Vintage engine guides for the uninitiated

[Stilllearning]

On 8/29/2017 at 17:57, Athy said:

Quite right.

As an aside: A week or so ago we passed a boat called Still Learning. I asked the steerer if he was on CWDF but he said not. He explained that it was a shared boat  owned by about 10 people. Was this your boat?

No, I no longer have a boat. Our last one was Winds of Change, then before that, Rawlinson End. Both were portholed modern trads and I still regret selling them.

[Mick in Bangkok]

2 hours ago, mark99 said:

2LW heats a calorifier. Plenty of hot water for showers after a run.

Diesel fired boiler for central heating rads PLUS hot water for showers if you don't want to run the engine (best not to unless it's under load ie moving).

Best of all, two solid fuel stoves one in Trad back cabin, one in Saloon for heat.

Boats have two hearts, one the vintage lump and two the solid fuel stove(s). 

This I could happily live with, looking at boats for sale adverts I am quite taken with the idea of a  vintage engine and boatman’s cabin layout. Mostly it would be two living aboard, myself and my wife with 2 to 4  guests for the summer weeks so a boatman’s cabin would provide a great day cruising cabin as well as a spare berth when needed. I would guess that two solid fuel stoves burning would run up the heating bill a bit but would only be required for a couple of months per year.

[matty40s]

30 minutes ago, Stilllearning said:

No, I no longer have a boat. Our last one was Winds of Change, then before that, Rawlinson End. Both were portholed modern trads and I still regret selling them.

Your last boat Winds of Change now boasts a roof covered in artificial grass - seen over the weekend.

[Stilllearning]

2 hours ago, matty40s said:

Your last boat Winds of Change now boasts a roof covered in artificial grass - seen over the weekend.

The new owners are going to regret that in a few years! 

I hope you are being kept busy, but not too busy moving boats.

[OldGoat]

One topic that I'm surprised has not been aired in this thread is that there's no point in having a proper-slow-revving traditional engine in a modern shallow draughted hull. You need to swing a large propeller rotating slowly to propel the boat silently and effortlessly along its route, accompanied by the gentle pop-pop-pop of the engine exhaust.

The two have to be matched - you can't just bung such an engine in a modern 18" hull.

 

 

[cuthound]

10 hours ago, Mick in Bangkok said:

I will bask in the ambience of the whole experience, however I am also intending to bring my wife along who although shows great tolerance does not share my personal enthusiasm for vintage engines. Perhaps a sound insulated forward salon/sleeping area may be appropriate in my case.

A cheaper and less intrusive option may be a set of earplugs plugs for your wife

(only applicable for air cooled engines - water cooled trad engines usually sound melodic, almost hypnotic, unlike modern high revving 4 cylinder units).

[MtB]

6 hours ago, mark99 said:

Yes us two have 4-5 days per cassette. We have three.

 

I too have three cassettes for my Porta Potti bog. I can last weeks between emptyings!

[Athy]

29 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I too have three cassettes for my Porta Potti bog. I can last weeks between emptyings!

Ah, so it was you that I saw behind that tree.

[Iain_S]

6 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I too have three cassettes for my Porta Potti bog. I can last weeks between emptyings!

Almost composting, then .......

[MtB]

On 31/08/2017 at 21:08, Iain_S said:

Almost composting, then .......

 

Three cassettes on each of my boats....

[rusty69]

10 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Three cassettes on each of my boats....

TDK, BASF and memorex? 

[MtB]

On 31/08/2017 at 21:31, rusty69 said:

TDK, BASF and memorex? 

Three cassettes on EACH....

You need to think of six more brands!

[rusty69]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

Three cassettes on EACH....

You need to think of six more brands!

Damn, not sure  i can. 

[MtB]

Philips, Maxell, AGFA, Scotch, Sony, Errr.... Yamaha!!

[rusty69]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

Philips, Maxell, AGFA, Scotch, Sony, Errr.... Yamaha!!

Or

TDK, BASF and memorex? 

On other two boats. 

[Mick in Bangkok]

13 hours ago, OldGoat said:

One topic that I'm surprised has not been aired in this thread is that there's no point in having a proper-slow-revving traditional engine in a modern shallow draughted hull. You need to swing a large propeller rotating slowly to propel the boat silently and effortlessly along its route, accompanied by the gentle pop-pop-pop of the engine exhaust.

The two have to be matched - you can't just bung such an engine in a modern 18" hull.

I see some reasonable looking boats of the 1990’s with vintage engines, would these hulls be at a disadvantage? What would be the optimal draught to accommodate such an engine.

[MtB]

7 hours ago, Mick in Bangkok said:

I see some reasonable looking boats of the 1990’s with vintage engines, would these hulls be at a disadvantage? What would be the optimal draught to accommodate such an engine.

As with all things boat, there are conflicting issues so 'optimal' becomes a matter of opinion. The deeper the hull the bigger the blade you can accommodate, but the deeper the hull the easier it is and the more frequently you are likely to run out of depth to float in. 

I've just done the southern Stratford in a 29" draft boat (plus skeg) and had significant difficulty passing through many of the bridge holes due to lack of depth. 

My kelvin K1 is running a 21" diameter blade in a nominally 24" draft hull and works fine. The weight of the engine submerges the uxter plate about 5" though, so overall draft is similar. 

I'd guess most Gardners in modern hulls are turning blades no bigger than 22" though. How about you setting up a survey for vintage engine owners asking what blade diameter they are running and what their boats draw? I don't think this has ever been done and the results would be most interesting. 

Edited September 1, 2017 by Mike the Boilerman

[Athy]

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

. 

I'd guess most Gardners in modern hulls are turning blades no bigger than 22" though. How about you setting up a survey for vintage engine owners asking what blade diameter they are running and what their boats draw? I don't think this has ever been done and the results would be most interesting. 

Your guess is dead right in our case, we have a 22" prop. I don't know our draught (and indeed am not sure how it is measured - as it will vary with factors such as amount of water and diesel in the tanks - is it measured as a "dry" figure?), but I seem to remember Mel Davis mentioning 2'8".

P.S. looked for you at Alvecote last weekend but no sightings - was your fleet otherwise engaged? We went over by car on the Saturday.

[MtB]

On 01/09/2017 at 08:54, Athy said:

Your guess is dead right in our case, we have a 22" prop. I don't know our draught (and indeed am not sure how it is measured - as it will vary with factors such as amount of water and diesel in the tanks - is it measured as a "dry" figure?), but I seem to remember Mel Davis mentioning 2'8".

P.S. looked for you at Alvecote last weekend but no sightings - was your fleet otherwise engaged? We went over by car on the Saturday.

 

Yes sorry had to give Alvecote a miss, the River Avon was calling... currently at Evesham

'Draft' is the depth of water the boat needs to float, measured from waterline to the lowest part of the hull. So yes will vary with load. State of fill of water/diesel tanks typically make =+/- an inch or so of difference. The biggest difference is hard to measure though. The stern drops deeper into the water when under way often by several inches. Peer over the back and see the water level against the counter when cracking along - usually a couple of inches higher at least. So the draft of a leaisure boat can vary by 5 or 6" according to load of liquids and people carried, speed through the water and also depth of water. Shallow water makes the stern 'dig in' more.

[dmr]

38 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes sorry had to give Alvecote a miss, the River Avon was calling... currently at Evesham

'Draft' is the depth of water the boat needs to float, measured from waterline to the lowest part of the hull. So yes will vary with load. State of fill of water/diesel tanks typically make =+/- an inch or so of difference. The biggest difference is hard to measure though. The stern drops deeper into the water when under way often by several inches. Peer over the back and see the water level against the counter when cracking along - usually a couple of inches higher at least. So the draft of a leaisure boat can vary by 5 or 6" according to load of liquids and people carried, speed through the water and also depth of water. Shallow water makes the stern 'dig in' more.

By coincidence I have also just done the South Stratford in a boat that sits at about 31" to the skeg bottom (static), and this does appear to be close to the limit. I am sure 3 foot six boats have done it but it would be very hard work. But then again, if we all chhose shallow boats the cut will just get shallower.

I suspect a lot of vintage engine boats like to fit props quite a bit bigger than 21", big props are all part of the vintage engine ethos. ore pitch and bigger blades are options but a big diameter is always best.

As an aside, I would also say that 70 foot is the maximum length for doing the Avon. We are a tad off 71 and reversing into locks is a bit tedious, though luckily very little flow right now.

..............Dave

[David Mack]

Took Fulbourne (71'6" long 3' draft) up the Avon and South Stratford about 3 years ago now. Didn't need to do any locks backwards (going upstream) and managed the canal without getting very stuck.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

Took Fulbourne (71'6" long 3' draft) up the Avon and South Stratford about 3 years ago now. Didn't need to do any locks backwards (going upstream) and managed the canal without getting very stuck.

 

Going downstream would have been a different story though. Going upstream the bow of the boat will overhang the sill by a foot or so on several of the locks, making the lock effectively a foot longer than going downstream. This is why a boat too long to allow the gates to open going downstream will often pass if turned around and goes down backwards. 

[dmr]

55 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Going downstream would have been a different story though. Going upstream the bow of the boat will overhang the sill by a foot or so on several of the locks, making the lock effectively a foot longer than going downstream. This is why a boat too long to allow the gates to open going downstream will often pass if turned around and goes down backwards. 

Just got through Nafford forwards with no more than an inch to spare with front button off. Would not have fancied turning above this lock, tricky flow even at todays low flow level, and a half sunk narrowboat on the weir is a sobering reminder that things can go wrong.

and yes, putting our bow over the cill gains about 9 inches which would just make it possible with 71 foot 6.

..............Dave

[MtB]

2 hours ago, dmr said:

Just got through Nafford forwards with no more than an inch to spare with front button off. Would not have fancied turning above this lock, tricky flow even at todays low flow level, and a half sunk narrowboat on the weir is a sobering reminder that things can go wrong.

and yes, putting our bow over the cill gains about 9 inches which would just make it possible with 71 foot 6.

..............Dave

 

I think you should consider having your boat shortened by about  8"

[Gillie]

4 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I think you should consider having your boat shortened by about  8"

Good idea mike...do you want the 8 inches for your bathroom??