm sure it's a bit of a mix but I'm finding it really difficult to navigate.

 

All the boat builders we saw at Crick that seemed to have a really good reputation also had very long waiting lists

 

Colecraft 1.5 yr

Blue water boats 1.5 yr

Aintree 2.5 yrs

 

Part of our issue is timeline. We don't want to commit until we know for sure we've got the funds (August), and we would prefer deliver around March/April). In this regard, the production line companies are attractive.

 

But of course we want to avoid at all cost buying a bad boat!

 

Any thoughts on these companies would also be great:

 

Northwich/elton moss

Collingwood

New&used Hanbury/aqueline

 

In general I'd like to understand who makes consistently bad shells, who makes consistently good shells? I know people don't always want to name companies but hearing positive/negative reviews is really important to me as part of the decision making process.

 

Sorry a bit of a long ramble. But hopefully these questions are all useful too for others looking to have a boat built.

 

Thank you,

[alan_fincher]

oh dear, what an opinionated twit!!

 

Actually I have heard quite a bit unfavourable said about the build quality of some of the more cheaply produced wide-beams, so possibly whichever survey said this may be expressing genuine concerns.

 

From my own observations I would say some of the earlier craft produced by Viking seemed to have given scant consideration to strength and to placing enough guards ("strakes") at the more vulnerable points, though whether they have improved their build quality since I don't know.

 

I think it has been widely stated that there is more to building a big wide beam than just producing a narrow boat clone with a wider baseplate, and there does seem to be some evidence that some of the newer builders are doing little more than this, (though I stress I have no idea if this applies to Viking).

 

As apparently nearly all new boats now being craned in at locations near London, and heading for central London an the Lee and Stort are wide beams, (and in many cases 12 foot plus wide ones, rather than 10 foot plus wide ones), I guess over time we will see whether they are going to be problematic builds or not. I would suggest few of those commissioning the will have thought it necessary to appoint an independent surveyor to supervise the build, and I also suggest that many of those commissioning them have almost zero knowledge about canal boats themselves, so are unlikely to find out until they have owned it for a while, I think.

[alan_fincher]

Part of our issue is timeline. We don't want to commit until we know for sure we've got the funds (August), and we would prefer deliver around March/April). In this regard, the production line companies are attractive.

 

I hope this doesn't sound flippant, but it is an established fact that if you have any boat built by one of the builders with the best reputation you may well face a longer waiting list for a build slot than if you choose somebody who has not gained an established reputation for quality.

 

For me, if somebody can automatically provide a build slot at very little notice, I would want to ask a lot of questions about that company.

[adam1uk]

In line with your suggestion we will definitely get a surveyor involved in all stages of production.

 

How would you do this for a boat built in Poland?

[LEO]

Hi,

 

Have a look at 'No Problem' blog, they have just had a widebeam launched at Watford to-day. Took 2 months from start to finish.

 

Sue on no Problem is a genuine CC and it's quite an interesting blog.

 

Hope this helps.

[matty40s]

The Aqualines produced in Poland use shipbuilding skills from the Gdansk shipyards - they are not slung together quickly or cut corners. Less expensive labour perhaps than cheap labour. Their electrical systems are the dogs bo77ocks and interior woodwork very well put together. The only change I would make is to have your boat shipped over and coachpainted properly, the spraying over there is not good, doesn't age well, and if applied in winter temps, has big problems.

[mariskae]

 

I hope this doesn't sound flippant, but it is an established fact that if you have any boat built by one of the builders with the best reputation you may well face a longer waiting list for a build slot than if you choose somebody who has not gained an established reputation for quality.

 

For me, if somebody can automatically provide a build slot at very little notice, I would want to ask a lot of questions about that company.

 

Yes exactly

 

 

How would you do this for a boat built in Poland?

 

Adam, I was going to ask that myself in a new thread. My husband and I have together owned two boats and commissioned three surveyors over the years - but only to assess a used boat we were interested in buying, not a new build. My thought had been to find a good UK surveyor, that they would have phone calls with the builder and would fly over to survey the hull once welding was completed before fit-out and then to survey it again when it arrives. We would ask him to specify to the builder at the outset what he expects to see in order to sign off on the build.

Does anyone (in the UK) have direct experience of commissioning a surveyor to oversee a boat built abroad?

 

 

Hi,

 

Have a look at 'No Problem' blog, they have just had a widebeam launched at Watford to-day. Took 2 months from start to finish.

 

 

Thanks Leo, that's an amazing diary of the whole build process!

 

 

The Aqualines produced in Poland use shipbuilding skills from the Gdansk shipyards - they are not slung together quickly or cut corners. Less expensive labour perhaps than cheap labour. Their electrical systems are the dogs bo77ocks and interior woodwork very well put together. The only change I would make is to have your boat shipped over and coachpainted properly, the spraying over there is not good, doesn't age well, and if applied in winter temps, has big problems.

 

I read about that somewhere else today Matty. I hadn't thought of the winter colds affecting the paint job. This will be very relevant for us as the boat would be painted in winter. Something to think about. I did like how Viking were describing their paint process.

[Murflynn]

 

Actually I have heard quite a bit unfavourable said about the build quality of some of the more cheaply produced wide-beams, so possibly whichever survey said this may be expressing genuine concerns.

 

From my own observations I would say some of the earlier craft produced by Viking seemed to have given scant consideration to strength and to placing enough guards ("strakes") at the more vulnerable points, though whether they have improved their build quality since I don't know.

 

I think it has been widely stated that there is more to building a big wide beam than just producing a narrow boat clone with a wider baseplate, and there does seem to be some evidence that some of the newer builders are doing little more than this, (though I stress I have no idea if this applies to Viking).

 

As apparently nearly all new boats now being craned in at locations near London, and heading for central London an the Lee and Stort are wide beams, (and in many cases 12 foot plus wide ones, rather than 10 foot plus wide ones), I guess over time we will see whether they are going to be problematic builds or not. I would suggest few of those commissioning the will have thought it necessary to appoint an independent surveyor to supervise the build, and I also suggest that many of those commissioning them have almost zero knowledge about canal boats themselves, so are unlikely to find out until they have owned it for a while, I think.

there are very clear rules about designing the scantlings (thicknesses and sections of structural members) and stiffening of any steel boat that is produced in Europe (i.e. to satisfy Annexe 3a of the RCD requirements). I was sent a copy by Gary Peacock, a previous CWDF member who was involved with a hull builder.

 

it is obvious that a widebeam will require more bottom stiffening than a narrowboat; this is covered by the design rules which must take account of the longer span of stiffening beams, etc.

 

is the surveyor friend implying that Viking Boats (and apparently all widebeam builders) do not follow the requirements?

 

 

 

it is also unlikely that a widebeam bottom is insufficiently stiff, bearing in mind that baseplate thicknesses terd to be at least 10mm, compared with 6mm in the bad old days.

 

it also seems highly unlikely that any builder would waste time and money introducing a 'latticework of welds' in the baseplate which would involve a huge volume of unnecessary weld metal; in fact most builders will lay down the largest plates they can procure and handle, just to avoid such extra work, for example 3 plates each 6m x 3m, involving just 2 cross welds.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Murflynn

[matty40s]

there are very clear rules about designing the scantlings (thicknesses and sections of structural members) and stiffening of any steel boat that is produced in Europe (i.e. to satisfy Annexe 3a of the RCD requirements). I was sent a copy by Gary Peacock, a previous CWDF member who was involved with a hull builder.

 

it is obvious that a widebeam will require more bottom stiffening than a narrowboat; this is covered by the design rules which must take account of the longer span of stiffening beams, etc.

 

is the surveyor friend implying that Viking Boats (and apparently all widebeam builders) do not follow the requirements?

 

 

 

it is also unlikely that a widebeam bottom is insufficiently stiff, bearing in mind that baseplate thicknesses terd to be at least 10mm, compared with 6mm in the bad old days.

 

it also seems highly unlikely that any builder would waste time and money introducing a 'latticework of welds' in the baseplate which would involve a huge volume of unnecessary weld metal; in fact most builders will lay down the largest plates they can procure and handle, just to avoid such extra work, for example 3 plates each 6m x 3m, involving just 2 cross welds.

I think you need to look for Blackroses thread about his flexible uxter plate and how he managed to strengthen it.

[alan_fincher]

I think you need to look for Blackroses thread about his flexible uxter plate and how he managed to strengthen it.

 

Precisely!

 

If Liverpool Boats, who were undoubtedly the biggest volume builder at the time, could produce boats that needed "strengthening up", I fail to see in these days when the whole business is operating on lower margins generally, why it can be assumed that all hulls are built to a sufficient standard.

 

To be clear, I personally have no gripes against the Viking boats, other than some seem ill defended for the knocks they will doubtless receive in inexperienced hands. Oh, and those bloody things sticking up on the front to get ropes caught on!........

it is also unlikely that a widebeam bottom is insufficiently stiff, bearing in mind that baseplate thicknesses terd to be at least 10mm, compared with 6mm in the bad old days.

 

I would suggest you eed far more than just a thick base plate to make any boat rigid enough, and the wider they are built, the more dependent you become on the internal framing.

it also seems highly unlikely that any builder would waste time and money introducing a 'latticework of welds' in the baseplate which would involve a huge volume of unnecessary weld metal; in fact most builders will lay down the largest plates they can procure and handle, just to avoid such extra work, for example 3 plates each 6m x 3m, involving just 2 cross welds.

 

Not necessarily, of course. They will try to use all the steel they have to avoid wastage, and they can't necessarily buy it in stock sizes that match wshat they are trying to build.

 

As an example of the ingenuity they use, the boat we sold last year had 10mm uxter plates as far as the end of the swim, but the bit on the bottom of the counter over the propeller was thinner. This was clearly because the forward parts of the uxter were made from the shaped pieces that were cut off of the base plate, but rearward of this they used what they had available. Not an issue, particularly, but the uxter had welds in it each side where it changed thickness. I can't imagine similar things are not still occurring for some builds.

[matty40s]

was this an Evans build alan?

[alan_fincher]

was this an Evans build alan?

 

I'm sure you know it was. The surveyor pointed it out. It was in no way treated as an issue - I'm just challenging the idea they don't try and join bits up to save steel!

[matty40s]

ah, I have been looking at another this week where the joins don't quite do that....

 

why you should always have a survey number 267...

Edited June 2, 2016 by matty40s

[Lady Muck]

oh dear, what an opinionated twit!!

No not at all, hes seriously concerned that people don't know what they've bought, which is why he told me what I've just posted on here. I'm not exaggerating when I say he sees a widebeam (and its baseplate) at least every week. Why would he make this up? He's a surveyor, it's his job to identify this stuff.

Mariskae, send me a private message, I'll put you in touch.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Lady Muck

[Lady Muck]

How would you do this for a boat built in Poland?

employ one over there?

Springers have lived long, full lives without falling apart and a significant number are still going strong, many without overplating!

Yeah but yours is in awesome condition, you don't hear about the uninsurable wrecks that the London boat yards see.

[raymondh]

Ours is 10ft wide

 

[Murflynn]

seriously stiff

[FadeToScarlet]

A friend bought a widebeam from a very cheap, low volume builder.

 

It is utterly terrible as a boat- doesn't swim well at all, makes a fair wake, and the engine (right under one piece of 18mm ply in the wheelhouse) has no attempt at soundproofing and needs to be revved a lot to go anywhere. It's one of the worst boats I've ever steered.

 

It's ugly on the outside- in fact, it looks very much like a tractor.

 

Similarly inside, it's cheap and nasty, with wood-effect plastic trims and MDF fittings. It can only be moored one way around, because only one of the wheelhouse doors has a lock on it. It came without a stove, the electrics were messy, and the builder has been down several times for snagging work.

 

In short, I'd go for a nice second hand boat over a cheap new one every time

[David Mack]

A friend bought a widebeam from a very cheap, low volume builder.

 

It is utterly terrible as a boat- doesn't swim well at all, makes a fair wake, and the engine (right under one piece of 18mm ply in the wheelhouse) has no attempt at soundproofing and needs to be revved a lot to go anywhere. It's one of the worst boats I've ever steered.

 

It's ugly on the outside- in fact, it looks very much like a tractor.

 

Similarly inside, it's cheap and nasty, with wood-effect plastic trims and MDF fittings. It can only be moored one way around, because only one of the wheelhouse doors has a lock on it. It came without a stove, the electrics were messy, and the builder has been down several times for snagging work.

 

In short, I'd go for a nice second hand boat over a cheap new one every time

And your friend didn't see any of that coming? What did he think he was buying?