Liveaboard - should i consider a vintage engine or not?

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Detling said:

We were moored behind a boat with a vintage engine (I think single cylinder), He started the engine, which shook my boat as well as his, and then locked up and went to the pub for 3 hours. When he returned he stopped his engine and went inside to peace and quite, and charged batteries. 

They sound great, take up more space but the shaking must get tiresome after a while whilst charging batteries in winter, which is likely to be 3-5 hours daily in December, and it's too b***dy cold to go anywhere, so you stay moored up.

 

My vintage Kelvin is not used for battery charging. I have the Whispergen for that.

[Detling]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

My vintage Kelvin is not used for battery charging. I have the Whispergen for that.

Lucky you, they are as rare as rocking horse manure. I wish they were still available.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Detling
grammer

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Detling said:

Lucky you, they are as rare as rocking horse manure. I wish they were still available.

 

Lucky????????????????????

The sheer amount of time and effort I put into finding and obtaining one beggars belief. 

Its a bit like when people say 'oh you're so lucky to live on a boat'. Grrrr. No not lucky, the result of a mahoosive amount of effort, planning and compromise.  

[mrsmelly]

7 hours ago, dmr said:

We've got the JD3 which is not vintage but otherwise  has similar characteristics. Yes it does shake the boat but I find that quite pleasing, challenge is to find a speed that does not set off too many rattles. Yes. it does take a while to warm up, its not so much the mass, just that big DI diesels are so efficient. This is where the Travel Power really helps, it works the immersion heater and puts some load on the engine, takes about 40 mins to get up to temperature.

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

Ahhh  now  a JD3 I could live with thats a PROPER engine.

[dccruiser]

I lived with a JP2 years ago , yes it sounded great and drew a lot of attention, but as has been said shook the boat, gave you a headache after a long days cruising and if the wind was in the wrong direction filled your lungs with co2! ... thankfully it was only a holiday boat as i certainly couldnt have lived with it on a daily basis, but its like bogs, pram hoods, cruiser semi trad or trad sterns, each to their own.

Rick

[Edders]

2 hours ago, dccruiser said:

I lived with a JP2 years ago , yes it sounded great and drew a lot of attention, but as has been said shook the boat, gave you a headache after a long days cruising and if the wind was in the wrong direction filled your lungs with co2! ... thankfully it was only a holiday boat as i certainly couldnt have lived with it on a daily basis, but its like bogs, pram hoods, cruiser semi trad or trad sterns, each to their own.

Rick

It's not the CO2 I would be worried about.

[alan_fincher]

23 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Like you, I cannot understand the attraction of a Lister. Noisy rattly things with no personality. Completely different kettle of fish from Gardner’s, Kelvins etc. 

Possibly because they are proper narrow boat engines, as actually fitted to working narrow boats, rather than engines having nowt to do with narrow boats, and adapted to pretend that they do.

Gardner 2LWs, Kelvin K2s etc are indeed things of beauty, and it's nice to see them given a new lease of life by those rich enough to be able to afford that much Brasso, but please let's not pretend they are vintage narrow boat engines.  They are vintage engines that somebody happens to have dumped in a narrow boat.

[alan_fincher]

23 hours ago, Athy said:

You must know one which is in very poor condition. Ours drinks about a gallon per seven miles, and drinks scarcely any oil at all.

Really?

At 3.5 mph, that would be over 2 litres an hour.

That really is very thirsty for canal use in a boat as small as yours.

If you are correct, I wonder why?  Our LIsters don't une anything like that, even in a 72 foot boat on 3 foot draught.

[alan_fincher]

22 hours ago, Athy said:

I suppose I could try using the "litres per hour " formula but I haven't yet. 

Probably about the only figure that gives any number that is meaningful at all, and allows comparison with other peoples experience.

As our Lister HAs are pushing along ex working boats on ex-working boat draughts, and also as they are 50 year old technology, I expected them to be less frugal than the 1 to 1.5 litres peer hour that most people quote for a modern engine on canals, rather than rivers.  I would particularly have expected the 72 foot boat, effectively "half loaded" to use more fuel than a modern boat anyway.

The pleasant reality it that both are as frugal as something Mr Smelly might rave about.  I can't immediately see why a Gardner 2LW should use more fuel than a Lister HA.  I suspect if you tried hard to really calculate litres per hour, that it would not be.

[Athy]

2 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

  I can't immediately see why a Gardner 2LW should use more fuel than a Lister HA.  I suspect if you tried hard to really calculate litres per hour, that it would not be.

That's certainly food for thought and I may give it a try this year. I must remember to carry a pen and a jotter to keep an accurate record of the number of hours we do. Do I count only the time that we spend on the move, or things like running the engine for hot water and battery charging, which I suppose uses only a minimal amount of diesel?

[TheBiscuits]

5 minutes ago, Athy said:

That's certainly food for thought and I may give it a try this year. I must remember to carry a pen and a jotter to keep an accurate record of the number of hours we do. Do I count only the time that we spend on the move, or things like running the engine for hot water and battery charging, which I suppose uses only a minimal amount of diesel?

We all cheat and have engine run-hours meters. Cheap ones are about a tenner and simply count the hours they have a live feed, so they tie into any ignition live circuit.   A reasonably accurate log of run hours would work, but it is easier to let the boat count them if you have a memory like mine.

Fill the diesel tank, add a meter then note the hours when you next fill with diesel.  All the hours count, whether it is just ticking over or at full chat, so you get a figure for your boat and your usage pattern.

As mentioned above, most narrowboats use between 1 - 1.5 litres per hour regardless of engine size/type or boat length.  It does not seem to make much difference if they cruise all the time or are moored most of the time.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:

Possibly because they are proper narrow boat engines

 

Are they? Did Lister design them specifically for narrow boats? 

I'd have thought they were ordinary stationary engines fitted into narrow boats amongst other uses, like Gardners and most other vintage engines. 

The only engine I can  think of regularly used in narrowboats that was actually designed for a boat is the Kelvin. A fishing boat even so. 

Anyway I reckon in another 75 years there will be people about drooling over vintage Beta 43s. 

[Athy]

4 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

The only engine I can  think of regularly used in narrowboats that was actually designed for a boat is the Kelvin. A fishing boat even so. 

 

Perhaps, in more recent times, the Lister Canal Star?

[RLWP]

11 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

The only engine I can  think of regularly used in narrowboats that was actually designed for a boat is the Kelvin.

You are wrong. The Lister is designed to go into boats, there is even a Lloyd's certified option with a date stamped crankshaft.

 

Richard

[rusty69]

9 minutes ago, Athy said:

Perhaps, in more recent times, the Lister Canal Star?

We have a canalstar, and lovvvvvveeely it is too. Green it is. 

[MtB]

15 minutes ago, RLWP said:

You are wrong. The Lister is designed to go into boats, there is even a Lloyd's certified option with a date stamped crankshaft.

 

How interesting. Thanks! 

I wasn't really expecting Alan to be wrong on that point, but he did specifically say narrow boats not just boats, and that is what I was asking for confirmation on. 

So were they designed specifically for NB use? Or marine use in general? 

I guess I muddied the waters with my comment about Kelvins being for boats.

And while you're on, is the Canalstar a 'ground up' NB engine as Athy suspectrs or is it an industrial engine marinised?

[alan_fincher]

29 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Are they? Did Lister design them specifically for narrow boats? 

I'd have thought they were ordinary stationary engines fitted into narrow boats amongst other uses, like Gardners and most other vintage engines.

I mean there was always a specifically designed and nominated "marine" variant, with a proper Lister gearbox bolted on from the start - not an adaption of an engine built for something different.

Not specifically for narrow boats, but very specifcally for boats.  They were used in working narrow boats, actually working on long distance carrying, something a Kelvin never would have been, because they were too bloody expensive.

[RLWP]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

How interesting. Thanks! 

I wasn't really expecting Alan to be wrong on that point, but he did specifically say narrow boats not just boats, and that is what I was asking for confirmation on. 

So were they designed specifically for NB use? Or marine use in general? 

Any manufacturer attempting to build engines specifically for narrowboats would go bust very quickly - it's too small a market. 

Things like the JP2M is a marine engine, the Lloyds certified smaller Listers went into a variety of inshore boats, ships life boats and the like. Hence we still supply Lister parts to various parts of the Scottish coast

I'm surprised you haven't introduced Gleniffer as a proper marine engine yet - it is

Richard

[alan_fincher]

33 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

The only engine I can  think of regularly used in narrowboats that was actually designed for a boat is the Kelvin. A fishing boat even so.

I think the Russell Newbery and National engines probably fit that bill.

Certainly the Nationals, which were specifically built under licence for a narrow boat fleet, because RN couldn't supply in large enough numbers fast enough.

A Bolinder is of course a very proper boat engine, but again obviously not specifically for narrow boats.  Or a Seffle.

In my book, for an historic boat, an engine of a type actually fitted to working narrow boats is more "correct" than one which was not.  I would not choose to put a brand of engine in either of our boats that it would not have had whilst at work.  My biggest compromise is that "Sickle" now has an HA2, rather than the HA3, although I still own the latter, and it may well end up back where it was.  At least I no longer need to tow a water skier!

But I accept the argument becomes more academic in a modern boat.  A Lister HA is no more "correct" for a boat with no genuime history than a Gardner or a Kelvin, I guess!

[hughc]

It would be interesting if some one could say what the fuel consumption of a fully loaded narrow boat is or was. To say that the ex-working boats used as leisure craft,  which in the main only reach a 3' water draught at the very tip of  the skeg,  is not a fair comparison. Regards, HughC.

[Markinaboat]

Just having my fix and catch-up on the forums after blacking.

With reference to which engines were actually designed for marine use, whilst the Gardner 4LK (Ok, a more modern, 1940's version of a classic engine) was primarily designed for road transport (to the best of my limited knowledge), surely the following is testimony to being nothing short of perfect for marine suse?

In September 1943 two Gardner 4LK powered midget subs entered a Norwegian Fjord and crippled the 41,000 ton German battleship 'Tirpitz', a thousand miles from the nearest British base.

[TheBiscuits]

1 minute ago, Markinaboat said:

Just having my fix and catch-up on the forums after blacking.

With reference to which engines were actually designed for marine use, whilst the Gardner 4LK (Ok, a more modern, 1940's version of a classic engine) was primarily designed for road transport (to the best of my limited knowledge), surely the following is testimony to being nothing short of perfect for marine suse?

In September 1943 two Gardner 4LK powered midget subs entered a Norwegian Fjord and crippled the 41,000 ton German battleship 'Tirpitz', a thousand miles from the nearest British base.

Silent running could have been a challenge!

[Markinaboat]

48 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Silent running could have been a challenge!

Well all I know is that it worked!

Have you heard a 4LK in the flesh when warmed up? Has been described as similar to a well-oiled sewing machine

[billh]

1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:

I think the Russell Newbery and National engines probably fit that bill.

Certainly the Nationals, which were specifically built under licence for a narrow boat fleet, because RN couldn't supply in large enough numbers fast enough.

A Bolinder is of course a very proper boat engine, but again obviously not specifically for narrow boats.  Or a Seffle.

In my book, for an historic boat, an engine of a type actually fitted to working narrow boats is more "correct" than one which was not.  I would not choose to put a brand of engine in either of our boats that it would not have had whilst at work.  My biggest compromise is that "Sickle" now has an HA2, rather than the HA3, although I still own the latter, and it may well end up back where it was.  At least I no longer need to tow a water skier!

But I accept the argument becomes more academic in a modern boat.  A Lister HA is no more "correct" for a boat with no genuime history than a Gardner or a Kelvin, I guess!

I've said this before on here:

Our historic boat, 70ft wooden  built  1948, was fitted with a Kelvin from new. Its predecessor, of the same name, converted from a horse-boat was fitted with a Kelvin in 1927. Ok , so neither boat was used for commercial  long distance carrying,but they were regularly loaded to 18-20 tons  with canal repairing materials and used on a daily basis. As far as I know these two were the only "working" narrowboats with Kelvins from the start. It is possible that the LNER got a special deal in 1927 from Kelvins in an attempt to break into the canal market. 

Bill

[TheBiscuits]

1 minute ago, Markinaboat said:

Well all I know is that it worked!

Have you heard a 4LK in the flesh when warmed up? Has been described as similar to a well-oiled sewing machine

I'm fairly sure they would have turned the 4LK off when they got close in, and used the electric motor for submerged running.