Wooden boats c.f. Iron/steel ones

[Tam & Di]

Does anyone have comparables for the physical deadweight of a wooden boat with a similar one built in iron/steel? The empty draught would give the same comparison.

Unfortunately we got rid of our G.U. guaging books when we left Bulls Bridge or I could have done a comparison of a Ricky butty with a similar size Woolwich myself. There are probably figures for L&L shortboats too. As well as deadweight it would be useful to know the comparable carrying capacities, as long as depth of hold was taken into account.

[Jrtm]

Closest you might get would pos be

Fmc boats

Or if wanted gu then would be large Ricky's vs the metal equivalent.

 

I can't think of a yard that built both wood and metal to sim builds except those two options as severn were very diffrent in wood and steel. Were fmc build them to sim lines and design with same engines.

 

The other thing you need to think about is whether the bottoms on the steel boats were steel or wood. As from my experience a wooden bottom the boat needs alot more ballast to get it to a sim depth as a steel bottomed boat of the same design.

[David Mack]

The other thing you need to think about is whether the bottoms on the steel boats were steel or wood. As from my experience a wooden bottom the boat needs alot more ballast to get it to a sim depth as a steel bottomed boat of the same design.

 

Depends what you mean by "same design" and "same depth".

 

A wooden boat has typically 3" thick bottoms, a steel boat perhaps 5/16". So are boats of the "same design" ones with the same internal hold height, and hence the wooden one has a higher overall hull depth, or do they have the same overall depth, with the wooden one having less internal height?

 

And by "same depth" are you measuring the dry side inches i.e. from water level to gunwale, or the depth from water level to the underside of the bottoms?

[Pluto]

This letter of 14 Nov 1952 compares the draft of wooden (Bradford and Darlington) and a high tension steel short boat (Darwen). I very much doubt that accurate figures survive for the weight of the steel boats, let alone wooden ones, though I do have a copy of the displacement scale for Darwen.

 

[The Bagdad Boatman (waits)]

It was said that Mayor of Tarlton's wooden wide boats were so light they could float on a wet field.

[pete harrison]

Does anyone have comparables for the physical deadweight of a wooden boat with a similar one built in iron/steel? The empty draught would give the same comparison.

 

Unfortunately we got rid of our G.U. guaging books when we left Bulls Bridge or I could have done a comparison of a Ricky butty with a similar size Woolwich myself. There are probably figures for L&L shortboats too. As well as deadweight it would be useful to know the comparable carrying capacities, as long as depth of hold was taken into account.

As you say, the various gauge registers help us to understand some of these aspects of boat construction. Fortunately I have a couple of notes I can refer to.

 

I have a Harland and Wolff Ltd. 'yard list', or at least extracts relating to the boats that they built for inland waterways use. The two pairs of 'prototype' wooden narrow boats that they built for the G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. list the dimensions as 71'6'' x 7'0½'' x 4'2'', and the B.o.T. registered tonnage as 16.00 for the motors and 15.00 for the buttys. By comparison the first batch of small Woolwich's (iron composite) list the dimensions as 71'6'' x 7'0½'' x 4'2'', and the B.o.T. registered tonnage as 17.50 for the motors and 16.00 for the buttys. All of the details for the second batch of small Woolwich's (steel composite) are identical to the first batch (iron composite).

 

The gauge registers for these boats tell us a similar story:

 

wooden Harland and Wolff Ltd. built motor = ALDEBARAN - GU12359 - 71'6'' x 7'1'' x 13.52'' draught light x 50.56'' draught laden with 36 tons with 0.01'' dry side.

This gauge suggests that ALDEBARAN = 50.57'' total hull depth = 4'2½ (near as damn it).

 

steel composite Harland and Wolff Ltd. built motor = CORONA - GU12552 - 71'6'' x 7'1'' x 14.75'' draught light x 49.67'' draught laden with 34 tons with 0.23'' dry side.

This gauge suggests that CORONA = 49.90'' total hull depth = 4'1 7/8'' (near as damn it).

 

wooden Harland and Wolff Ltd. built butty = SATURN - GU12376 - 71'9'' x 7'1¼'' x 12.30'' draught light x 50.78'' draught laden with 40 tons with 0.27'' dry side.

This gauge suggests that SATURN = 51.05'' total hull depth = 4'1'' (near as damn it).

 

iron composite Harland and Wolff Ltd. built butty = SATELLITE - GU12460 - 71'9'' x 7'1¼'' x 13.30'' draught light x 49.48'' draught laden with 38 tons with 0.54'' dry side.

This gauge suggests that SATELLITE = 50.02'' total hull depth = 4'2'' (near as damn it).

 

I do have to add that I have found boat dimensions stated on gauge tables to be very unreliable as they were not really relevant. The figures given for the gauging (draught light, draught laden, rate of drop as calibrated weights were added) appear to be very accurate, and it is these figures that tolls were payable against - so I do believe these.

 

The above tonnage figures do suggest to me that iron / steel composite boats were heavier than similar sized wooden boats, and their nett carrying capacity was therefore compromised - in these instances by about 2 tons. This does not sound much but if a boat were to load once per week to maximum theoretical capacity that would equal 52 loads a year with a loss of 2 tons per load = 52 x 2 = 104 tons lost capacity a year per composite hulled boat. Fortunately these boats did not load anywhere near the figures quoted on the gauge tables so nothing was lost, not as far as 'real world' capacity is concerned anyway

 

edit = if this does not move me from Bristol to Buckden (or beyond) I don't know what will.

Edited November 17, 2016 by pete harrison

[pete harrison]

Closest you might get would pos be

Fmc boats

Or if wanted gu then would be large Ricky's vs the metal equivalent.

 

I can't think of a yard that built both wood and metal to sim builds except those two options

Harland and Wolff Ltd. built small Woolwich pairs in both wood and composite construction with identical nominal dimensions

[Jrtm]

Harland and Wolff Ltd. built small Woolwich pairs in both wood and composite construction with identical nominal dimensions

Tar pete

 

I would use these boats then as built at same yard to same specs as pete said.

 

Depends what you mean by "same design" and "same depth".

 

A wooden boat has typically 3" thick bottoms, a steel boat perhaps 5/16". So are boats of the "same design" ones with the same internal hold height, and hence the wooden one has a higher overall hull depth, or do they have the same overall depth, with the wooden one having less internal height?

 

And by "same depth" are you measuring the dry side inches i.e. from water level to gunwale, or the depth from water level to the underside of the bottoms?

I said wooden bottoms! Ie composite boats.

 

Youll never get exactly the same dimensions ever as a wooden boat has 3 inch sides and steel what 8mm ish.

 

The only thing you can use is say a wooden boat built to a josher design and composite boat or full steel to as close a design as pos. The best to compare would be the ones pete said.

You would also need to take into concideration the engines weights ect why I sugested fmc as the engines cabin fitings ect should be the same

(+ wooden joshers are just better! ;-) )

[Pluto]

It was said that Mayor of Tarlton's wooden wide boats were so light they could float on a wet field.

Whoever told you that had it wrong. Mayor's boats tended to be built strong enough for working in the docks, though there may have been a difference between their general cargo boats and the ones they built for the coal trade. Riley Green boats were the ones which had a reputation for being light enough to sail on a good dew, and their framing was smaller in section and set two inches further apart than at yards like Mayors or Hodsons.

[rivergate]

I was once told that Mountbatten would float on wet grass!

Edited November 17, 2016 by rivergate

[royg]

The boat weights in Pluto's list, 'Bradford' built at Mayor's Tarleton and 'Darlington' built at Mayor's Wigan, shows that the Tarleton boat had the better carrying capacity.

[Pluto]

It could have depended upon which set of moulds were used for the framing, as there were several different sets. In the late 1930s, Mayors were asked to take the lines off one of the Yorkshire built boats as they had greater capacity. This was the result of the historic methods used for constructing and framing wooden boats in Yorkshire, which derived from clinker building, whereas in Lancashire they had always used carvel. As I mentioned previously, there were also differences between coal boats, which just worked on the canal, and the general cargo and grain boats, which worked into the docks at Liverpool and Birkenhead.